NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

Jesus Christ, that's a shitty argument. What about all the other gods? Like Zeus, or Ahura Mazda.

Jesus Christ, that's a shitty argument. What about all the other gods? Like Zeus, or Ahura Mazda.

Firstly, to use Jesus Christ whilst lambasting Christian Gods defies Irony.

However, I fully concur, if one deity is in existance, it would be reasonable through logical progression to assume an entire Pantheon are in existence. Furthermore, one is compelled to agree that deities such as Zeus, Hera and Apollo are intrinsically more jovial, amicable and tolerable than the morose, sombre, imposing fool Christians debase themselves to. :)

Ockham's razor, a scientific principle, cuts down unnecesary figures. So only one god is needed. Also, there is a lot of proof for this God.

Ockham's razor, a scientific principle, cuts down unnecesary figures. So only one god is needed. Also, there is a lot of proof for this God.
I fail to see how postulating many omnipotent deities is adding in more unknown variables then one omnipotent deity.

Something doesn't come from nothing.
So where did "God" come from?

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.
http://www.transtopia.org/OCCAMSRAZOR.gif

If the universe needs a creator, then god needs one. Who created god?

Firstly, to use Jesus Christ whilst lambasting Christian Gods defies Irony.

However, I fully concur, if one deity is in existance, it would be reasonable through logical progression to assume an entire Pantheon are in existence. Furthermore, one is compelled to agree that deities such as Zeus, Hera and Apollo are intrinsically more jovial, amicable and tolerable than the morose, sombre, imposing fool Christians debase themselves to. :)


They appear jovial because they are charcterized as people. God is free from Earthly bonds. Maybe he can have emotions, but we shouldn't assume.

So basically you're saying "I don't understand the big bang theory, therefore it must be false"

...

You know, it is hard to believe that some deity came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create an all powerful god is another all powerful god. How did this original figure come about. Did it just appear? Really, all you fundamentalists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

Jesus Christ, that's a shitty argument. What about all the other gods? Like Zeus, or Ahura Mazda.
Zeus? What a poser. He only did the whole god line so he could get laid. Always chatting up some nymph, "Want to see my thunderbolts?" Then when it came time for some actual dirty work, what does he do? Turns into a goose and rapes some woman, and we all know what a mess that made.
And then Mazda, don't get me started about Mazda. One day he was another one of us, the old school gods. Get some heroes going, keeping the sun moving, but then the business starts to get a bit dry, what with these new guys crowding us out, but we weren't too bad. So we all decided to stick it out together.
Then, Mazda comes along in a new suit with a train of fresh worshippers. Tells us about this new deal he's just closed, it seems that divinity isn't good enough anymore, he wants to go corporate.
Can you believe it? After all we'd done together, demon slaying and warding off the dire dragons and whatnot, and then that punk just goes and sells out!
I thought we were friends Mazda, I thought I could trust you. Just another jerk looking for a quick buck.
Well guess who won't be getting a No Ruz card from me next year!

Firstly, to use Jesus Christ whilst lambasting Christian Gods defies Irony.

I'm not lambasting Christian Gods.

They appear jovial because they are charcterized as people. God is free from Earthly bonds. Maybe he can have emotions, but we shouldn't assume.
YHWH is mentioned as being angry many times. Quick, what category does anger fall into?

So where did "God" come from?

Pwned! :)

So basically you're saying "I don't understand the big bang theory, therefore it must be false"

...

You know, it is hard to believe that some deity came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create an all powerful god is another all powerful god. How did this original figure come about. Did it just appear? Really, all you fundamentalists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

God doesn't have to be befor the Universe, because he transcends time! Which, as we know, is linked with space.

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.
Actually, energy can't be created or destroyed; it can fluctuate. Energy isn't always consistant, but it always exists. It can be changed, so, therefore, there was always something that existed. Which means, even if God does exist, He couldn't have created the world or done anything of that sort, as energy cannot be created.

God doesn't have to be befor the Universe, because he transcends time! Which, as we know, is linked with space.
Which is any different then postulating a constantly existing universe how?

http://www.transtopia.org/OCCAMSRAZOR.gif

If the universe needs a creator, then god needs one. Who created god?

Haha, nice one, that animation is very clever :D

Look, any definer of science says that science follows the same rules every where in the universe. Science says something doesn't come from nothing. Therefore, God is a scientific answer. Believing that the Bang just happened, is irrelevant and makes as much sense as, well, Zeus.

God doesn't have to be befor the Universe, because he transcends time! Which, as we know, is linked with space.
Uh-hu.

Which is a bigger stretch of the imagination? Saying that the universe can come form nothing, when sponteneous creation of particles has been observed, or saying that some mystical creature can come from nothing and defy the laws of physics, when you have no explanation for how he was created?

There are explanations for the sponteneous creation of matter. There are no explanations for the creation of a god other than "he was always there". That's one hell of a leap of faith.

Ockham's razor, a scientific principle, cuts down unnecesary figures. So only one god is needed. Also, there is a lot of proof for this God.
What about saying that the universe has always existed? God could co-exist with the universe, but that would razor out the need for a creator quite nicely. This is not to say the universe has always existed as it is now, nor will the universe continue to exist as it is now.

Haha, nice one, that animation is very clever :D

Great animation, but you cant use Ockhams razor for this because GOd is necessary to explain the Universe. Nothing can't explain it.

Look, any definer of science says that science follows the same rules every where in the universe. Science says something doesn't come from nothing. Therefore, God is a scientific answer. Believing that the Bang just happened, is irrelevant and makes as much sense as, well, Zeus.
The big bang did not "just happen". In a vacuum, matter will sponteneously pop out of the void as long as corresponding anti-matter appears at the same time. It's like digging dirt out of the ground. You have a hole and you have dirt, but you haven't gained anything. These particles have an incredibely small life span, however, when multiple pop up at the same time in the same place, the fabric of space time stretches a little. About 10 pounds of matter in the size of a proton would create enough stretch to set the big bang in motion, and create all the energy the universe ever needs.

I've answered your question, how answer mine: what created your god?

Uh-hu.

Which is a bigger stretch of the imagination? Saying that the universe can come form nothing, when sponteneous creation of particles has been observed, or saying that some mystical creature can come from nothing and defy the laws of physics, when you have no explanation for how he was created?

There are explanations for the sponteneous creation of matter. There are no explanations for the creation of a god other than "he was always there". That's one hell of a leap of faith.

Did you say observed? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but no human was around to observe the birth of the Universe! Take my example: You find a book in a field. On explanation is that somebody put it there. You cant say: "That book just appeared." or "That book was always there."

Furthermore, one is compelled to agree that deities such as Zeus, Hera and Apollo are intrinsically more jovial, amicable and tolerable than the morose, sombre, imposing fool Christians debase themselves to. :)
Oh, yes, Zeus was so jovial. I mean that trick where he rapes women, classic!
And then Hera, oh she was the original with dead baby jokes. Always laughing and chatting, "Hey Zeus, guess what happened the Illegitimate Child #467,875? I forced his slut of a mother to eat him alive!"
Apollo was great too, and always ready with playful banter. Like this one woman who said that she had more kids than Leto (Apollo's mum), and then Apollo replied: "Oh yeah? Well now all of your kids are dead!" And then he went out, chopped their heads off, and presented them to her.
We all laughed and laughed!

The big bang did not "just happen". In a vacuum, matter will sponteneously pop out of the void as long as corresponding anti-matter appears at the same time. It's like digging dirt out of the ground. You have a hole and you have dirt, but you haven't gained anything. These particles have an incredibely small life span, however, when multiple pop up at the same time in the same place, the fabric of space time stretches a little. About 10 pounds of matter in the size of a proton would create enough stretch to set the big bang in motion, and create all the energy the universe ever needs.

I've answered your question, how answer mine: what created your god?

This theory is only possible if there is already a collection of quantam particles in a vaccuum.

Look, any definer of science says that science follows the same rules every where in the universe. Science says something doesn't come from nothing. Therefore, God is a scientific answer. Believing that the Bang just happened, is irrelevant and makes as much sense as, well, Zeus.
The Big Bang Theory works, as energy has always existed, and since it can be neither created or destroyed, it would have to change. Noting this, 'God' couldn't have created anything, as energy cannot be created. Energy can only be changed/manipulated.

Great animation, but you cant use Ockhams razor for this because GOd is necessary to explain the Universe. Nothing can't explain it.
Whatever you make up there will always remain one thing unexplain. Leaving god unexplained complicates things as much as leaving the universe unexplained. But with god you add one entity for which there is no evidence. So by removing god you make the theory simpler but have as much explanatory power. Thus Occam removes god. That's what the animation is supposed to illustrate.

EDIT: No one is trying to refute god with Occam's razor. All we want to refute that way is the nonsense that is used as "proof" of god's existence.

This theory is only possible if there is already a collection of quantam particles in a vaccuum.
And there are, as energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

Did you say observed? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but no human was around to observe the birth of the Universe! Take my example: You find a book in a field. On explanation is that somebody put it there. You cant say: "That book just appeared." or "That book was always there."
Did you even read my previous post?
Read it slowly (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9734734&postcount=22), and when you understand it, we can talk.

This theory is only possible if there is already a collection of quantam particles in a vaccuum.
FYI, putting a bunch of words together in an attempt to seem scientifically literate never works. See, some of us actually know what "quantum" means.

The Big Bang Theory works, as energy has always existed, and since it can be neither created or destroyed, it would have to change. Noting this, 'God' couldn't have created anything, as energy cannot be created. Energy can only be changed/manipulated.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the Big Bang theory, in the sense that the Universe started at a single point with a bang. However, if a god transends energy, he should be able to use it. Also, the laws of thermo dynamics are a key factor against evolution. But let's save that for another thread.

Great animation, but you cant use Ockhams razor for this because GOd is necessary to explain the Universe. Nothing can't explain it.

I would say that God is necessary to explain the Universe for you. I would think that you have taken all the natural laws that exist, bundled them up into a personality and decided to call that personality God. By that definition, I would say that God exists.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the Big Bang theory, in the sense that the Universe started at a single point with a bang. However, if a god transends energy, he should be able to use it. Also, the laws of thermo dynamics are a key factor against evolution. But let's save that for another thread.
Darwinism does not have anything to do with thermodynamics... Please come back tomorrow, alcohol and science don't mix.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the Big Bang theory, in the sense that the Universe started at a single point with a bang. However, if a god transends energy, he should be able to use it. Also, the laws of thermo dynamics are a key factor against evolution. But let's save that for another thread.
Here we go again...

The 2LoT only applies to closed systems. Life is not a closed system.

God is necessary to explain the universe because God is necessary to explain the universe!

The universe can't have always existed, because God always existed first! So therefore God is necessary to explain the universe! Because the universe can't be explained without God! That's why! :p

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the Big Bang theory, in the sense that the Universe started at a single point with a bang. However, if a god transends energy, he should be able to use it. Also, the laws of thermo dynamics are a key factor against evolution. But let's save that for another thread.
Even if he does transcend energy, he can't create anything, since God did create the universe and the universe is a large source of energy and energy cannot be created.

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.
Just because you can't imagine it does not mean that it's not possible! :p

This theory is only possible if there is already a collection of quantam particles in a vaccuum.
What makes you say that?

I'm going to quote James Trefil.
With the advent of quantum mechanics, our picture of nothing changed again. Instead of a passive, inert absence of matter, quantum theory tells us that a vacuum is both active and dynamic. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, a bit of matter can appear spontaneously out of nothing, proved that (1) a corresponding bit of antimatter appears at the same time and that (2) the matter and antimatter come together and annihilate each other (disappear bsck into the vacuum) in a time so short that their presence cannot be directly measured. This process is called the creation of a "virtual" pair of particles, one of matter and one of antimatter.

Any spelling errors are my fault, as I typed it from a book.

But you say This theory is only possible if there is already a collection of quantam particles in a vaccuum.You're talking out of your ass. You have no idea what you're saying, so you're just making stuff up in the hopes that you'll sound like you know what you're talking about.

Any idea of some god just appearing is way more far-fetched than the appearance of a universe.

Oh, and since I know you'll ask how we know the particles are there- they have visible effects on electrons. That's how scientists know they are there.

Just because you can't imagine it does not mean that it's not possible! :p
Precisely. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know enough about hypertext transfer protocol to explain how we communicate in here, but that doesn't stop me from posting or you from reading it. For that matter, bumblebees don't go crashing to the ground because I don't understand how they can fly. Nor do I expect them to.

God is necessary to explain the universe because God is necessary to explain the universe!

The universe can't have always existed, because God always existed first! So therefore God is necessary to explain the universe! Because the universe can't be explained without God! That's why! :p


Finally someone who isn't an atheist!

They appear jovial because they are charcterized as people. God is free from Earthly bonds. Maybe he can have emotions, but we shouldn't assume.

If God can enact intercessions into mortal realms, and empathise with mortals, he is accordingly obliged to be in possession of emotion. Furthermore, man was made in God's image, the majority of faiths concur on the aforementioned, and given the spiritual, psyche related nature of deities, we ought to assume that our psyches are similar, if considerably more limited in their capacity, to Gods.

And, if one is honest, Hellenestic polydeism is more fun than Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

Finally someone who isn't an atheist!

...actually I am. Sorry.

Finally someone who isn't an atheist!
You don't have to be an Atheist in order to understand that God isn't the only working factor in the creation of the universe as we know it.

fun doesn't decide my faith

personally, and as a studying to be Buddhist, i dont believe that the universe ever had a beginning, nor will it ever have an end. our solar system may have had a beginning and will have an eventual end but i dont think that our universe does or will.
also i think its more important to be a kind and compassionate person than to contemplate things which will in no way lead to nirvana.

...actually I am. Sorry.
I was wondering if he picked up on the sarcasm or not.

Even if he does transcend energy, he can't create anything, since God did create the universe and the universe is a large source of energy and energy cannot be created.
You've got to be the third of fourth person to say this, but I still don't understand how you guys have justified this claim . . .

If there was an omnipotent creator god, then why is it that he would be unable to create omnipotent? If he were all-powerful, would he not be able trascend the fact that there is a finite amount of energy by creating more? Where does it say that an omnipotent being must comply with the scientific laws and facts?

Oh, and no need to bring up the question of "if a god created the universe, then what created that god?" I'm just asking a question here, not trying to prove a point.

personally, and as a studying to be Buddhist, i dont believe that the universe ever had a beginning, nor will it ever have an end. our solar system may have had a beginning and will have an eventual end but i dont think that our universe does or will.
also i think its more important to be a kind and compassionate person than to contemplate things which will in no way lead to nirvana.
Wow, a religious entry with a sensible statement. And the amusing part is, this is consistant with theories about energy, as it can be neither destroyed nor can it be created.

fun doesn't decide my faith

Yet you adhere to the concept of an inherently benevolent, beneficient and omniscient deity who contrives, contrary to Biblical depictions of his character, to elect to make mortal life as dull, dreary, mundane and bereft of excitement as possible..... :rolleyes:

The Big Bang Theory violates the basic foundation of science that is Dr. Albert Einstein's "Theory of Special Relativity."

E = 1/2 * M * C2

You've got to be the third of fourth person to say this, but I still don't understand how you guys have justified this claim . . .

If there was an omnipotent creator god, then why is it that he would be unable to create omnipotent? If he were all-powerful, would he not be able trascend the fact that there is a finite amount of energy by creating more? Where does it say that an omnipotent being must comply with the scientific laws and facts?

Oh, and no need to bring up the question of "if a god created the universe, then what created that god?" I'm just asking a question here, not trying to prove a point.
I say it like that, because even if God did exist in a form and did have a hand in the 'creation' (in quotes) of the universe, it doesn't mean that He is necessarily omnipotent.

After all, there is the fair question - how do we know there isn't something greater than God in terms of energy and force?

No, I'm not asking did something else create God, I'm asking is there a chance that with our limited perception of reality, that we can't see beyond what we know?

The Big Bang Theory violates the basic foundation of science that is Dr. Albert Einstein's "Theory of Special Relativity."

E = 1/2 * M * C2
It would rather violate the first law of thermodynamics (energy can not be created or destroyed, only changed in form) if it wasn't for the nasty fact that all of our laws and theories mean nothing on very small levels. See quantum physics.

The Big Bang Theory violates the basic foundation of science that is Dr. Albert Einstein's "Theory of Special Relativity."

E = 1/2 * M * C2
Talking out of your ass again?

You have no idea what that even means, however some of us do. The big bang in no way violates the theory of relatively.

I say it like that, because even if God did exist in a form and did have a hand in the 'creation' (in quotes) of the universe, it doesn't mean that He is necessarily omnipotent. After all, there is the fair question - how do we know there isn't something greater than God in terms of energy and force?
Regardless, that doesn't explain why a creator god, even if not omnipotent, can't trascend much of what we know as science and be able to create energy.

Interesting, but I find it irrelevant.

The Big Bang Theory violates the basic foundation of science that is Dr. Albert Einstein's "Theory of Special Relativity."

E = 1/2 * M * C2
Not violates. Transcends, as you might put it. The universe is expanding. According to the general relativity (of which the special relativity is a special case) that means that the universe has once been a singularity. But near (shortly after) the singularity you need to take quantum effects into account. Which means that 'ordinary' general relativity has nothing to say, and thus cannot be contradicted.

it doesnt really matter if there is a god or not.
the fact of the matter is that we can exist, succeed and be morally upright and compassionate people without god. god is not needed in any way. our spiritual cravings can simply be satisfied by deep contemplation not by adherence to a set of regulations. (unless these regulations are logical and come about through deep contemplation, but not just through blind faith)

Talking out of your ass again?

You have no idea what that even means, however some of us do. The big bang in no way violates the theory of relatively.

Quite the opposite indeed, the very presence of the singularity confirms the existence of a divine being.

personally, and as a studying to be Buddhist, i dont believe that the universe ever had a beginning, nor will it ever have an end. our solar system may have had a beginning and will have an eventual end but i dont think that our universe does or will.
also i think its more important to be a kind and compassionate person than to contemplate things which will in no way lead to nirvana.

Nirvana's a long way away, especially if you are following the path of the Bodhisattva.

May your illnesses be few, your worries few and in spirit and vigor be well and happy. :D

I've noticed in the past that some people assume alter-egos on this board and use them to post obtuse and increasingly misinformed assertions, ostensibly for the fun of seeing how absurd they can get before somebody realizes its a gag.

Even if we accept axiomatically that the universe requires some god or other, the idea that it can only be a "Judeo-Christian" God is almost painfully fallacious.

If there was an omnipotent creator god, then why is it that he would be unable to create omnipotent? If he were all-powerful, would he not be able trascend the fact that there is a finite amount of energy by creating more? Where does it say that an omnipotent being must comply with the scientific laws and facts?

Of course you can get around anything by saying "omnipotent". But then you leave behind, not only the laws of science, but also those of logics. There is nothing to discuss under such assumptions. And there is nothing more unscientific.

I've noticed in the past that some people assume alter-egos on this board and use them to post obtuse and increasingly misinformed assertions, ostensibly for the fun of seeing how absurd they can get before somebody realizes its a gag.

Even if we accept axiomatically that the universe requires some god or other, the idea that it can only be a "Judeo-Christian" God is almost painfully fallacious.

exactly its ethnocentric.
if there were a god, i would have to go with the Hindu beliefs. That all other gods (YHWH, jahovah, allah, Nu Wa, Ani) are just manifestations of the formless Brahman (not sure if i spelled it correctly).

Scientists can test the background radiation of space. The background radiation is omni directional. It comes from every direction possible, not from the suspected Big Bang point of origin. So I would say that nothing could have "sparked" the bang.

And no, I'm not talking out of my ass. That kind of violates what we know about anatomy. :)

Nirvana's a long way away, especially if you are following the path of the Bodhisattva.

May your illnesses be few, your worries few and in spirit and vigor be well and happy. :D

thanks
i hope that the next eon or two go well for me.

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

I will stick with the Flying Spagetti Monster.

Have you been Touched by His Noodly Appendage? :D

http://www.venganza.org/

also
i dont really like the name of this thread.
Creator or Nothing?
who says that just because you dont believe that the universe was created (has no beginning or end) who says you cant believe there are some gods who are not creaters but subject to the laws of karma and samsara just like all other sentient beings on earth.

Scientists can test the background radiation of space. The background radiation is omni directional. It comes from every direction possible, not from the suspected Big Bang point of origin. So I would say that nothing could have "sparked" the bang.

And no, I'm not talking out of my ass. That kind of violates what we know about anatomy. :)

The limiting factor in this case is that you are only thinking in three dimensions. Suppose you were on the surface of a balloon and blew it up. Not only would everything appear to be rushing away from you, everything would appear to be rushing away from everything else.

Jump to this universe and everything is rushing away from everything else. That would indicate that the origin of the universe is at some point perpendicular to all points in space, necessitating that it would not reside in our space.

take the kalam arguement:
1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Number 1 is what abides by the known laws of physics we live by. God did not have a beginning. He doesn't require a cause.

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

I agree that it's hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. But I disagree when you say the only entity capable of this is the Judeo-Christian God. Yahweh was a tribal god; there were all sorts of other gods around him. It's not that Yahweh was the one and only god; the Hebrews practiced a sort of qualified monotheism in which other gods existed, but they were only allowed to worship Yahweh. Following your own line of reasoning, where did all these gods come from? Did they all stem from one ultimate god, and it created everything?

Or maybe the universe is uncreated. It has always been. There was never nothing. Our universe was created out of the death of another, or something similar. It's hard to believe that there was always something, just as it was hard to believe that there was once nothing; these are just the limits of the human mind. Our problem-solving brains have postulated an idea of a creator to solve this mystery.

Ockham's razor, a scientific principle, cuts down unnecesary figures. So only one god is needed. Also, there is a lot of proof for this God.

Occam's razor: Is there one god who knows all, sees all, is responsible for all, and loves all? These are all contradictory values. OR: is there one impersonal god who created the universe and is everywhere, but isn't omnibenevolent? That would make more sense in explaining why evil exists. Option 3: there is one impersonal god with no feelings, from whom stems numerous gods who compete for our attention. Even better, right?

How is there any more proof for your god than for any others? Keep in mind "The most people worship him" is not a valid argument: argumentum ad populum.

If anyone can find the Jain creation story, post it. It goes something like, "How could god have created the universe with no raw materials?" and goes on to talk about how the universe couldn't have been created.

exactly its ethnocentric.
if there were a god, i would have to go with the Hindu beliefs. That all other gods (YHWH, jahovah, allah, Nu Wa, Ani) are just manifestations of the formless Brahman (not sure if i spelled it correctly).

I'd have to agree. That's kind of what I was getting at in the paragraphs above.

also
i dont really like the name of this thread.
Creator or Nothing?
who says that just because you dont believe that the universe was created (has no beginning or end) who says you cant believe there are some gods who are not creaters but subject to the laws of karma and samsara just like all other sentient beings on earth.


Sorry, I haven't really researched much in theology. So what do you suggest as a title?

ok, listen, im athiest, the fact is, i don't think the universe came from NOTHING. im just saying that a diety created it, since dieties are not scientificcaly proveable. SOMETHING made the unvierse, i just admit im not sure what it is, since i wasn't there when it happened

Scientists can test the background radiation of space. The background radiation is omni directional. It comes from every direction possible, not from the suspected Big Bang point of origin. So I would say that nothing could have "sparked" the bang.

And no, I'm not talking out of my ass. That kind of violates what we know about anatomy. :)
That the background radiation is omnidirectional is the first evidence FOR the big bang theory that was discovered after the theory was proposed. The universe is (according to cosmologists) the same in all directions. That includes that there is no direction to the "big bang point", because that "point" has expanded and is to all directions. Try painting stars on a balloon and then inflate it. You will see the stars expanding, but there will be no point or direction on the surface of the balloon to it's beginning.

I have to ask: which evolved first: stomach acid to digest or the stomach organ to contain the digestive juices? or how about which came first: red blood cells or platelets? each are useless without their conterpart, so how could a creature survive with only one and it still be a usefull mutation?

When the plum-pudding model of the atom was found to be inconsistent with emerging experiments, the solutions was to revise the model of the atom to better reflect the evidence available.

Not to say "Well, this scientific model was not perfect, so it must have been a supernatural being".

If we followed that logic (imperfect scientific model must mean a supernatural explanation), we would currently teach our children that matter consists of "particle spritelings" or "angel mud".

Christians, as a matter of brutally enforced policy, once told children that all the stars, planets, sun and moon revolved around the earth. Most Christians no longer believe that (although sad attempts to misapply geometry to support the geocentric universe still pop up).

I suspect that in time, Christians will simply quote contemporary scientific theory, and tack on the phrase "because its God's Will".

I was wondering if he picked up on the sarcasm or not.

For a moment I thought he had and that I had been out-sarcasmed.

But apparently thats not the case. The circular logic I had hoped would be self-evidently ridiculous is actually what he's basing his arguments on!

well, Velops, I think that God is a multi-tasker. It can't be easy though, cuz I can barely multi-task.

take the kalam arguement:
1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

That sounds reasonable. However, it does not say anything about the nature of the cause. A physical event is the simplest assumption, but if you don't like science you can guess absolutely whatever you want. But don't go tell others they are illogic just because they don't have your imagination.

I have to ask: which evolved first: stomach acid to digest or the stomach organ to contain the digestive juices? or how about which came first: red blood cells or platelets? each are useless without their conterpart, so how could a creature survive with only one and it still be a usefull mutation?
Wait, the stomach is useless without digestive juices? Wrong. Many animals have one or the other, but not both (a digestive cavity sans 'digestive juices', which is just a nice way of saying acidic enzymes...).

Wait, red blood cells are useless without clotting factors? Wrong. Just wrong.


Try again buddy.

take the kalam arguement:
1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Number 1 is what abides by the known laws of physics we live by. God did not have a beginning. He doesn't require a cause.

yes
but this is assuming that the universe had a beginning and that there is a god

I have to ask: which evolved first: stomach acid to digest or the stomach organ to contain the digestive juices? or how about which came first: red blood cells or platelets? each are useless without their conterpart, so how could a creature survive with only one and it still be a usefull mutation?

Stomach organ. Could have started out like a chicken gizzard where food was broken down by mechanical means and later went onto chemical means.

Red blood cells. Platelets, while very useful for hemostasis, are not necessary. Coagulation involves many factors, platelets being minor in comparison to the conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin.

Sorry, I haven't really researched much in theology. So what do you suggest as a title?

i dont know
i dont really care
im just grumpy and felt like venting some anger
sorry
the name is fine
although maybe something like
Creationism: true/false

*ahem*

Argument
"How can something come from nothing, as per Big Bang theory?"
Rebuttal
There are two possible rebuttals:

1. That is not what Big Bang theory says. Big Bang theory says only that the universe started from a point, which expanded outwards and is continuing to expand today (note that this last point is an observation, not a theory).

At no point does the theory state that this point came from nothing; the point could have existed for all time (in fact, it must have existed for all time according to Einstein's theory of relativity because space and time are related, and the original point therefore contained all of both).

Of course, the concept of spacetime may be too complex or alien for younger or less-educated readers to grasp, so perhaps it would be wiser to simply note that the mere possibility of the point existing for all time negates the argument that Big Bang theory calls for it to appear out of nothing.

2. Alternatively, one can simply point out that the theory of evolution does not begin to take effect until the Earth has already been formed, so it is a red-herring. However, in my experience, creationists simply refuse to admit that cosmology is irrelevant to evolution theory no matter how many times you explain it to them. They honestly believe that all of the world's cosmologists, astronomers, geologists, and nuclear phycisists have tailored and deliberately misrepresented their conclusions for the past 300 years for the sole purpose of supporting evolution theory. To say that this is one of the wildest conspiracy theories in history would be an understatement.


The latter approach is simpler, but more difficult because they will often fight tooth and nail to change the subject from evolution to cosmology. And it is difficult to stop them because if you try to stay on the original subject, they will generally make a public spectacle of their victory dances when they declare that you are afraid to debate the new subject. It may help to ask why they're so determined to avoid discussing evolution theory directly, and turn their own tactics against them by accusing them of running from a fight, but their simple-minded distortions of cosmology are so infuriatingly ignorant that it is difficult to resist defending the scientific community on the subject.

Of course, it's rather obvious that their objective is to "prove" that the universe cannot be old enough for evolution to work, but the interesting thing is that even if you could somehow refute the idea of universal expansion, this would not prove that the universe is too young for evolution to be feasible. The sheer scale of the universe and the speed of light necessitates an ancient universe even without Big Bang theory, so this really is a wild goose chase on their part. Even the potential energy released by the gravitational collapse of a proto-planetary matter into the Earth (an amount equal to roughly 3,800,000,000,000,000,000 times the Hiroshima bomb) is so great that the time required simply to cool to a solid state would handily exceed the creationist timeframe by orders of magnitude.

Fallacy watch:

1. Straw-man fallacy (pretends that cosmology makes a prediction which it does not actually make, in order to knock it down for rhetorical points).

Recommended further reading:

1. Astronomical Society article: An Ancient Universe: How Astronomers Know the Vast Scale of Cosmic Time.

...and...

Argument
"The age and size of the universe are calculated solely from the speed at which stars appear to be moving away, but that assumes a constant speed of light, and we now know that the speed of light is variable."
Rebuttal
Actually, scientists have never simply "assumed" that c, ie- speed of light in vacuum (an important distinction), is constant. The constancy of certain physical parameters was intensely studied and scientists concluded that these parameters could not have significantly changed.

In the case of the speed of light in vacuum, we do not "know" that it is variable; we only know that it might be variable within tiny margins: tiny fractions of a percent. Meanwhile, the creationist timescale requires the speed of light in vacuum to change enormously: it has to get millions of times faster!

How do we know that the speed of light in vacuum cannot dramatically change? Well, we know from Einstein's well-tested theory of relativity that c defines the relationship between space and time, matter and energy. Change it to any significant degree, and the laws of physics will change as well. Gravitational constants will change, the mass and velocity of particles will change, the behaviour of solids and liquids will change. Atoms which were previously stable could spontaneously undergo fission, releasing enormous amounts of energy.

In other words, if the speed of light in vacuum were a million times greater, nothing would survive. Not life on this planet, not the planet itself, not even the Sun. The very elements themselves would break down! In summary, the idea of c changing by millions of times during the lifespan of this planet is so utterly preposterous that it beggars the imagination.

Fallacy watch:

1. Outright lie (claiming that massive changes in c are known to be possible, which is totally false; this is technically not a fallacy, but rather, a dishonest debate tactic).

...and...

Argument
"The second law of thermodynamics states that closed systems always go from order to disorder. Therefore, it is impossible for simpler life forms to evolve into more complex ones."
Rebuttal
This is one of the oldest, and most popular creationist pseudoscience arguments. It's been kicking around for more than a century, thanks to general public ignorance of thermodynamics. In fact, it's wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start! There are several possible answers:

ANSWER #1

This argument assumes that complexity is synonymous with ordered energy, ie- that complexity is the opposite of entropy. In reality, the opposite is true: more complex systems are actually more disordered, and are likely to contain more entropy: look up "chaos theory" if you want more information.

ANSWER #2

Living organisms are not closed systems. It is possible for the entropy in a living organism to decrease over time (in fact, this generally happens when you die). Moreover, evolution does not take place within a single living organism anyway; it is a broad process that takes place in animal populations as certain varieties reproduce successfully while others do not.

ANSWER #3

You start life as a single-celled organism (the fertilized egg), and gradually develop into a human being. Your own existence disproves the notion that a natural increase in complexity is physically impossible.

ANSWER #4

The fact that we can construct skyscrapers and automobiles obviously proves that the laws of physics do not prohibit the creation of complexity.

"But that's deliberate human intervention!" a creationist might object. Well, that's where we discover a strange assumption on their part: you see, they seem to believe that physical laws can be overridden through human intervention. However, while it would certainly be very convenient if we were able to override the laws of physics at will, it just doesn't work that way. If something is truly a law of physics, then it cannot be overcome regardless of human intervention. So the fact that humans intervene in the construction of an automobile does not disprove the fact that it clearly demonstrates the fallacy of their misinterpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Fallacy watch:

1. Straw-man fallacy (it is something of an understatement to say that this argument contains grotesque misrepresentations of thermodynamics).

...and finally...

Argument
"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."
Rebuttal
To illustrate the fallacy of this argument, let us imagine someone asking how the telephone system works. An engineer might give a long, complicated answer explaining how telecommunications networks simulate the end-point analog communications protocols invented more than a century ago while internally converting the signals to travel on a packetized network as optical data, while a second person might simply say "electricity makes it happen."

So the second explanation is better because it's simpler, right? Well, one problem obviously comes to mind: it doesn't actually explain a damned thing. It just makes vague reference to "electricity" and doesn't enlighten us on its operating mechanism at all. So it is with the "God did it" explanation. It is not an explanation at all, since you know nothing more about the operating mechanism after the so-called "explanation" than you did before.

So is Occam's Razor bunk? No. "Choose the simplest theory" is simply a gross oversimplification of the concept, which is still sound. Occam's Razor is named after the 14th century philosopher and theologian William of Occam. It might strike some as strange that a scientific principle might have come from a theologian, but good scientists do not practice appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks. If an idea makes sense, it doesn't matter who it came from.

In any case, he argued that we should never "multiply entities unnecessarily". In other words, if you can successfully explain something with three terms, then why add a fourth? Or, to take another example, if you can't completely explain something with three terms but a fourth term doesn't actually help, then what's the point of adding it?

Occam originally used this principle in order to show that it was impossible to deduce God's existence through reason alone, so one would have to take it purely on faith. It is, after all, quite impossible on principle to explain anything by invoking the name of an inscrutable entity. The irony here is that a theologian realized that there was no logical basis for God's existence more than 600 years ago but modern fundamentalists still can't figure it out, and actually use his name to "prove" the exact opposite of what he himself argued!

For those who cannot appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor in its original form, Isaac Newton restated it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." Stephen Hawking also took a crack at an explanation, saying "Cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." (taken from A Brief History of Time).

When you remember that scientific theories are really explanations of things and that an "explanation" which does not actually explain the operating mechanism is really no explanation at all, it becomes rather obvious why Occam's Razor does not favour "God did it" (which tells us who, but not how) over any scientific theory. It can only be used to choose between two theories that both successfully explain the data, not between one theory which offers an explanation and another one which basically says "ummmm, I dunno, but God did it somehow".

Fallacy watch:

1. Straw-man fallacy (enormous misrepresentation of the concept of Occam's Razor).

To the poorly educated Creationist types: go back to school. Knowledge is your friend, not religious doctrine.

"My Karma ran over your Dogma" -Spikey-

take the kalam arguement:
1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Number 1 is what abides by the known laws of physics we live by. God did not have a beginning. He doesn't require a cause.

Not all causes are deliberate or sentiently purposeful. Also, I notice there are a lot of points you aren't responding to.

You also have an acute proclivity for circular argument, and tend to present unproven statements as theorems in your "proof". You've presented no reasonable argument as to why any God would have to be "Judeo-Christian", why such God could have no beginning or creator of its own, or why the universe must have a creator of its own. Your 3 above are sophistry, and individually unproven.

Wait, the stomach is useless without digestive juices? Wrong. Many animals have one or the other, but not both (a digestive cavity sans 'digestive juices', which is just a nice way of saying acidic enzymes...).

Wait, red blood cells are useless without clotting factors? Wrong. Just wrong.


Try again buddy.

True, red cells COULD survive without platelets, but if an organism got a mere cut, without platelets it would bleed to death. And in the animal world, I doubt that an organism has gone even a year without getting a scratch.

I have to ask: which evolved first: stomach acid to digest or the stomach organ to contain the digestive juices? or how about which came first: red blood cells or platelets? each are useless without their conterpart, so how could a creature survive with only one and it still be a usefull mutation?
Neither.

The stomach juices evolved at the same time as the stomach, each step in the evolution of one makeing the next step in the evolution of the other advantageous. When you walk a long distance, do you first move you right foot or your left the whole way.

And the first animals with blood circulation had neither red blood cells nor platelets, and they are entirely independent of each other. If you have taken high school biology I don't understand why you even thought of useing this as an argument.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the Big Bang theory, in the sense that the Universe started at a single point with a bang. However, if a god transends energy, he should be able to use it. Also, the laws of thermo dynamics are a key factor against evolution. But let's save that for another thread.

Abosulte rubbish, I'm afraid.

The laws of thermodynamics do not prohibit evolution in the slightest. I think you might have had a better argument if you were talking about entropy - but it would still have been flawed.

The problem is, both the second law, and the concept of entropy, refer to sytems - and how you DEFINE your system makes a big difference.

Is the universe tending towards chaos? Certainly, it appears that way... but that doesn't mean there cannot be LOCALISED stability - especially when a 'stable' form is more energy efficient than an unstable form.

Evolution is in no way limited by the laws of thermodynamics... and I suspect you probably know that, which is why you decided 'that is a subject for a different thread'.

The other big error you made, is in the assumption that, because this 'god' you speak of 'transcends energy' (although I see no evidence for such a peculiar claim), he must be able to utilise energy. How does that work for you? Does the human form not 'transcend' the microbial forms of our building blocks? (Try researching organelles). And yet, without the intervention of science, what 'control' does the human have over microbes?

Finally someone who isn't an atheist!

Yeah - because us atheists have such an unfair world dominion, don't we.... lording it over you minority religious types....

True, red cells COULD survive without platelets, but if an organism got a mere cut, without platelets it would bleed to death. And in the animal world, I doubt that an organism has gone even a year without getting a scratch.
No, not necessarily. There are other clotting factors besides platelets (and you can easily use whatever materials you have at hand to form a clot), and there are other methods of protecting yourself against blood loss.

The problem is, both the second law, and the concept of entropy, refer to sytems - and how you DEFINE your system makes a big difference.


Does the human form not 'transcend' the microbial forms of our building blocks? (Try researching organelles).

Sorry, Grave, but you're just wrong. The Earth is a completely closed system, receiving no energy from an outside source. Otherwise, there would have to be some sort of nearby massive fusion reaction delivering enormous amounts of daily energy that could be converted to food by chlorophyl-containing organisms covering the planet.

Man, why is it so hot out today?

P.S. Speak for yourself about organelles. The adenosine triphosphate in my body is produced by tiny trolls on treadmills, not these mythical "mitochondria".

ye gods :-p

at least some religious folks, and their arguments, are clever and vaguely up to speed with modern science...

Jesussaves?

Yeah - because us atheists have such an unfair world dominion, don't we.... lording it over you minority religious types....

Well don't TELL EVERYONE that!

http://online.sd43.bc.ca/parker/case_studies/Posters/looselips/loose_lips_sink_ships.jpg

Sorry, Grave, but you're just wrong. The Earth is a completely closed system, receiving no energy from an outside source. Otherwise, there would have to be some sort of nearby massive fusion reaction delivering enormous amounts of daily energy that could be converted to food by chlorophyl-containing organisms covering the planet.

Man, why is it so hot out today?

P.S. Speak for yourself about organelles. The adenosine triphosphate in my body is produced by tiny trolls on treadmills, not these mythical "mitochondria".

Really? Wow.

I use a gasoline internal combustion engine myself, but with fuel prices what they are, I've been rather sluggish as of late.

Sorry, Grave, but you're just wrong. The Earth is a completely closed system, receiving no energy from an outside source. Otherwise, there would have to be some sort of nearby massive fusion reaction delivering enormous amounts of daily energy that could be converted to food by chlorophyl-containing organisms covering the planet.

Man, why is it so hot out today?

P.S. Speak for yourself about organelles. The adenosine triphosphate in my body is produced by tiny trolls on treadmills, not these mythical "mitochondria".
Oh jesus. You had me going up until that treadmills comment :D

Oh, I forgot to mention: The trolls themselves don't have to eat anything, because they "transcend energy".

The second law of thermodynamics in no way contradicts evolution because the second law states that "order cannot arise from chaos in a closed system." The Earth is not a closed system devoid of outside stimuli. The most ovious example of this is the sun, which provides constant energy to the Earth. :rolleyes:

I might also add that creationism, or creation science as it is now called, lacks basically any support from science except for the pure speculation of a small cadre of "scientists." I'll illustrate with an example of their idiocy.

Creationists hold that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. The concept of petrified forests (where one forest decays and another grows on top of it over millions of years) is in contradiction of this. They point to a possible alternative: at volcanic eruptions, trees are known to sink into lakes vertical. They say that the logs created these petrified forests. Never mind the carbon dating saying the forests are millions of years old. :p

Really? Wow.

I use a gasoline internal combustion engine myself, but with fuel prices what they are, I've been rather sluggish as of late.


You should learn how to "transcend energy". Try cutting your fuel line with Ocham's Razor.

Quite the opposite indeed, the very presence of the singularity confirms the existence of a divine being.

How do you figure that?

The presence of a singularity confirms the existence of a singularity... nothing more.

True, red cells COULD survive without platelets, but if an organism got a mere cut, without platelets it would bleed to death. And in the animal world, I doubt that an organism has gone even a year without getting a scratch.
Complete and utter nonsense. Do fish bleed to death all the time? They have no platelets. Same applies to a lot of other species. The only reason why humans and some others do need blood platelets is that we are adjusted to using platelets as effectively as possible. Your argument is like claiming that there could be no cars without computers (if you break all computers in a modern car it doesn't start, because the electronics in the car is adjusted to computers).

The only reason religious types surround "intelligent" design is because they cannot wrap their heads around a concept that is spread over millions of years. It also shakes some deeply held beliefs.

Yeah - because us atheists have such an unfair world dominion, don't we.... lording it over you minority religious types....

Typically, in these kinds of debates, atheists do have an advantage. People who claim to be religious are expected to defend their beliefs, where someone claiming atheism claims to have no beliefs and therefore spends all their efforts attacking the beliefs of others.

Rather than attacking atheists, one should listen to them. As soon as they open their mouth, they're just as likely to put their foot in it as not.

Typically, in these kinds of debates, atheists do have an advantage. People who claim to be religious are expected to defend their beliefs, where someone claiming atheism claims to have no beliefs and therefore spends all their efforts attacking the beliefs of others.

Rather than attacking atheists, one should listen to them. As soon as they open their mouth, they're just as likely to put their foot in it as not.

As an atheist, I believe in a different sort of creator, the one of science. I defend this belief with the zeal of any crusader. :mad:

You should learn how to "transcend energy". Try cutting your fuel line with Ocham's Razor.

I'm saving that for my wrists. Remember kids- it's not "across the street", it's "down the road". :D

The most ovious example of this is the sun, which provides constant energy to the Earth. :rolleyes:

:p

As I mentioned before, the Earth IS SO a closed system. This "sun" you speak of is merely a device mounted just inside atmosphere, which was put there so we have light to read our Bibles with.

It is a well known fact, (discovered and proven by well-known, non-existant scientists from very prestigious and fictional Universities) that energy only comes in the form of oil, which was created 3,500 years ago when Jesus blasted the dinosaurs with a disintigrator ray because some of them were gay.

Just because mortal men can not imagine an eternal egress doesn't make it impossible.

Earth is a closed system. A closed system cannot take in materials, but it CAN take in energy.


Also the problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible. Consider the following descriptions of God from the Bible:


John 4: 24
God is a Spirit:...

Matthew 16:17
...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He should...;

Typically, in these kinds of debates, atheists do have an advantage. People who claim to be religious are expected to defend their beliefs, where someone claiming atheism claims to have no beliefs and therefore spends all their efforts attacking the beliefs of others.

Rather than attacking atheists, one should listen to them. As soon as they open their mouth, they're just as likely to put their foot in it as not.
In the creationism debate it actually is the atheists that occasionally make a positive argument (for evolution), while the creationists can do nothing but attack the scientific version because theirs have no evidence.

So where did "God" come from?


God is God, he's always been, there, read the Bible and you'll find out, that there is no reason in questioning God's existance :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Earth is a closed system. A closed system cannot take in materials, but it CAN take in energy.


Also the problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible. Consider the following descriptions of God from the Bible:


John 4: 24
God is a Spirit:...

Matthew 16:17
...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He should...;

Christians quote the bible like it is the absolute truth. How are we so sure that this is not some machination concocted by (gasp!) human beings.

Earth is a closed system. A closed system cannot take in materials, but it CAN take in energy.


Okay, I'm calling it. This poster is yanking chains.

As an atheist, I believe in a different sort of creator, the one of science. I defend this belief with the zeal of any crusader. :mad:
Tell me then: what does science have to say about happiness and why do people want it so badly?

Earth is a closed system. A closed system cannot take in materials, but it CAN take in energy.


Also the problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible. Consider the following descriptions of God from the Bible:


John 4: 24
God is a Spirit:...

Matthew 16:17
...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He should...;

Can't take in material, eh? I guess those meteorites displayed up at the obsevatory are stool samples from when god takes a shit, eh?

take the kalam arguement:
1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Number 1 is what abides by the known laws of physics we live by. God did not have a beginning. He doesn't require a cause.

False on many levels.

1) We don't know that everything that begins has a cause... although it seems like it might be true.

2) We don't know the universe has a beginning... we speculate it MUST because of our peculiarly three-dimensional thought patterns. What if the current 'universe' is born from the ashes of a prior universe, which was, in turn, born from the ashes of a prior universe, etc.?

3) False based on the false assumptions in points 1 AND 2.

4) We don't even have evidence that a 'god' exists... much less enough evidence to guess about his/her/its beginning.

Okay, I'm calling it. This poster is yanking chains.

I think its time for a declaration of shenanigans against this guy.

Tell me then: what does science have to say about happiness and why do people want it so badly?

Humans, like animals, are irrational creatures who base judgement on chemical drives and complex hormones. "Happiness" is an illusion, merely a byproduct of these things.

In the creationism debate it actually is the atheists that occasionally make a positive argument (for evolution), while the creationists can do nothing but attack the scientific version because theirs have no evidence.

If that is true how did just every thing come about and don't give me that BIG BANG SHIT, and how did that ever come about, in every one's holy book, it states that the earth was made by, GOD or gods and goddesses. Regaurdless of beleifs it says that.

Tell me then: what does science have to say about happiness and why do people want it so badly?

As you learn in economics, human beings respond to positive and negative stimuli, in the same way that a dog continues doing a trick because he got a treat and the child does not touch the hot stove becuase he has already burned his finger. We search for pleasure becasue we derive that the act is doing something good for ourselves, not for a concept of a god. I am still a very happy person even though I have not served god.

Tell me then: what does science have to say about happiness and why do people want it so badly?

Wow, that's a heck of a conceptual shell game.

The science (not always recognized as such) that addresses such arbitrary and nebulous concepts as human happiness is called "Psychology". Its a comparatively young science, and as its subjects are humans, it is limited by the ethical restraints of informed consent and so forth.

As for why people "want it so badly", you might first ask why people "envision it so differently".

Earth is a closed system. A closed system cannot take in materials, but it CAN take in energy.
In thermodynamics a closed system does not take in or send out energy.



Also the problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible. Consider the following descriptions of God from the Bible:


John 4: 24
God is a Spirit:...

Matthew 16:17
...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He should...;
None of that explains were god comes from. If you are just going to assume that god is eternal, then why not assume that the physical world is eternal, or doesn't need a cause?

Besides, you open the question of how something that has no physical form can change physical things. Can you answer that question?

Just because mortal men can not imagine an eternal egress doesn't make it impossible.

Yes, but it is possible that a lightning bolt will hit a butterfly in Bosnia, which will fall into a window, which breaks because it is so weak, snding shards into the eyes of a tourist, who happens to die, which goes in the newspaper, which uses extra ink that triggers an allergic reacrion in a reader.

We cant imagine the odds. But it is possible. Will it ever happen? No.

False on many levels.

1) We don't know that everything that begins has a cause... although it seems like it might be true.

2) We don't know the universe has a beginning... we speculate it MUST because of our peculiarly three-dimensional thought patterns. What if the current 'universe' is born from the ashes of a prior universe, which was, in turn, born from the ashes of a prior universe, etc.?

3) False based on the false assumptions in points 1 AND 2.

4) We don't even have evidence that a 'god' exists... much less enough evidence to guess about his/her/its beginning.


These accuzations are false, please explain to me, how nothing has a cause and so on. Also, There is no questioning a God's existance, but in otehr religions such as Hinduism, it explains how their gods came abou so read the holy books. :fluffle:

Humans, like animals, are irrational creatures who base judgement on chemical drives and complex hormones. "Happiness" is an illusion, merely a byproduct of these things.

So does this mean that persuing happiness is worthless? If so, what is worth persuing then, if anything?

As you learn in economics, human beings respond to positive and negative stimuli, in the same way that a dog continues doing a trick because he got a treat and the child does not touch the hot stove becuase he has already burned his finger. We search for pleasure becasue we derive that the act is doing something good for ourselves, not for a concept of a god. I am still a very happy person even though I have not served god.


But however, how could these things come about with out some creator or supreme being, UH,UH, UH!!??

Sorry, Grave, but you're just wrong. The Earth is a completely closed system, receiving no energy from an outside source. Otherwise, there would have to be some sort of nearby massive fusion reaction delivering enormous amounts of daily energy that could be converted to food by chlorophyl-containing organisms covering the planet.

Man, why is it so hot out today?

P.S. Speak for yourself about organelles. The adenosine triphosphate in my body is produced by tiny trolls on treadmills, not these mythical "mitochondria".

I have the terrible suspicion that your failure to include a simple </sarcasm> is going to be the cause of consternation to more than a few.... :)

Where can I get those little trolls from? They sound cool...

In thermodynamics a closed system does not take in or send out energy.

Really? My science teacher lied to me!

Besides, you open the question of how something that has no physical form can change physical things. Can you answer that question?

I am in a 3-d world. Yet I can change things on my 2-d computer screen.

But however, how could these things come about with out some creator or supreme being, UH,UH, UH!!??

Evolution does not just change the physical aspects of a creature; it can also change certain thought processes. Eventually, such self-preserving behavior becomse ingrained into the mind of a creature. It's a little thing called instinct. :rolleyes:

So does this mean that persuing happiness is worthless? If so, what is worth persuing then, if anything?

I don't proclaim that happiness is 'unworthy' of anything, and if you think so, you read too much into my words. I'm simply stating that emotion and desire aren't anything spiritual or supernatural, simply a byproduct of natural biology.

So basically you're saying "I don't understand the big bang theory, therefore it must be false"

...

You know, it is hard to believe that some deity came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create an all powerful god is another all powerful god. How did this original figure come about. Did it just appear? Really, all you fundamentalists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.


Thanks for emphizing my, piont, how does something come from nothing, how was this earth created if not by a being freed from earthly bonds. How was anything including the big bang theory, come from? :gundge:

There is no questioning a God's existance

I so love it when someone presents a concise, definitive statement allowing me to determine exactly how much credibility they deserve.

"There is no questioning a God's existance", he says.

I can see somebody believing sincerely that there is, or isn't. But to say there is no questioning...

I am concious of my surroundings. I can reflect, make guesses about the future. I have free will. Matter cannot produce that.

The brain has the capacity to hold 3 million years worth of knowledge. Why would evolution give us a brain that is not ncessary for the current lifespan of humans?

Humans, like animals, are irrational creatures who base judgement on chemical drives and complex hormones. "Happiness" is an illusion, merely a byproduct of these things.

yes but what sets us apart from animals is that we question the nature of our existence.

Earth is a closed system. A closed system cannot take in materials, but it CAN take in energy.


You don't know what 'closed system' means, do you?

I have the terrible suspicion that your failure to include a simple </sarcasm> is going to be the cause of consternation to more than a few.... :)

Where can I get those little trolls from? They sound cool...

The worst part is, the original poster is actually arguing that a closed system can take in energy.

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.

Explain to me how god came to be, and I'll explain to you how the universe came to be.

Both theories of how everything began are the same way:
They were just there.

Besides, considering that to validate certain pieces of the Bible christians must revert to science, I wouldn't be blasting it too hard.

Thanks for emphizing my, piont, how does something come from nothing, how was this earth created if not by a being freed from earthly bonds. How was anything including the big bang theory, come from? :gundge:

Constantly, religious nuts have pointed to things that defy explanation as "an act of god." In fact, during the Middle Ages, they thought that the blank space in a vacuum was God's dominion. The Ancient Greeks used their myths to explain events we now know are entirely natural and physical in nautre. The Big Bang and ultimate creation is something simply unexplained by science yet. It is in no way proof of god. :p

There is a misunderstanding about Creationism. There are many branches, with views that vary from the belief the earth is flat, to the belief in evolution. Look 'em up sometime here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

If that is true how did just every thing come about and don't give me that BIG BANG SHIT, and how did that ever come about, in every one's holy book, it states that the earth was made by, GOD or gods and goddesses. Regaurdless of beleifs it says that.
I have a hard time reading that post, but if I guess correctly you are asking
1) How did the universe start according to science?
2) Why do a large number of religious books talk about something that is translated into something that starts in 'god'?


1) That has already been answered in this thread. Particle systems occur all the time. One of them happened to contain enough energy that it "exploded" and spread out all the matter in our universe. When it collapses it frees up energy for the next particle system.

2) Isn't the god questions your job and not mine? I guess it is because of the limits of the english language that all personifications of stuff that is not personal is called similar stuff. Also all cultures have exchanged ideas for tens of thousands of years before any of it was written down, it would be strange if no similarities occurred.

I am in a 3-d world. Yet I can change things on my 2-d computer screen.

The x/y abscissa you imagine on your screen (which are actually 3d particles orgnanized so that you see them in 2D), are subsets of the x/y/z you exist in. So, you are still interacting with objects within your own dimensional boundaries.

yes but what sets us apart from animals is that we question the nature of our existence.

You think there are animals that don't do that, too? Elephants mourn their dead. Chimpanzees are capable of complex thought. Hell, even my cat is able to discern cause and effect. You fall into a fallacy of assumption that animals cannot do things that humans can, and after all, we're merely a slightly sophisticated animal.

There is a misunderstanding about Creationism. There are many branches, with views that vary from the belief the earth is flat, to the belief in evolution. Look 'em up sometime here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

I have done a term paper on evolution and creationism, and I know the various branches. Tell me, what branch are you?

Your whole argument is bollocks. Have you any sources for what you say?

And why must it be a Judeo-Christian god anyway? What makes Zeus more ridiculous that God? Do you know any science whatsoever?

You are either a troll, or stupid. Perhaps both.

Again, God transcends space. Dimensions cannot contain him.

Ladies and Gentlemen of "General" forum,
The grammar and spelling in this thread is atrocious. Before we try to debate science and theology, we should all endeavor to gain a firm grasp on the english language. Feel free to use the American or British variants, as well as any derivation from these two variants, but please use the language correctly.
Sincerely,
Chief Constable Joseph Rogers
Olaran Grammar Police

As you learn in economics, human beings respond to positive and negative stimuli, in the same way that a dog continues doing a trick because he got a treat and the child does not touch the hot stove becuase he has already burned his finger. We search for pleasure becasue we derive that the act is doing something good for ourselves, not for a concept of a god. I am still a very happy person even though I have not served god.

I think with human beings it's a bit more complicated than that. The positive/negative aspects of stimuli tend to be contextual. People go to gyms and work out, even though the process is painful, both during and after, but they see it as good because of what they anticipate the results to be.

Maslow probably defined what a person's purpose in life is: self-actualization. How does one know with any certainty how to get to that level and how does one know when they are there?

Again, God transcends space. Dimensions cannot contain him.

Then how does he affect our physical world?

Again, God transcends space. Dimensions cannot contain him.

Congratulations! This is the first time I have seen anyone try to use argumentum ad nausaeam in this forum.

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it any more true the 99th time than it did the first time.

Olara']Ladies and Gentlemen of "General" forum,
The grammar and spelling in this thread is atrocious. Before we try to debate science and theology, we should all endeavor to gain a firm grasp on the english language. Feel free to use the American or British variants, as well as any derivation from these two variants, but please use the language correctly.
Sincerely,
Chief Constable Joseph Rogers
Olaran Grammar Police

Fie! We have a Grammar Nazi in our midst! Quick, destroy it before it spreads rational language! :mad:

Your whole argument is bollocks. Have you any sources for what you say?

And why must it be a Judeo-Christian god anyway? What makes Zeus more ridiculous that God? Do you know any science whatsoever?

You are either a troll, or stupid. Perhaps both.

Right now, the odds are leaning towards "troll". He's already said that he thinks a closed system can take in energy. He's been asked several times and refuses to address why any God would have to be "Judeo-Christian".

Now's he's floating the scientific "fact" that the human brain is built to hold 3,000,000 years worth of knowledge (I feel bad for the Graduate Research Assistant who had to do the data collection on that study).

Really? My science teacher lied to me!

I am in a 3-d world. Yet I can change things on my 2-d computer screen.
I doubt that your teacher lied. /S/he surely talked about things were 'closed system' means other things than it does in the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes, but the 2-d screen is in the same room, and is of the same form of matter as you. That has no similarities to the 'god' idea. Or if it has, please explain.

These accuzations are false, please explain to me, how nothing has a cause and so on. Also, There is no questioning a God's existance, but in otehr religions such as Hinduism, it explains how their gods came abou so read the holy books. :fluffle:

How can you tell me my 'accusations' are false? If you look closer, you'll see that these are not 'accusations' they are simple statements to refute the statements of alleged fact by the previous poster.

It is true - we can ASSUME that all things that 'are' must have 'started' somewhere, and that all 'starting points' must have a creational force... but we can never truly KNOW that, now can we?

If you believe we CAN know that, show me how you reach that conclusion.

And, telling me to read the 'holy books' is a curious sort of gesture, my friend. I have read a great number of 'holy books'... and most of them make liars of each other. Did god shape the world from mud? Is this world the result of a dream? Did a female god masturbate a male god until he spurted all matter and life into existence?

Further, if you pay CLOSE attention to most of these texts, it becomes clear that there are older (perhaps, more primitive) myths buried under the complexions of the newer... like the presence of the female creative force in the Hebrew language of the Old Testament... and the references to other gods in the Bible that have survived even in our current English translation.

I think with human beings it's a bit more complicated than that. The positive/negative aspects of stimuli tend to be contextual. People go to gyms and work out, even though the process is painful, both during and after, but they see it as good because of what they anticipate the results to be.

Maslow probably defined what a person's purpose in life is: self-actualization. How does one know with any certainty how to get to that level and how does one know when they are there?

You just don't get it. This is a perfect analogy to the evolution vs. creationism debate. I view the world as a bunch of disorganized, individual stimuli and reactions; you think there is some overarching concept of purpose. Unfortunately for you, my theory has much more support in the educated community. :rolleyes:

Again, God transcends space. Dimensions cannot contain him.


He's right. Dimensions contain things that can be established as real.

The Big Bang and ultimate creation is something simply unexplained by science yet. It is in no way proof of god. :p

But the big bang is something that will never fully be explained by science. No matter what, you cannot take me to the moment before it and that is where science fails us. When you start asking the really tough questions science begins to draw blanks. We never will understand through science how matter got here, we will never understand the vastness of space. Even the theory of evolution, the Athiests bible if you will, is flawed, Darwin himself admitted that. Athiests in general exhibit the same behavior you denounce by not admitting the possibility of an almighty. You do not understand it, so it is easier to reject than think about.

Can't take in material, eh? I guess those meteorites displayed up at the obsevatory are stool samples from when god takes a shit, eh?
You know, I was just thinking the same thing... :D

Thanks for emphizing my, piont, how does something come from nothing, how was this earth created if not by a being freed from earthly bonds. How was anything including the big bang theory, come from? :gundge:
By a physical process. That's as good an answer as 'by god'. Or in fact better, because it can be worked out to be an actual explanation. Read anything in cosmology for more details. Stephen Hawking's 'The Universe in a Nutshell' is a good read and should not be too complicated.

I have done a term paper on evolution and creationism, and I know the various branches. Tell me, what branch are you?


I would probably say, Old Earth Day Age Creationism. A lot of the Bible is figurative, and I think even though God could have created the Earth in 7 days, eons were put into perspective for our ease.

But the big bang is something that will never fully be explained by science. No matter what, you cannot take me to the moment before it and that is where science fails us. When you start asking the really tough questions science begins to draw blanks. We never will understand through science how matter got here, we will never understand the vastness of space. Even the theory of evolution, the Athiests bible if you will, is flawed, Darwin himself admitted that. Athiests in general exhibit the same behavior you denounce by not admitting the possibility of an almighty. You do not understand it, so it is easier to reject than think about.

Really? Let me count the millions of times through history that one religious person has said that answer (science can never explain the issue) to millions of other questions. They have been proven wrong on every one so far.

I am concious of my surroundings. I can reflect, make guesses about the future. I have free will. Matter cannot produce that.

The brain has the capacity to hold 3 million years worth of knowledge. Why would evolution give us a brain that is not ncessary for the current lifespan of humans?

My PC is 'conscious' of it's surroundings, although it uses different processes and senses to my own. It 'reflects', and makes guesses about the future. Whether it has 'free will' is debatable... but then, the same can be said of people.

And, of course, my PC is 'matter'... as am I.

I would probably say, Old Earth Day Age Creationism. A lot of the Bible is figurative, and I think even though God could have created the Earth in 7 days, eons were put into perspective for our ease.

Probably the least ludicrous one of all. But from your perspective, how does the bible contradict evolution? Couldn't god have created evolution?

I would probably say, Old Earth Day Age Creationism. A lot of the Bible is figurative, and I think even though God could have created the Earth in 7 days, eons were put into perspective for our ease.

The Bible is figurative. Yet you use it as an actual source of evidence?

I am concious of my surroundings. I can reflect, make guesses about the future. I have free will. Matter cannot produce that.

The brain has the capacity to hold 3 million years worth of knowledge. Why would evolution give us a brain that is not ncessary for the current lifespan of humans?
Obviously matter can 'produce' that, since you are matter and have all that.

And how do you know that the brain can store 3 million years of knowledge? Do you know how much that is, or what it takes to store a certain amount of knowledge? Considering that people do run out of "storage capacity" now and then (due to brain damage) it is a good thing to have some extra capacity.

You just don't get it. This is a perfect analogy to the evolution vs. creationism debate. I view the world as a bunch of disorganized, individual stimuli and reactions; you think there is some overarching concept of purpose. Unfortunately for you, my theory has much more support in the educated community. :rolleyes:

I would say that the fact that we are having this dissusion is proof to the contrary. Rather than seeing your screen as a bunch of disorganized, individual pixels, you are seeing them as words and concepts and responding to them accordingly. Knowing that they really are just disorganized individual pixels does not appear to change your reaction to them. Secondly, unless you are willing to provide references for your "educated community", I think it would be safe to call it an empty appeal to authority and dismiss it.

Athiests in general exhibit the same behavior you denounce by not admitting the possibility of an almighty. You do not understand it, so it is easier to reject than think about.

Do you admit there might not be an almighty, or not a Judeo-Christian one?

Can you take me to the moment before your God "made" everything?

This has been addressed before. When science finds evidence contrary to current models, we revise the model and continue again. We don't resort to supernatural answers.

As for rejecting what we don't understand, you should go over the thread originator's posts and see the level of understanding we're talking about.

Probably the least ludicrous one of all. But from your perspective, how does the bible contradict evolution? Couldn't god have created evolution?


You don't think flat earth? lol My arguement against evolution is not based on the Bible. It is based on discrepancies, flaws, and hoaxes in the theory. For example, the Cambrian Explosion. Also, the Stanley-Miller experiment did not use correct atmosphere, Haeckal's embryo's were doctored, and the cell is an irreducibly complex system.

I would say that the fact that we are having this dissusion is proof to the contrary. Rather than seeing your screen as a bunch of disorganized, individual pixels, you are seeing them as words and concepts and responding to them accordingly. Knowing that they really are just disorganized individual pixels does not appear to change your reaction to them. Secondly, unless you are willing to provide references for your "educated community", I think it would be safe to call it an empty appeal to authority and dismiss it.

These pixels are hardly creatures seeking to provide themselves with the greatest possible probability of surviving and passing down their genes. The educated community supporting my ideas include many psychologists and economists, the most visible one being Steven Levitt, author of Freakonomics.

Ockham's razor, a scientific principle, cuts down unnecesary figures. So only one god is needed. Also, there is a lot of proof for this God.

Actually, no Gods are needed. And there is no proof. There are things which suggest that God exists and things that suggest he does not.

From an external viewpoint, however, christianity is just the creation myth of one culture, no different or any less ridiculous than worshipping zeus, or the sun or a volcano.

Do you admit there might not be an almighty, or not a Judeo-Christian one?

Can you take me to the moment before your God "made" everything?

This has been addressed before. When science finds evidence contrary to current models, we revise the model and continue again. We don't resort to supernatural answers.

As for rejecting what we don't understand, you should go over the thread originator's posts and see the level of understanding we're talking about.


I couldn't take you to the moment, because "moment" is a measurement of time. There was no time befire the Universe was created.

Really? Let me count the millions of times through history that one religious person has said that answer (science can never explain the issue) to millions of other questions. They have been proven wrong on every one so far.

But the problem is, back then we had a limited knowledge of the physical world and things that were found were concrete and based in the post-big bang time period. Scientific speculation of times before the big bang would be just that, speculation. We are fast moving into more and more theoretical science and will never definitavely know the answers to these questions. Another reason for this is mankind's inability to process infinity. It is for this reason as well that science will fail us when trying to solve a question such as the law of conservation of mass. Mass can't have always been here because there is no such thing as always. You can never get closer to infinity no matter how far you go, therefore everything in the dimension in which we live must have both a beginning and an end.

I couldn't take you to the moment, because "moment" is a measurement of time. There was no time befire the Universe was created.

Ah, maybe you should apply that to the statement of the guy I was quoting. Gotcha.

You don't think flat earth? lol My arguement against evolution is not based on the Bible. It is based on discrepancies, flaws, and hoaxes in the theory. For example, the Cambrian Explosion. Also, the Stanley-Miller experiment did not use correct atmosphere, Haeckal's embryo's were doctored, and the cell is an irreducibly complex system.

The Stanley-Miller experiment did not use a correct atmostphre and Haeckal's embryo's were doctored. But how many other experiments support evolution?

By the way, the cell is not an irreducibly complex system; just look at a virus. :p

I think with human beings it's a bit more complicated than that. The positive/negative aspects of stimuli tend to be contextual. People go to gyms and work out, even though the process is painful, both during and after, but they see it as good because of what they anticipate the results to be.

It is not necessarily more complicated. People train because they think that the positive effects (better form, endorphine hit, possibly becomeing more attractive) are worth more than the negative effects. If you see training as mainly painful, you don't train much, do you?

Actually, no Gods are needed. And there is no proof. There are things which suggest that God exists and things that suggest he does not.

From an external viewpoint, however, christianity is just the creation myth of one culture, no different or any less ridiculous than worshipping zeus, or the sun or a volcano.


The universe couldn't have started from nothing, so he is needed.

But the problem is, back then we had a limited knowledge of the physical world and things that were found were concrete and based in the post-big bang time period. Scientific speculation of times before the big bang would be just that, speculation. We are fast moving into more and more theoretical science and will never definitavely know the answers to these questions. Another reason for this is mankind's inability to process infinity. It is for this reason as well that science will fail us when trying to solve a question such as the law of conservation of mass. Mass can't have always been here because there is no such thing as always. You can never get closer to infinity no matter how far you go, therefore everything in the dimension in which we live must have both a beginning and an end.

You don't think that scientists in ancient and Mideavel times were regarde as "theoretica?" In my opinion, we still have a limited knowledge of the physical universe.

These pixels are hardly creatures seeking to provide themselves with the greatest possible probability of surviving and passing down their genes. The educated community supporting my ideas include many psychologists and economists, the most visible one being Steven Levitt, author of Freakonomics.

Oh, we changed subjects then. So the purpose of life is to provide one's self with he greatest possible probablility of surviving and passing down one's genes? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth (if that can be considered a valid expression for message boards) as much as ensuring that I am understanding.

I couldn't take you to the moment, because "moment" is a measurement of time. There was no time befire the Universe was created.

I couldn't agree more. Scientists simply saying things have been there forever does not answer anything because there is no such thing as infinity, it simply does not exist.

The Stanley-Miller experiment did not use a correct atmostphre and Haeckal's embryo's were doctored. But how many other experiments support evolution?

By the way, the cell is not an irreducibly complex system; just look at a virus. :p

There is still a debate about whether a virus is living or not.
Take a look at this:
http://www.chick.com/tractimages59198/0055/0055_12.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages59198/0055/0055_13.gif

The universe couldn't have started from nothing, so he is needed.

above statement == "I prove my unproved statement with another unproved statement"

If God can possess some characteristic that allows Him/Her/It to have no beginning, the universe could have the same characteristic.

And did you take the time to see that your "no moments before time" response conflicts with your supporter's demand that we take him back to the moment before the big bang, or else it must be false?

You don't think flat earth? lol My arguement against evolution is not based on the Bible. It is based on discrepancies, flaws, and hoaxes in the theory. For example, the Cambrian Explosion. Also, the Stanley-Miller experiment did not use correct atmosphere, Haeckal's embryo's were doctored, and the cell is an irreducibly complex system.


Intelligent Design "Theory"

Although its adherents would deny it, literal Biblical Creationism is dead. No one in the general population takes it seriously, because its fallacies are so ridiculously easy to point out. The notion of the universe being a mere 6,000 years old is so easily refuted that only the most ignorant and radical Christians will seriously propose it in public. The use of the Bible as a source of scientific data is such a gross misrepresentation of Biblical-era storytelling methods that some of the loudest critics of this practice have been not atheists, but Christians (including Pope John Paul II). It is for these reasons that creationists devised a fallback position: the "intelligent designer" theory. Its proponents (such as Dr. Behe, author of the widely quoted book: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution ) freely accept that the Bible has no scientific validity, and in Dr. Behe's case, he even accepts that life evolved over billions of years, from a common ancestor. But rather than weaken their argument, this paradoxically strengthens it in the minds of many, because the resulting vaguely defined theory no longer presents a single, well defined target for criticism. In order to criticize a theory it must first be explicitly defined, and "intelligent designer" theory is not. It abandons Young-Earth arguments and Biblical inerrancy, and it even accepts that evolution does occur, thus discarding most of its intellectual baggage. It only suggests that wherever we find gaps in our understanding of the entire process from start to finish, we should assume that an "intelligent designer" was responsible.

The primary justification is the notion of irreducible complexity. This is the idea that some structures are too complex to have evolved naturally, so they must have been deliberately designed. Its proponents gloss over the fact that no one arrives at this conclusion unless they just happen to have been raised in a Judeo-Christian religious environment. They also gloss over the fact that it is flawed on philosophical grounds: it presumes that if we cannot easily find an explanation for a phenomenon, then there must be no rational explanation at all, thus requiring divine intervention. And finally, they are deliberately circumspect about the identity of this "intelligent designer", because they want to insinuate this "theory" into the school system in defiance of constitutional church/state separation guarantees, even though everyone knows that the "intelligent designer" is just a "nudge nudge, wink wink" name for God.

The idea isn't new. Darwin's opponents upheld "irreducible complexity" as a disproof of macroscopic evolution in the 19th century, but their ideas were demolished in numerous public debates. These debates were so devastating to their case that they caused them to retreat entirely from the scientific forum and into the political forum, where they attempted to influence scientifically ignorant politicians and the court system. After this failed as well (most notably with the Scopes trial), they went underground into the world they occupy now, where they take their case directly to laypeople who are neither knowledgeable enough to easily see through their arguments (unlike scientists) or duty-bound to invest time and effort seriously investigating their claims before coming to a judgement (unlike the court system). While the logic of "irreducible complexity" was shown to be invalid more than a hundred years ago, creationists know that people have short memories, and a century of underground activity has allowed them to hone their propaganda techniques to a fine edge.

The "intelligent design" argument is by far the most clever and insidious Creationist attack, because it takes advantage of the "reasonable doubt" concept in the court system. That concept, which has thoroughly infiltrated popular culture, creates a mindset in which people tend to crystallize situations into an adversarial battle between prosecution and defense. The "intelligent design" people make no effort whatsoever to explicitly define their theory; they cannot explain how this designer might have conducted his work, what mechanisms he might have used, or how we are to determine who he was. But they know that they don't have to explicitly define their theory: they paint themselves as the defendant, and the scientific community as the prosecution in a legal trial. Therefore, rather than having to demonstrate that their theory is well defined and fits the facts more closely than evolution theory, they need only generate reasonable doubt about evolution theory and they have won an apparent victory for their vaguely defined alternative! This would not work in a real courtroom because only a criminal trial must demonstrate its case "beyond a reasonable doubt", and any judge would recognize that. But in the world of Joe Sixpack sitting in his mobile home in Tornado Alley, these arguments are as convincing as anything the mainstream scientific community has to say.

Therefore, arguments for intelligent design are invariably not positive arguments defining its predictions and showing how well they agree with observation, but rather, they are negative arguments, attempting to generate "reasonable doubt" about evolution under the pretense that the explanation for all unsolved mysteries should automatically default to divine intervention. Dr. Behe (whose book was subjected to some absolutely devastating critiques, two of which you can find here and here) expressed his idea of "irreducible complexity" as follows:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."

Dr. Behe then goes on to describe the enormous complexity and inter-dependency of numerous biological structures, en route to concluding that life is too complex and easily broken to have evolved naturally. This is actually nothing more than a well-written and cleverly deceptive update on the easily refuted "found watch" analogy used by creationists since the 19th century. As with the "found watch" analogy, it is very seriously flawed for numerous reasons, which I will briefly outline here.
Hubris

Dr. Behe obviously doesn't suffer from low self-esteem. In fact, he seems to believe that he is omniscient! I say this because he apparently believes that if he can't personally figure out how a system could evolve gradually (or be reduced in complexity), then it must have been impossible for it to do so!

Even those "intelligent design" proponents who lack Behe's personal hubris subscribe to a more generalized version: they assume that if the scientific community at large has not yet figured it out, then it must be impossible, thus requiring divine intervention. Of course, their assessment of the state of scientific understanding is often over-pessimistic, as they routinely declare that scientists have no explanation for phenomena which in fact were explained years or decades earlier. In fact, Dr. Behe himself boldly declared that scientists were mysteriously "silent" about numerous phenomena in which published papers already existed and a great deal of research was underway, thus indicating that he had not done his homework, and that he was subscribing to the ludicrous "world-wide scientific conspiracy of silence" argument common to fundamentalist creationists.

The fallacy of this argument can be most easily exposed by applying it to the dawn of scientific inquiry. At that time, we understood very little about our universe. Applying Behe's mentality at that point would have led to the conclusion that since we couldn't figure out how anything worked, it must have been impossible to explain through naturalistic laws, so we should abandon the attempt and resort to divine intervention. In other words, Behe's assumption would have discouraged any further inquiry into science as a whole!
Unfalsifiability

Suppose you demonstrate to an "intelligent design" adherent that a system which he thought to be "irreducibly complex" is actually not irreducibly complex, and that it actually can function with a missing component? What will he say?

You probably already know the answer to this one. He will admit that the previous system was not "irreducibly complex", but the new one is. He will then challenge you to find a way to reduce it. And if you succeed? The third system will now be "irreducibly complex", and he will challenge you to find a way to reduce that one too. Repeat ad nauseum.

This is a classic example of an unfalsifiable theory, because it is completely impossible to refute. Each time you demonstrate that an "irreducibly complex" biological system is actually not irreducible, they simply shift to a lower stage of evolutionary development or even an entirely different system, and demand that you also prove that to be reducible, or they win by default. One could literally disprove the "irreducibility" of a thousand separate biological systems in a row, and the "intelligent designer" adherent would continue to claim victory if you couldn't quickly come with an explanation for #1001!

In fact, the use of this gradual, step by step fallback technique has been carried from the outer reaches of the evolutionary "tree" all the way back to its root. Having seen their arguments for "irreducible complexity" successively demolished by fossil evidence for species after species, organ after organ, structure after structure, the creationists finally found themselves with their backs to the wall. In fact, Dr. Behe freely admits that the physical evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution theory. But there is a region between abiogenesis and the first cellular organism in which creatures would not leave fossils. This is where the creationists have chosen to make their stand, because this time, even though they are still using the same fallacious argument they used before, they know that no damning fossil evidence will be forthcoming.

Dr. Behe attempted to put a pseudoscientific face on the fallacy by arguing that while we understand evolution on a macroscopic level, we don't understand the sub-cellular, molecular evolution that would have led from the first simplistic organic self-replicator to single-celled organisms. Ergo, (despite numerous viable theories to describe this process), we must default to divine intervention!
No Predictive Capabilities

Science is a descriptive enterprise. Its laws are actually descriptive models which also have a predictive capability. Does "intelligent designer" theory have a predictive capability? In a word, no.

In fact, while evolution theory easily predicted the emerging resistance of bacteria to antibiotics as well as the devastating effect of introducing foreign organisms into an environment in which no natural predators have evolved to combat them, "intelligent designer" theory has always been incapable of prediction! That is because it discards naturalistic mechanisms in favour of the mysterious and unknowable intent of a divine being, whose motivations, plans, and methods are inscrutable. If it can be argued to predict the same things that evolution theory predicts, it can only do so to the extent that it accepts the occurrence of evolutionary processes, thus making the "intelligent designer" a completely redundant term (see Occam's Razor).

In other words, its lack of predictive abilities disqualifies it as a legitimate scientific theory. It is incapable of predictions, so its predictions cannot be compared to new or existing observations. Therefore, it cannot be tested in even the most superficial way. And while the difficulties inherent in testing sub-cellular evolution theories are primarily of time, scale, and technology, the difficulties inherent in testing "intelligent designer" theory are of basic scientific philosophy: a theory must have some predictive capability in order to be tested or even vaguely supported, so even from a purely theoretical sense, "intelligent design" is a useless theory.
Intelligent designer or mindlessly stupid designer?

Scientists (including Catholic biochemists such as Dr. Behe) are not trained in the methodology of design, and quite frankly, when the question turns to one of design, they are not the best people to call upon. In fact, design falls within the purview of engineers rather than scientists. Therefore, some would claim that since the "intelligent design" theory is actually quite popular among engineers (for whom every design required a designer), this bodes well for the theory.

However, as an engineer myself, I would strenuously object to that assumption, because most of the engineers who support this theory have either been brainwashed from birth (thus giving them an intellectual "blind spot" where their religion is concerned) or they simply haven't studied biology in enough detail to know whether we and our ecosystem are the sort of system which indicates a methodical design approach (ie- "intelligent design") rather than a haphazard trial and error approach (ie- evolution). The "intelligent design" proponents take advantage of this fact to sell them on the idea that the ecosystem is perfectly designed, and many engineers take the validity of that claim on faith. Therefore, they proceed on this invalid assumption to conclude that it must have been designed by someone.

However, if you investigate this claim beyond the surface, it becomes blatantly apparent that it is completely false. "Intelligent design" is predicated upon the assumption that the ecosystem is a well designed system, with all of its various parts optimized to perfection and working in perfect harmony. They state this assumption as fact, and quickly move on to its ramifications. But if we hit the brakes and take a good look at the assumption, we will find that it has no basis. What possible justification is there for the claim that our ecosystem is well designed or highly optimized?

Dr. Behe and others believe that the necessary justification can be found simply by taking note of the enormous complexity and interdependency of the subsystems in a typical organism. He also notes their instability: if you so much as remove or degrade one little piece, the whole thing fails, therefore it must have been "intelligently designed". But as an engineer, I am absolutely appalled at the common acceptance of this false and groundless connection, even by some of my peers. In reality, which for me is the mechanical world of hydraulics, linkages, metallic structures, cooling systems, and electronic controls, the intelligent designer always creates the least complex, least interdependent, least unstable system to perform any given task. Occam's Razor isn't just a philosophical principle; it is an engineering axiom, and it is the incompetent designer whose designs are extremely complex and interdependent. And take note of this: the most complex, interdependent, inscrutable, and easily broken systems of all are invariably the ones that were designed not from the ground up, but by subjecting an existing system to repeated, haphazard, jury-rigged modifications!

Those familiar with computer software design will instantly recognize this phenomenon: the most convoluted, cross-wired, easily broken, metastable, bloated code is invariably that which incorporates a lot of "legacy baggage" rather than that which was designed from the ground up. Anyone familiar with basic engineering or computer programming theory, method, and practice should realize that far from disproving evolution theory, the enormous complexity of the biosystem and its life forms shows quite clearly that it could not have been intelligently designed! If we go with Dr. Behe's analogy of biochemical "machines", these machines are jury-rigged contraptions that were obviously based on legacy designs.

In fact, the enormous complicated biosystem and its complex, seemingly related, easily killed life forms are precisely what you would expect from a "trial and error" design methodology. Numerous questionable or just plain bad design aspects of living organisms are the obvious result of a sequence of repeated, haphazard, jury-rigged modifications upon a common ancestor. In other words, evolution.
Symptoms of jury-rigged design

Consider the following pieces of evidence supporting the theory that biological organisms are the result of trial and error, jury-rigged, evolutionary design rather than deliberate, "intelligent" design:

*

We were cobbled together from previous designs. Analysis of the human genome shows that every single piece of our genetic code is either a direct copy of other animals' codes, or a very minor modification upon said codes. Of course, by sheer coincidence, these animals just happen to be the ones that have been identified as our evolutionary precursors.
*

Dangerous design flaws. Because mammals evolved from the Devonian lungfish (Osteolepiformes) which swallowed air to breathe, we have inherited a respiratory system in which we use the same tube to breathe and swallow. A piece of food lodged in this double-duty windpipe can cause death! In real life engineering, the duplication of a dangerous design flaw from a previous design is considered an example of serious incompetence. In fact, if we imagine that an engineer had designed apes and then separately designed humans, he probably would have lost his license for negligently duplicating a serious, known design flaw!
*

Poor design aspects. For example, the human eye is wired backwards. Our photoreceptors face the wrong way, so that the side which connects to the nerve fibres is on the inside of the eye rather than the outside. This means that the nerve fibres actually "get in the way", and it also means that the eye has a hole in the back, through which these fibres must be bundled and passed through in order to reach the brain! This design increases the length of wiring for no good reason, decreases visual acuity, and creates a blind spot! A creationist would no doubt claim that God had a very good reason for doing it this way, but if so, then why did he design cephalopods (squids and octopi) with eyes wired correctly?
*

Failure to copy design corrections/improvements If a GM engineer discovered and corrected an intake manifold design flaw that restricts airflow for no good reason, it's a safe bet that this correction would make its way not only into future versions of that particular car, but every other GM vehicle which suffers from the original design flaw, irrespective of product line. However, the properly wired eyeballs of cephalopods were never incorporated into the vertebrate evolutionary branch. In other words, we share a poor design with all other members of our evolutionary branch. A better design exists, but only on another evolutionary branch! If this was the result of "intelligent design", then it begs the question: what kind of idiot would confine design improvements to a particular product line? Why don't humans incorporate the best design aspects of every animal species which preceded us, irrespective of evolutionary lineage? <Gasp!> Could it be that we have descended from one particular family of animals?
*

Poor manufacturing yields. Creationists take great pleasure in pointing out how precise our biological systems are. They love to cite, over and over, the fact that even the most miniscule alteration of certain parameters would cause the entire system to fail. However, any engineer familiar with basic quality control theory would consider such a design totally unacceptable. It is not "robust", meaning that it cannot withstand even the most minor alteration to optimal conditions. This leads to extremely low yields: out of millions of sperm in a typical ejaculation, fewer than 1,000 even reach the fallopian tubes, at which point half of them will go into the wrong tube. Only one will fertilize the egg, and the majority of fertilized eggs will not successfully implant in the uterine wall. Moreover, even successful fertilizations and implantations do not necessarily go to term; many pregnancies end in miscarriage, sometimes so early that the female may not even realize she was pregnant. We are talking about manufacturing yields below 0.0001%, people! By any engineering standard, this is awful! But by the standard of ruthless "survival of the fittest", it makes perfect sense.
*

Tendency to modify instead of add. Also known as "transformed organs". When a component of a design is modified to perform some new function at the expense of its original function, engineers generally describe the result as "jury-rigged". Nature is full of examples of such jury-rigging (eg. insect mouth-parts that used to be legs, dolphin fins that contain a full set of finger bones), but the best example is your arms. We have two arms and two legs because we are bipedal, but bipedal locomotion is ridiculously inefficient (for example, a typical dog can easily outrun a human despite its short legs). Worse yet, we are horribly inefficient runners even for bipeds (compare a human's running speed to the land speed of an ostrich or any other landed bird). Our poor speed and our lack of natural defenses make us easy prey for predators, so if not for our ability to make weapons, we would have been the footstool of the animal world. Even today, people are regularly killed by wild animals because they can't run quickly enough to get away. So why were we "designed" this way? Why would a competent engineer cripple us in this manner, rather than giving us four legs and two arms? This question is difficult to answer with "intelligent design", but it's easy to answer with evolution: we evolved from creatures with four legs, and two of those legs were transformed into our arms. The evolutionary advantage was presumably reproductive: we could carry food, so we could shelter our mates and our young in protected caves while we foraged.

Creationists open a dangerous can of worms when they suggest that we consider biological structures as engineered designs. Any engineer can examine the entire "product line" and see widespread evidence of massive, inexplicable incompetence. Dangerous, potentially lethal design flaws are mindlessly propagated through entire product lines, design improvements are mysteriously confined within product lines, manufacturing yields are horrendous, and every design has been cobbled together from previous designs, and new features are often jury-rigged from old ones instead of being added as genuinely new systems. Any engineer who takes a serious look at biological organisms from an engineering standpoint (as opposed to mindlessly accepting creationist propaganda about its "perfection") will have no choice but to conclude that there was no intelligence whatsoever behind it.
Extinction

The fossil record is full of species which are now extinct. More than 99% of the species in the history of this planet are now gone. This is extremely easy to explain with evolution theory, which predicts that changing environments and ruthless competition will drive some species into extinction while making others thrive.

But does "intelligent design" theory predict this? Absolutely not. Unless this "intelligent designer" is incredibly incompetent, it is hard to imagine why he would devote so much time to so many badly designed creatures, and then let them live for so long before creating competitive species that would wipe them out.

What explanation can be given? That the "intelligent designer" wasn't particularly good at his craft, so he had to keep tweaking and improving his initial designs? If so, then how does that differ from evolution theory, apart from the apparently redundant term that is our "intelligent designer"?
No major revisions

An intelligent designer will occasionally make the effort to discard legacy design considerations. Sometimes, we'll recognize that a design has become so convoluted that it would be better to start from scratch, rather than continuing to tweak the existing mess. Other times, we'll carefully pick through a design, replacing certain sub-optimal components with redesigned parts and eliminating wasteful redundancies or weak points.

Does the imaginary "intelligent designer" responsible for our biosystem do this? Not exactly. In fact, there is not one example anywhere of fresh starts, new ideas, sudden left turns, or any of the other kinds of occasional major revisions that are typical of real large-scale, intelligent design. Instead, this "intelligent designer" appears to be the most unimaginative designer in the universe, having never once, in billions of years and millions of species, created a biological structure which didn't resemble a modification upon some kind of antecedent!

One might try to argue that our intelligent designer, being omniscient and omnipotent, designed his first cellular organism so well, with such foresight that no sudden and dramatic design revisions were ever required. But that flies in the face of the countless wrong turns taken in the evolutionary history of this planet (eg. extinct species), not to mention the severe debilitating effect of "legacy hardware" in our biological "design". In other words, if he were so damned smart, then why did he screw up so many times, and why aren't we better designed?

There are countless examples of sub-optimal design in the human body. For example, the aforementioned examples of our breathing apparatus and our eyeball design are obviously sub-optimal. Also, why is the skull so thin (particularly in the temples), even though this greatly increases the probability that a blow to the head will damage the vulnerable brain inside? There are, in fact, a huge number of sub-optimal design characteristics found in nature (see the Jury-Rigged Design FAQ at TalkOrigins.org for examples).
Conclusion

"Intelligent Design" proponents are fond of claiming that "evolutionists" always approach the data with the wrong mindset (ie- not the "design" mindset). However, if we do approach it from an engineering mindset as they suggest, and we apply due diligence in that analysis, we will quickly find that the biological "product line" is such an egregious example of jury-rigged, half-assed design that no one in his right mind would ever attribute it to an intelligent designer, never mind one who is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible.

....and....

Science, the Grand Illusion,
and Other Neat Stuff
Prologue

Silence hangs over the intellectual battlefield. Arguments, hiding in terror amid the filthy trenches, await the order to charge. Lookouts peer through binoculars at the distant enemy lines, looking for signs of activity after the recent shelling. Some of the arguments are new, some are war-weary veterans, and some are aged and wounded, and would have been sent home a long time ago but for the callous apathy of their superiors.

The call is given. The officer points to his best arguments. Objectivity, science, and logic, get up! Charge! Up and over they go, charging into the teeth of the enemy guns, battle hymns ringing in their heads. Bravely they run, heroically they fight. The officer smiles.

Unfortunately, their names appear to have been chosen in a fit of unfounded optimism, for they promptly trip over themselves. And when they finally regain their footing, they discover to their chagrin that the shelling had less effect on the enemy's defenses than they thought. They find themselves in a killing zone of intellectual machine gun fire and mortar shells. Their remains are soon scattered across the battlefield, and the stench of philosophical blood, entrails, and feces wafts through the air. The officer's smile vanishes.
What Happened?

Objectivity, science, and logic are nice words. Everyone likes to say that he's got them, and the other guy doesn't. But what are they? How do you know that you're not pasting the terms "objectivity," "science", and "logic" onto things which are none of the above? Well, they are just English words, and words have definitions, right? Let's start by looking at what Merriam-Webster has to say:

Definition of objectivity (excluding obsolete medieval definitions or irrelevant definitions relating to test-taking and language syntax):

1.

of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
2.

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Definition of science (excluding irrelevant definitions):

1.

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Definition of scientific method (required by previous definition):

1.

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Definition of logic

1.

a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning.

Hmmm ... do you feel enlightened yet? Probably not. The definition of logic is basically worthless, and simply refers to "reasoning" (and if you look up "reasoning", you find yourself being taken to "reason", and then to "rational", and through the rest of a long circular ride which goes nowhere). Perhaps a better way to describe it is to simply say that logic is the means through which you determine all of the ramifications of a premise. It's a way of taking a premise and "holding it up to the light" in order to see where it leads. In and of itself, however, logic tells us nothing. It requires a premise, and the validity of its conclusions is dependent upon the validity of that premise.

The definition of science simply refers to scientific method, and the scientific method is not very thoroughly defined. At least the definition of objectivity is useful. If an argument is objective, it is not based upon subjective factors. If a phenomenon is objective, it exists outside of an individual's thoughts.

So what now? A more thorough explanation of logic is beyond the scope of this document, and I'm really not the best person to do it anyway (I suggest you go look for a philosophy website if you're interested in that subject). However, I can take you through a brief examination and justification of the scientific method. What is it, and why do we praise it? Why do scientists conduct their professional lives by it, and why do engineers trust it?
What makes Science so Great?

Philosophy is an interesting subject (the best debates always took place in philosophy class). However, philosophers can exhibit a tendency to haughtily dismiss practicality in favour of absolutes. A common philosophical rebuttal of science (particular evolutionary science, which faces powerful religious opponents) is that it lacks certainty. It is not proven. There is no guarantee of its truth or falsehood. And guess what: surprise! It's all true.

So why is science great, if it's not certain or proven or guaranteed true? The short answer is that these criticisms are meaningless, because nothing outside the existence of your own thoughts is certain, proven, or guaranteed true. If you wish to use absolute proof, certainty, or guarantees of truth as your litmus test for validity, then you have just subscribed to solipsism: the belief that nothing can be reliably known besides the existence of your own thought. Why? Because nothing can be absolutely proven beyond "I think therefore I am". Nothing is absolutely certain beyond "I think therefore I am". Nothing can be guaranteed true beyond "I think therefore I am". For all you know, nothing exists beyond your own mind, and the entire universe is but a figment of your imagination.

"But that's absurd," you might object, and you would be right. Solipsism strikes virtually any reasonable observer as patently absurd. For most people, solipsism smacks of philosophy gone awry, or perhaps a perverse desire to denigrate every other field of study by declaring all of them to be uncertain supposition in one fell swoop. The salty description of solipsism is "useless smart-assed philosophical bullshit", and to be quite frank, that's a fairly reasonable description. But since solipsism is the inevitable outcome of the demand for absolute proof, certainty, or guarantees, one cannot demand such things without inadvertently sliding into solipsism! This is not a slippery slope; solipsism is the direct result of the decision to accept only that which is absolutely certain, proven, or guaranteed true.

So if we must abandon absolute certainty, proof, and guarantees of truth, what do we have left? The answer is simple practicality: the driving force behind engineering and science. Perhaps sensory observation is not real. However, it is the only information which we have at our disposal, so we might as well use it. Is it real? Is it all a grand illusion? Who cares? The point is that it seems to be quite consistent, ie- the universe described by our sensory observations seems to follow consistent rules. We want to know what those rules are, so we need to employ a systematic, logical method, ie- the scientific method. And for any given phenomenon, we must generate a theory to explain the rules which govern it.

Science is great because it accepts that we cannot have absolute knowledge of truth, so it discards the hopeless quest for absolute truth and it seeks the next best thing: the most accurate possible descriptive model of the observable universe. It discards the useless question of whether the observable universe is real, and seeks only to describe that universe as accurately as possible, with no regard for whether it is real or not.
Common Questions

Question: Given competing theories explaining observed phenomena, how do we know which one is the truth?

Answer: We don't, and we can't. We can only eliminate invalid theories, and figure out which of the remaining theories is the best.

Question: How do we know which theories are invalid?

Answer: Invalid theories are logically inconsistent, they violate fundamental laws, or they have been falsified through testing.

Question: How do we know which theory is the best?

Answer: Once invalid theories have been eliminated, the best theory is the one which has been most thoroughly tested, and which made the most accurate predictions using the least number of terms.

Question: How do we test a theory?

Answer: Generate predictions using that theory. Compare those predictions to observation taken after the predictions are made. Ideally, those observations should be taken under controlled conditions (ie- a controlled experiment), but failing that, one can consider each new observation "in the wild" as an impromptu experiment. For example, every fossil discovery since Darwin has been an "experiment" of sorts: will this newly discovered fossil's age and nature fit with the predictions of Darwinian evolution, or not?

Question: Why do we want the least number of terms?

Answer: This is the logical principle of parsimony, known in this context as Occam's Razor. The basic idea is that if theory A is just as accurate as theory B but requires more terms, then those extra terms must be redundant. This will be a familiar concept to any mathematician; if you have two equations for a curve-fit and both are equally accurate, then the one which accomplishes this task with the least number of terms is superior. For example, since God is inscrutable, the inclusion of God cannot give a scientific theory any predictive capabilities that it didn't have before. Therefore, God is a redundant term, and that's why it is never found in any legitimate scientific theory.

Question: What if a theory is unfalsifiable?

Answer: Then it cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, then it will lose to any theory which makes accurate predictions and can be tested.

Question: You invalidate theories if they violate fundamental laws. But fundamental laws are just widely accepted theories. Is this a form of circular logic? How can you absolutely disprove a theory with another theory?

Answer: You cannot. Absolutes are the useless realm of solipsists. However, a valid scientific theory must be consistent with all of our physical observations of the universe, not just a particular subset of those observations. By forcing a theory to be consistent with so-called fundamental laws, we are harmonizing it with the most accurate known descriptions of the largest possible number of observations. In effect, we are using a short-cut to quickly test our theory against a vast number of observations (those covered by the so-called fundamental laws) which would otherwise be outside the scope of our study. For example, if a theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, it would violate a theory which has been tested by every documented scientific observation in the history of mankind, which means that it fails an enormous number of tests before we even start to look at its specifics.

Question: Scientists and engineers trust the work of other researchers without necessarily verifying it themselves. Theories gain acceptance based on mass consensus among qualified scientists. Isn't this a form of appeal to authority or worse yet, appeal to popularity?

Answer: No. If they said "this is absolutely proven true because another scientist said so", then it would be an appeal to authority, but this is not the case. When a scientist or engineer applies an accepted theory which he has not personally tested, he is merely using the best known theory. Again, this is mere practicality; he cannot be absolutely certain that it is true, but it's the best tool he has to work with, so he's going to use it.

Question: Scientists have been wrong in the past. Doesn't this fact serve as indictment of the scientific method?

Answer: Of course they've been wrong in the past. Science makes no claims of omniscience or infallibility. However, the fact that their theories were eventually discarded is proof that the scientific method does work as advertised; it ruthlessly tests its own theories and destroys them if and when superior theories come along. Far from showing that science is weak, the public disclosure of past scientific errors shows that science continues to grow and improve, and will not lapse into mindless inflexible dogma the way religious fundamentalism has.

Question: But if you're not absolutely certain that scientific theories are correct, why should we have faith in them?

Answer: You shouldn't. "Faith" is a religious concept, and science does not ask for it. We do not have "faith" in scientific theories, but we do recognize that they constitute the best available description of the natural universe. Other descriptions exist (such as the stories of primitive mythologies), but while we cannot be absolutely certain that they are wrong, we can say that based on logic and all the objective evidence at hand, they are demonstrably inferior to those of science.

Question: What if the scientific community is engaged in a international conspiracy of lies, and they're in collusion to cover up the best theories in favour of inferior theories by distorting the facts and fabricating evidence?

Answer: Then science becomes useless. Scientists would injure their own profession. However, while a small number of individual scientists have committed fraud in the past, most would agree that the possibility of a systemic global conspiracy of lies in a profession whose entire basis is factual accuracy, honest research, and independent verification is so far-fetched, so fanciful, and so patently absurd that it cannot be accepted by any reasonable person. This is even more clear when one realizes that engineers would be forced to abandon scientific theories because their fraudulent nature could lead to disaster, and that a scientist can enhance his professional stature by exposing a fraud (eg- Piltdown Man) or overturning a long-standing theory (eg- Shoemaker). There is no incentive for anyone to help anyone else cover up the facts.
So Why the Praise?

Let's return to the earlier question: why do we praise objectivity, science, and logic in discussions of natural phenomena?

If you've been following along, then you will know from the dictionary definition that we praise objectivity in this context because natural phenomena are objective by definition, so the inclusion of subjective phenomena is a red herring. You will also know that we praise logic not because it tells us anything, but because it ensures that the conclusion really does follow from the premise (think of objectivity and logic as a combined machine; objectivity defines usable premises and logic tells us how to get from there to the conclusion). And finally, you will know that we praise science because it works. Not because it's certain, or proven, or guaranteed true, but because we lack omniscience, the scientific method is the next best thing, and it gives us the best possible theories. Since "guaranteed true" is not available, then "best possible" will have to do.

All three are tied together under the banner of science; in order to discuss natural phenomena, one is automatically restricting oneself to discussion of objective phenomena. In order to ensure that conclusions really do follow from premises, one must avoid pollution from subjective influences and restrict oneself to logical reasoning. In order to be scientific, one must employ logic and concern oneself only with objective phenomena. So while it is possible to be objective without being scientific or logical, or to be logical without being objective or scientific, it is not possible to be scientific without also being logical and objective.
Back to Square One

So why did I describe logic, objectivity, and science being cut down in intellectual battle? The answer is that I didn't. I described three arguments which were named logic, objectivity, and science being cut down in intellectual battle. Logic, science, and objectivity are all real concepts, but most people who throw those terms around know only that they are good things. They do not necessarily know what they truly mean.

Modern western society values rationalism and objectivity, but as far as most people are concerned, they are just rhetorical terms, to be used in place of "good" when you want to sound intelligent. They trust science not because they understand it, have studied it, or even know why it's useful, but because they are taught to view scientists as authorities, and they are taught to appeal to those authorities. And why? Because of shamefully widespread rote-learning methods, used in place of genuine education.

Rote-learning methods teach facts and conclusions without really teaching kids how to reason their way from one to the other. They teach concepts not by justifying them, but by forcing them down kids' throats as dogma. For many people in this society, science is taught to them in the form of religion: as a set of laws laid down by authorities, known to be true because scientists have superior intelligence and knowledge. It would be an enormous understatement to say that this is unwise, and it's not surprising that in this context, some people try to merge science with religion. Since they were taught science as if it's a religion, then why shouldn't they treat it as if it's religion? Small wonder, then, that some people refer to science as a cold, soulless religion; they judge it as a religion, and of course, it comes up wanting.

Unfortunately, rote-learning methods are very popular (and will continue to be so) for four reasons:

1.

Speed: you can rapidly drill information into a student's head with good retention through rote-learning methods. This makes it an excellent tool for organizations such as military recruiters, who need to train large numbers of students in short periods of time. It is also useful for unscrupulous teachers who wish their students to do well on standardized tests and don't particularly care whether they have actually learned anything.
2.

Convenience: drilling and other rote-learning methods are very convenient for the teacher. They require very little effort, and far less skill or subject knowledge than individual concept-based instruction. Again, this is useful for unscrupulous or under-qualified teachers. It is no secret that there is a skills shortage in science education (at least, in Canada and the United States), and rote-learning allows someone to "teach" a subject even if he does not understand it.
3.

Effectiveness: given their limited goals (mindless memorization of facts rather than genuine comprehension), rote-learning methods do work. If those limited goals are acceptable (again, military recruitment comes to mind; enlisted men are taught through rote-learning methods while officers receive more conceptual learning), then rote-learning is highly effective, and there is no reason to stop using it.
4.

Avoidance of criticism: rote-learning methods are a low-level form of brainwashing. When combined with various forms of deprivation, isolation, and/or drug treatment, they are a full-blown method of brainwashing. Taliban "schools" in Afghanistan made students mindlessly recite the words of the Koran, never allowing them to question or discuss it. Catholic schools used to do the same thing with the Bible in the first half of the last century (back when Adolf Hitler attended; perhaps this was part of the problem?), as well as various apocryphal texts and (especially) certain ritualistic prayers and penances, never allowing students to question their validity. Military training forces soldiers to follow procedures over and over and over, never allowing them to question those procedures. The human brain is a pattern recognition machine, and sufficient repetition imprints a pattern onto the brain regardless of logical objections.

As we can see, there are many strong motivations to use rote-learning methods. Some of them are practical, some of them are arguably immoral. However, none of them mean that rote learning produces a person who actually understands the subject. At best, it produces someone with a preliminary knowledge base who might go on to understand the subject, either through innate intelligence or further study. At worst, it produces someone for whom the teaching is accepted on a quasi-religious basis, and who has lost the intellectual capacity to analyze it rationally. Such a person may be deluded into thinking that he has logic, objectivity, and science on his side in intellectual battle, when in reality, he does not. All he has is inexperienced soldiers with the wrong equipment, and the wrong names on their dog-tags.

What's the moral of this story? If you want to talk about science in a debate, make sure you know what it is and what it isn't, before you begin. You'll save everybody a lot of time that way.

Heh. Long, but worth reading. :)

I couldn't agree more. Scientists simply saying things have been there forever does not answer anything because there is no such thing as infinity, it simply does not exist.


Uh, pay attention to your own posts. YOU were the one saying the Big Bang is false because we cannot take you back to the moment before it happened. Now you're backpedalling over your own argument.


But just for fun, "there is no such thing as infinity, it simply does not exist" and "saying things have been there forever does not answer anything"...hmmm...

So, how long will your God live, and how long has be been there?

Oh, we changed subjects then. So the purpose of life is to provide one's self with he greatest possible probablility of surviving and passing down one's genes? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth (if that can be considered a valid expression for message boards) as much as ensuring that I am understanding.

You are largely correct regarding my point of view. While I am not exactly attracting a mate by writing on this message board, I am honing my argumentative skills which are necessary in so many occupations, as well as social functions. Having a high paying job (attorney) does attract a mate, and being able to get my way in life through argument will undoubtedly improve me.

I am not serving god in any way on this post, yet I still derive satisfaction from it.

You don't think flat earth? lol My arguement against evolution is not based on the Bible. It is based on discrepancies, flaws, and hoaxes in the theory. For example, the Cambrian Explosion. Also, the Stanley-Miller experiment did not use correct atmosphere, Haeckal's embryo's were doctored, and the cell is an irreducibly complex system.

It would appear you are loosely throwing together phrases.... how is 'a cell' irreducibly complex? Which cell?

What about a 'Cmbrian Explosion'?

Sorry, my friend, but I'm having to assume you are a puppet troll. If I don't see something worth debating, this thread is effectively going to be ignored.

You don't think that scientists in ancient and Mideavel times were regarde as "theoretica?" In my opinion, we still have a limited knowledge of the physical universe.

Science in the Middle Ages was not science. They relied on faulty logic and no experimentation. With the knowledge we have today about the big bang it is obvious that we will soon hit a brick wall beyond which nothing is testable (experiments being at the foundation of all science) making all future endeavors to explain purely speculative and not at all scientific.

Scientists simply saying things have been there forever does not answer anything because there is no such thing as infinity, it simply does not exist.


Kazyole, how long will your God live and how long has He been there?

Science in the Middle Ages was not science. They relied on faulty logic and no experimentation. With the knowledge we have today about the big bang it is obvious that we will soon hit a brick wall beyond which nothing is testable (experiments being at the foundation of all science) making all future endeavors to explain purely speculative and not at all scientific.

There we differ, my friend. I still think we have much to learn, and I crave an alternative explanation to "God did it."

I couldn't take you to the moment, because "moment" is a measurement of time. There was no time befire the Universe was created.
If that is not a problem with your "theory", then what is the problem with saying the same about a physical theory?

The universe couldn't have started from nothing, so he is needed.

Perhaps it didn't start, perhaps it always existed, like your God.

So, how long will your God live, and how long has be been there?
god is not an entity of this dimension and therefore is not bound by our own limitations. It would be like a 3D person living in a Cartoon.

It would appear you are loosely throwing together phrases.... how is 'a cell' irreducibly complex? Which cell?

What about a 'Cmbrian Explosion'?

Sorry, my friend, but I'm having to assume you are a puppet troll. If I don't see something worth debating, this thread is effectively going to be ignored.


If you take the cillia away from a cell, it will not perform it's function. So how could it evolve, one piece at a time? The cambrian explosion was a biological big bang in which dozens of new phyla suddenly appeared. it went from unicelluar organisms straight to advanced multicellular phyla, leaving no time for evolution.

The universe couldn't have started from nothing, so he is needed.

On the contrary - since we have no reason to believe that the universe needs a 'creator' any more than 'god' needs a creator, your 'god' is not only NOT needed, but also 'needs' a creator exactly as much as (you argue) the universe does...

Perhaps it didn't start, perhaps it always existed, like your God.

Perhaps, but there is virtually no evidence to back that up. It is the consensus within the scientific community that the Universe had a beginning.

If you take the cillia away from a cell, it will not perform it's function. So how could it evolve, one piece at a time? The cambrian explosion was a biological big bang in which dozens of new phyla suddenly appeared. it went from unicelluar organisms straight to advanced multicellular phyla, leaving no time for evolution.

No time for evolution? I thought the Cambrian explosion took place over millions of years. Evolution, as proposed by Steven Jay Gould, can take place very rapidly over a short amound of time. This is called punctuated equillibrium, as opposed to Darwin's gradual evolution.

Perhaps it didn't start, perhaps it always existed, like your God.

exactly

god is not an entity of this dimension and therefore is not bound by our own limitations. It would be like a 3D person living in a Cartoon.

Speaking of which, wasn't that a great episode of the Simpsons?

"there could be cubes in there the size of gorillas!"

Perhaps, but there is virtually no evidence to back that up. It is the consensus within the scientific community that the Universe had a beginning.

Funny you should quote a consensus of the scientific community. :p

There we differ, my friend. I still think we have much to learn, and I crave an alternative explanation to "God did it."

Believe me when I say I would like to know exactly how it happened just as much as you would. That understanding unfortunately will never come to us through science alone. Science itself is coming closer and closer to the point beyond which we can not create a testable hypothesis, making it not science, but rather faith.

god is not an entity of this dimension and therefore is not bound by our own limitations. It would be like a 3D person living in a Cartoon.


You didn't answer the question. If God is not bound by our limitations, does he exist in the "infinity" that you say doesn't exist? Was he there in the "forever" that you say answers nothing?

Don't you think its a little hypocritical?

Answer the question: How long will your God live and how long has he been there? (And remember, you don't believe infinity or forever)

Perhaps, but there is virtually no evidence to back that up. It is the consensus within the scientific community that the Universe had a beginning.

what evidence is there that it did have a beginning. i think that most people just take this as an assumption.

If you take the cillia away from a cell, it will not perform it's function. So how could it evolve, one piece at a time? The cambrian explosion was a biological big bang in which dozens of new phyla suddenly appeared. it went from unicelluar organisms straight to advanced multicellular phyla, leaving no time for evolution.
The cambrian explosion took place over millions of years. Plenty of time.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):

1. A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.

2. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).

3. The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).

4. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.

5. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.

6. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

Believe me when I say I would like to know exactly how it happened just as much as you would. That understanding unfortunately will never come to us through science alone. Science itself is coming closer and closer to the point beyond which we can not create a testable hypothesis, making it not science, but rather faith.

We can always test a hypothesis. That is a tenet of the scientific method.

There is still a debate about whether a virus is living or not.
Take a look at this:
http://www.chick.com/tractimages59198/0055/0055_12.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages59198/0055/0055_13.gif
He didn't say virus are alive, only that a cell is not "irreduceably complex". At the start of the process that brought about the first cell was something that was not life.

And, yes, those are funny. But I thought you were on the creationist side, why do you post stuff that parody them?

If you take the cillia away from a cell, it will not perform it's function. So how could it evolve, one piece at a time? The cambrian explosion was a biological big bang in which dozens of new phyla suddenly appeared. it went from unicelluar organisms straight to advanced multicellular phyla, leaving no time for evolution.

What functions do you believe that cillia serve?

You apparently have little or no understanding of the 'cambrian explosion' if you believe it was an instantaneous event being theorised....

Answer the question: How long will your God live and how long has he been there? (And remember, you don't believe infinity or forever)

I believe we will never understand the existance of an almighty, not being of the same dimension. Let it suffice to say that I believe time in our dimension to be a segment, rather than a line. I do not know what happened at the beginning because i do not know the length of the segment, and do not claim to, but I can say with confidence that science will never take us to before the instant of the big bang without itself becoming faith-based.

I believe we will never understand the existance of an almighty, not being of the same dimension. Let it suffice to say that I believe time in our dimension to be a segment, rather than a line. I do not know what happened at the beginning because i do not know the length of the segment, and do not claim to, but I can say with confidence that science will never take us to before the instant of the big bang without itself becoming faith-based.

If this god is not of our dimension, how does he affect our affairs?

You are largely correct regarding my point of view. While I am not exactly attracting a mate by writing on this message board, I am honing my argumentative skills which are necessary in so many occupations, as well as social functions. Having a high paying job (attorney) does attract a mate, and being able to get my way in life through argument will undoubtedly improve me.

I am not serving god in any way on this post, yet I still derive satisfaction from it.
I would suggest that an argument is not beneficial. All arguments do is serve as a means to reject information. What I would consider more beneficial is a discussion where each person can contribute information and walk away with a better understanding than what they started with. That is not to say that I would want someone to believe something they know to be false as much as be able to absorb information and reconcile it within their own paradigm. A paradigm shift is only necessary when one's model for reality fails to account for certain phenomena.

The problem here is where does one's life end and everyone else's life begin? People exist because all sorts of other things exist: food, water, air, telephone sanitizers, etc. Taking care of those things is as important as taking care of one's self. For that matter, where is the distinction between watering a plant and eating the plant? In a sense, you are watering your own life.

I couldn't take you to the moment, because "moment" is a measurement of time. There was no time befire the Universe was created.

"Time" is an illusionary measurement, created by slow linear minds. It's a simple measurement of "when", when there is no evidence that there was ever a "beginning" or even an "end".

Humans are used to thinking in terms of beginning, middle, and end. Books have them, the human lifespan has them. The day has them.

Now, does the universe have a beginning and an end? That's... highly debatable. Since the physical laws of the universe state that neither energy nor matter can be created nor destroyed, only changed in form, then the stron possibility is that the unverse, in one form or another has always been here. There is no beginning or end, only a constant flux of energy and matter. Scientists are still exploring the universe, and one day may have the answer. Until that happens, it's irrational to assume that the universe had a "beginning", or that it was created, or play "god of the gaps". Don't assume that just because we don't know the answers now, that we won't ever know, or default it to an upprovable divine entity.

We can always test a hypothesis. That is a tenet of the scientific method.

That is my very point, soon we will not be able to hypothesize, but rather speculate, as it is impossible to replicate in a lab the conditions before the Big Bang. Also, much of science today is faith-based. For example, the law of conservation of mass. Scienctists simply believe that because matter has been here for as long as we know, that it cannot be created nor destroyed, knowing full well that there is no such thing as infinity and matter must have had a beginning, and will have an end.

I believe we will never understand the existance of an almighty, not being of the same dimension. Let it suffice to say that I believe time in our dimension to be a segment, rather than a line. I do not know what happened at the beginning because i do not know the length of the segment, and do not claim to, but I can say with confidence that science will never take us to before the instant of the big bang without itself becoming faith-based.

Believe anything you want about what you will never understand. But please stop projecting the limitations of your belief structure on others.

Basically, if you say "The Big Bang is false because you can't take me back to the instant before it", the you must hold "God" to the same standard.

Besides, you later agreed that the "moment" in question doesn't exist, so using it as a standard of testing is ridiculous, no?

My point is this, Kazyole. You are applying a tremendous double standard. You claim an idea is false because of a certain standard, but when the same standard is applied to your own ideas, you say "Oh, well, we'll never understand why".

I would suggest that an argument is not beneficial. All arguments do is serve as a means to reject information. What I would consider more beneficial is a discussion where each person can contribute information and walk away with a better understanding than what they started with. That is not to say that I would want someone to believe something they know to be false as much as be able to absorb information and reconcile it within their own paradigm. A paradigm shift is only necessary when one's model for reality fails to account for certain phenomena.

The problem here is where does one's life end and everyone else's life begin? People exist because all sorts of other things exist: food, water, air, telephone sanitizers, etc. Taking care of those things is as important as taking care of one's self. For that matter, where is the distinction between watering a plant and eating the plant? In a sense, you are watering your own life.

You are talking about this act being beneficial to the whole planet, or just mankind; I talk of bettering myself and only myself. For this point, an argument is better.

My opinion is that animals are only concerned with themselves. Everything can be traced to selfishness. There is no intrinsically selfless act.

That is my very point, soon we will not be able to hypothesize, but rather speculate, as it is impossible to replicate in a lab the conditions before the Big Bang. Also, much of science today is faith-based. For example, the law of conservation of mass. Scienctists simply believe that because matter has been here for as long as we know, that it cannot be created nor destroyed, knowing full well that there is no such thing as infinity and matter must have had a beginning, and will have an end.
Ah, no, the conservation of mass has been disproven. A while back. See the atomic bomb. That's what e=mc^2 is. The conversion between energy and mass.

That is my very point, soon we will not be able to hypothesize, but rather speculate, as it is impossible to replicate in a lab the conditions before the Big Bang. Also, much of science today is faith-based. For example, the law of conservation of mass. Scienctists simply believe that because matter has been here for as long as we know, that it cannot be created nor destroyed, knowing full well that there is no such thing as infinity and matter must have had a beginning, and will have an end.

I think we can agree to disagree on this point.

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing. The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter. Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.
I choose Door Number 3.

The universe is eternal.

Yet you adhere to the concept of an inherently benevolent, beneficient and omniscient deity who contrives, contrary to Biblical depictions of his character, to elect to make mortal life as dull, dreary, mundane and bereft of excitement as possible..... :rolleyes:
"God" didn't do that to you. You do it to yourself. :p

If this god is not of our dimension, how does he affect our affairs?

Quite simply we never will know. Just as we must accept some of science at face value without explaination or hope for one (and you do), I accept that in some way he/she (we can't really classify gender as god is quite obviously in all senses accepted to be not human or of this world) does.

Scienctists simply believe that because matter has been here for as long as we know, that it cannot be created nor destroyed, knowing full well that there is no such thing as infinity and matter must have had a beginning, and will have an end.

Actually, most scientists have taken enough basic calculus to understand the concepts of limits, and the percumbent premises of infinity.

Tell me, Kazyole, how many discrete points exist within any bounded space?

And, yes, those are funny. But I thought you were on the creationist side, why do you post stuff that parody them?
Sadly, Chick isn't a parody. He's many things, such as a waste of oxygen, but he isn't a parody.

Quite simply we never will know. Just as we must accept some of science at face value without explaination or hope for one (and you do), I accept that in some way he/she (we can't really classify gender as god is quite obviously in all senses accepted to be not human or of this world) does.

Quite refreshing to hear a believer in god say, "we will never know." I thought that everything was explained by god.

:D

You know, it is hard to believe that the Universe came from nothing.
Which is why the xer god created everything from nothing, right?


The only thing that COULD create time and space is somthing that trenscends time, space, and matter.
Prove that it was created.


Only one entity does that. A Judeo-Christian God. Really, all you Atheists, use your logic and reasoning. Something doesn't come from nothing.
Nothing doesn't exist, ontologically speaking. Therefore, the universe must have always existed. QED.

If you take the cillia away from a cell, it will not perform it's function. So how could it evolve, one piece at a time? The cambrian explosion was a biological big bang in which dozens of new phyla suddenly appeared. it went from unicelluar organisms straight to advanced multicellular phyla, leaving no time for evolution.
There is a theory of how a cell evolved. It is a bit too long to type here. As for the Cambrian Explosion, that has been refuted a long time ago. There were scientists talking about it, but at the time they lacked fossils from the time right before it. Now paleontologists have found fossils and seen that there was no "explosion", just normal evolution.

Quite simply we never will know. Just as we must accept some of science at face value without explaination or hope for one (and you do), I accept that in some way he/she (we can't really classify gender as god is quite obviously in all senses accepted to be not human or of this world) does.
Which parts of science must we accept at face value?

I'm saving that for my wrists. Remember kids- it's not "across the street", it's "down the road". :D
[ Gives you "down-the-road!" ] :D

I think we can agree to disagree on this point.

Indeed I believe we can. For the record, I do believe that the Big Bang is true, but needed a catalyst in the form of some higher being, as most all reactions do (all if you count the scientist as a catalyst). All I am trying to say is, all scientific experiments that aim to disprove the existance of god miss one critical point. If everything in our experiments is representative of actual events and quantities, who or what is it that the scientist that starts the experiment reprsents?

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296

Earth is a closed system. A closed system cannot take in materials, but it CAN take in energy.
Um ... metorites?

Unless you can be 100% sure God does not exist, put faith in him. I believe because even if I am wrong, and God doesn't exist, I have nothing to lose by my faith.

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296
Because it didn't happen by chance. You're helpfully ignoring all the little steps and environmental pressures that lead up to the cell forming.

Believe me when I say I would like to know exactly how it happened just as much as you would. That understanding unfortunately will never come to us through science alone. Science itself is coming closer and closer to the point beyond which we can not create a testable hypothesis, making it not science, but rather faith.
Where did you find that? The end of science has been talked about for at least a century, but it is not within sight yet. There are lots of experiments left to do, and when they have been done they will show the way to more ideas to test.

Scientists can test the background radiation of space. The background radiation is omni directional. It comes from every direction possible, not from the suspected Big Bang point of origin. So I would say that nothing could have "sparked" the bang.

And no, I'm not talking out of my ass. That kind of violates what we know about anatomy. :)

Ach!

This may have been addressed already, but, here goes...

The cosmic background radiation is the "fingerprint" of what we understand and name as "The Big Bang".

The cosmic background radiation does indeed appear to come from every direction, because there WAS no "point of origin". There is no "center of the universe", because the universe, at least as we understand it, began at a single point and has expanded vastly ever since.

Another way of putting it is that the "point of origin" of the Big Bang is "everywhere" on our universal horizon (about 15 billion or so light years out).

God is God, he's always been, there, read the Bible and you'll find out, that there is no reason in questioning God's existance
Oh, we certainly must never, ever question God's existence. After all, the Bible says he exists, so it must be true. But then, who wrote the Bible? Oh ... God did. So let me see if I have this straight: God exists because the Bible says he does, and the Bible must be true because God wrote it, yes? Hmm. What's wrong with this picture???

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296

How many opportunities (over the billions of years that Earth has existed) have there been for this random event to occur. My guess is more than 104,478,296.

Earth is a closed system. A closed system cannot take in materials, but it CAN take in energy.
Why would anyone think Earth is a closed system?

You are talking about this act being beneficial to the whole planet, or just mankind; I talk of bettering myself and only myself. For this point, an argument is better.

My opinion is that animals are only concerned with themselves. Everything can be traced to selfishness. There is no intrinsically selfless act.

Agreed that there is no selfless act. There is no point in doing anything unless there is some benefit to you. Where we seem to differ is what self is and what can be considered beneficial.

Consider this conversation: one could either say that we both own it or neither one of us owns it, yet we continue to contribute to it nonetheless because of the benefits gained from it: a somewhat interesting way to pass the time. It is either a portion of our lives or it is something separate from our lives.If it was separate from our lives, it would make no sense to contribute to it because that would be a selfless act, so I would say that it is part of our lives.

What do you think?

Humans, like animals, are irrational creatures who base judgement on chemical drives and complex hormones. "Happiness" is an illusion, merely a byproduct of these things.
"Happiness" is a state of mind which can be obtained by decision.

Quite refreshing to hear a believer in god say, "we will never know." I thought that everything was explained by god.

:D

Lol, I think it is the bane of our existance as humans to always know that the answer is out there, but never be able to find it. If you can ever definatively answer the question of creation with science, more power to you, but I believe that Science and Religion are merely two roads to the same ultimate destination, I hope to one day see you all there.

Um ... metorites?

meteorites when they DO land on earth, are so rare and minimal that it doesn't really affect the closed system thing. Earth is not absoltely a closed system.

A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296


Nobody is suggesting that loose organic moleluces randomly collide into a specific, fully formed cell.

Guess we'll put this one next to your earlier gems, like "A closed system can take in energy" and "The brain can hold 3,000,000 years worth of knowledge".

How many opportunities (over the billions of years that Earth has existed) have there been for this random event to occur. My guess is more than 104,478,296.


woops, thats supposed to be 10 to the 4,478,296th power

"Happiness" is a state of mind which can be obtained by decision.
And by the power of delusion.

Go us!

These accuzations are false, please explain to me, how nothing has a cause and so on. Also, There is no questioning a God's existance, but in otehr religions such as Hinduism, it explains how their gods came abou so read the holy books.
Yes, by all means read them. Then apply reason and logic. If they stand up, fine. If they don't, view them as good moral guides and historic chronicles, but little else.

Where did you find that? The end of science has been talked about for at least a century, but it is not within sight yet. There are lots of experiments left to do, and when they have been done they will show the way to more ideas to test.

I'm saying it will be impossible to replicate conditions before the big bang because they will be purely speculative and therefore not testable hypotheses.

Agreed that there is no selfless act. There is no point in doing anything unless there is some benefit to you. Where we seem to differ is what self is and what can be considered beneficial.

Consider this conversation: one could either say that we both own it or neither one of us owns it, yet we continue to contribute to it nonetheless because of the benefits gained from it: a somewhat interesting way to pass the time. It is either a portion of our lives or it is something separate from our lives.If it was separate from our lives, it would make no sense to contribute to it because that would be a selfless act, so I would say that it is part of our lives.

What do you think?

I am engaging in this conversation for the pleasure of rhetorically demolishing you as well as honing argumentative skills. This benefits me first, and, as a consequence, you. I am doing this out of no compassion for you. Sorry. This will be my last post.

woops, thats supposed to be 10 to the 4,478,296th power

My reply still stands.

I am engaging in this conversation for the pleasure of rhetorically demolishing you as well as honing argumentative skills. This benefits me first, and, as a consequence, you.
See? Ego can be a marvelous thing.

meteorites when they DO land on earth, are so rare and minimal that it doesn't really affect the closed system thing. Earth is not absoltely a closed system.
As much as I'm enjoying just watching, this is ridiculous.

Have you heard of the Sun? You know what it emits? ENERGY!!!

EARTH is NOT a closed system.

I think with human beings it's a bit more complicated than that. The positive/negative aspects of stimuli tend to be contextual. People go to gyms and work out, even though the process is painful, both during and after, but they see it as good because of what they anticipate the results to be.

Maslow probably defined what a person's purpose in life is: self-actualization. How does one know with any certainty how to get to that level and how does one know when they are there?
When you no longer have to decide to be happy because you're always "there."

meteorites when they DO land on earth, are so rare and minimal that it doesn't really affect the closed system thing. Earth is not absoltely a closed system.

And as soon as you introduce the idea of it not being an "absoltely" closed system, you eradicate your earlier statement that "the laws of thermodynamics make evolution impossible".

The worst part is your belief that a closed system can take in energy and still be closed. Do you understand that its the addition of energy to a system that allows it to become highly ordered without violating thermodynamics?

When you no longer have to decide to be happy because you're always "there."
:fluffle:

I am engaging in this conversation for the pleasure of rhetorically demolishing you as well as honing argumentative skills. This benefits me first, and, as a consequence, you.
I'm being demolished with benefit? Cool! :)
At any rate, real life calls. so I will leave you to carry on with others.

Be well.

Tell me then: what does science have to say about happiness and why do people want it so badly?

I recommend heading to your local library, taking out several stacks of books on philosophy, psychology, ethics, politics, religion, and so on, and integrating the knowledge they all contain. ;)

The universe couldn't have started from nothing, so he is needed.
Prove it.

As much as I'm enjoying just watching, this is ridiculous.

Have you heard of the Sun? You know what it emits? ENERGY!!!

EARTH is NOT a closed system.


Yeah, we pointed this out to him earlier, and he ignored it.

Yeah, we pointed this out to him earlier, and he ignored it.
Damn, I must have missed that one, and here I thought I was keeping up. :p