Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[cobra]

I think what I mean is, the universe and nature is just so unbelievable, so mind boggling, in some ways it almost takes a further stretch of imagination to think/believe it could have some completely naturalistic, materialistic, scientific cause as opposed to some kind of supernatural cause. In my opinion.

you are trapped in the common frame of mind that can't think past our own humanness - yes the universe is amazing but the unexplainable parts are more due to the limitations of our very natural brains than anything supernatural - thinking about the universe in a way of "i couldn't build the universe so it must of been built by a large more powerful version of me" seems like a very limited way of seeing existance

[Dr Woomanchu]

That is merely opinion though to be honest, and a number of scientists, particulary physicists, would probably disagree with you on that.



Aswell that...

I guess it comes down to different viewpoints, or which scientists you choose to listen to or ignore since there is no definitive answer at this point in time. (possibly never, for that matter...)

I doubt you will find a physicist claiming that the universe is not predictable and repeatable. Their entire livelihood is based on that very precept.  There's a great deal we don't understand yet, but time and time and time again, as new knowledge is uncovered, we find that predictions made based on physical laws are confirmed.

The theory of relativity for example, stemmed from Einstein accepting that momentum is always conserved, even though there was data that appeared to contradict that. It was his ability to work through the implications of momentum being conserved that lead to his incredible breakthrough. His theories led to predictions and when people did those experiments his predictions were confirmed. And yet in hindsight relativity is a simple concept, and the steps that lead to it from Newton's law can be understood by anyone with a good grasp of mathematics.

The universe is magnificently elegant. The basic laws that it functions under are simple and clear, however complex and chaotic the outcome of those rules are.

Maybe I'm weird but I have much less trouble comprehending the universe and its existence than I do understanding women.

[Slim]

Women, in my opinion, prove the existence of God; and that he hates us.

[huey31415]

wtf is this "Science vs Religion"? They're not mutually exclusive

[Arnifix]

wtf is this "Science vs Religion"? They're not mutually exclusive

The thread title is a joke, not the original title iirc because so many threads on religion have been moved in here.

[SteddieEddie]

Well, with that in mind, here are questions for the NONchristians among us to answer, to see what you guys DO believe in ...

Do you believe in:
- psychics/mediums/clairvoyants?
- ghosts/poltergeists/spirits?
- a soul in any shape/form?
- any kind of telepathic ability (no matter how big or small)?
- any form of spirituality at all?
- any shape/form of God or God-like being?

none of the above.
I used to believe in souls when younger but not now. I think we just become worm food

[nick247]

There's no proof at all that extraterrestrial life exists elsewhere in the universe, yet with the sheer size of the universe you would be pretty naive not to believe there is.


Just because something may or may not be proveable by the scientific method doesn't mean it does not exist or is not plausible. Any true scientist can admit that.

!

but the problem is that christianity goes a step too far and actually tries to say that XYand Z all happened without a doubt

So yes there was a jesus and he connected with god and he had powers and there are demons and there are angels and there is heaven and there was the garden of eden and eve ate an apple and THESE ARE SINS AND THESE ARE NOT SINS and i could go on and on

it would be like saying that yes there are aliens out there and i know exactly what they look like and what their spaceships would look like and what powers they have and what kind of society they have

AND i want one of the christians to step up and gives us more evidence of why THAT PARTICULAR VIEW of god is correct?

Why do i need to embrace jesus to get to god? seriously WHY? why do i need to go to church? why cant i sin? why do i have to repent? what proof do you have that this is the best method and that having sex with a horse and then sacrificing it is not a better method? answer it

[Arnifix]

Because horses are beautiful animals nick, and do not deserve to be sacrificed afterwards.

[nick247]

if we dont sacrifice after can we still have sex with them though? Im pretty sure ive seen it written in an ancient book that having sex with the horse is how we can achieve a relationship with god and that the horse willingly sacrifices itself for our sins

theres as much proof that this works as there is of anything else........actually theres more proof considering the amount of historical documents relating to animal sacrifice and animal sex and then there are many many stories of how these sacrifices led to miracles ..........only one bible though

if you like stories i recommend the aeniad, the Odyssey and the Iliad

[dirtyape]

I heard an audible voice that I couldn't attribute to anything other than God

Hearing voices is not divine, it is a sign of a mental illness. A form of hallucination. Have you considered that?

Mental illness is nothing to be embarrassed about either. We are all essentially fragile creatures.

Do you believe in:
- psychics/mediums/clairvoyants?
Possibly, there is no evidence that such cannot exist and we are very far away from comprehending the true nature of existence.
- ghosts/poltergeists/spirits?
See above.
- a soul in any shape/form?
See above.
- any kind of telepathic ability (no matter how big or small)?
See above.
- any form of spirituality at all?
See above.
- any shape/form of God or God-like being?
"God" is a theological noncognitivism, so if you cannot describe what you are asking then the answer is a definite no.

There is physical evidence that consciousness and dreams exist. Doctors can easily identify an unconscious brain, or a brain that is dreaming.

And does the physical exist? Physicality is a matter of perception in relation to physical laws. You cannot prove one without the other.

Does that make any sense?

I think what I mean is, the universe and nature is just so unbelievable, so mind boggling, in some ways it almost takes a further stretch of imagination to think/believe it could have some completely naturalistic, materialistic, scientific cause as opposed to some kind of supernatural cause. In my opinion.

Yes, human minds are not designed to mentally grasp such subjects. We cannot imagine 4 dimensional geometry properly yet alone grasp the existence of a 4+ dimensional universe at both the relativistic and quantum levels. But, we do try.

Well, I guess it is believable because the universe does exist, but you know what I mean... it's pretty crazy to think about how all it got here, how it is now and how everythings works ect.

Not really, not if you apply the anthropic principle. Us being here to examine a universe which permits our existence is an inevitability.

On a side note, physicists have recently determined that 1/3 of potential universes should be capable of supporting matter

To be fair, the fact that we as humans have developed from single celled organisms, yet alone an explosion of matter called the big bang, blows my goddamn mind.

Do I believe that we were made by God like the bible describes: no, that would be insane.  But who is to say that there is no intelligent design in the process of evolution.  I know that the evolution vs creationism thing has been done to death, and I don't want to start it up again, but to say that we understand everything is pretty unfair.  

I think, to be honest, you'll find we understand incredibly little.  Its just that we as a race, like to talk so much, and so loudly, about what we do know that a lot of people simply take this as believing that we know everything.

On a side note, I'd just like to make the observation on how good this thread has become since Psyche's ban came into order.

Does the formation of 3 dimensional crystalline structures also blow your mind? Your mind is only capable of processing 3 dimensional geometry, and the universe is at least 4 dimensional (we perceive the 4th as Time), so is it really that hard to imagine that 4 dimensional structures are also in existence? That we perceive them 3 dimensionally, and in so doing only see a portion of there complexity? Could this be construed as intelligence? Extra dimensional complexity, while we only see simplicity in our 3d perspective?

I'm afraid that simply not understanding something is not a valid reason to create a intelligent cause for existence in the form of a deity. It is presumptuous. An intelligent man realises he is really quite stupid in relation to knowledge of existence.

you are trapped in the common frame of mind that can't think past our own humanness - yes the universe is amazing but the unexplainable parts are more due to the limitations of our very natural brains than anything supernatural - thinking about the universe in a way of "i couldn't build the universe so it must of been built by a large more powerful version of me" seems like a very limited way of seeing existance

I agree. I don't know if your quotee is "trapped in a common frame of mind" though.

I doubt you will find a physicist claiming that the universe is not predictable and repeatable. Their entire livelihood is based on that very precept.  There's a great deal we don't understand yet, but time and time and time again, as new knowledge is uncovered, we find that predictions made based on physical laws are confirmed.

May I refer you to Quantum physics as I'm sure they will tell you that what you have claimed above is incorrect. In fact a core concept in physics today is the uncertainty principle that states you can never predict the location of any particle to within half a wavelength of light. I think therefore that you should perhaps study physics a bit before presuming to be an expert in it.

The fact that we have learned to deal with the unpredictable nature of existence does not mean that the universe in predictable. Far from it. If we could predict the universe we would have a grand unified theory, and we do not.

The theory of relativity for example, stemmed from Einstein accepting that momentum is always conserved, even though there was data that appeared to contradict that. It was his ability to work through the implications of momentum being conserved that lead to his incredible breakthrough. His theories led to predictions and when people did those experiments his predictions were confirmed. And yet in hindsight relativity is a simple concept, and the steps that lead to it from Newton's law can be understood by anyone with a good grasp of mathematics.

Relativity relies on nice predictions. At the macro level things are nice, maths works well, things are easy. But this is not the nature of reality, this is a description of the macro level of reality. Basically, it's an expansion on Newtons work.

The universe is magnificently elegant. The basic laws that it functions under are simple and clear, however complex and chaotic the outcome of those rules are.

Maybe I'm weird but I have much less trouble comprehending the universe and its existence than I do understanding women.

An intelligent man realises he is really quite stupid in relation to knowledge of existence.

Have you considered how your brain works in a 4 dimensional universe? How your thoughts occur? How your memory forms? Why you do not remember the future? What time is in relation to consciousness and existence, and perception of a physical universe?

There is much to be understood, and the fact that you think the universe is predictable makes me wonder. I think you have over drastically simplified things.

[ThaFleastyler]

Hearing voices is not divine, it is a sign of a mental illness. A form of hallucination. Have you considered that?

You're right - I must have a mental illness, given that I never heard that voice before, felt at the time that it was not any kind of internal monologue, don't believe myself to be the bearer of any kind of mental illness, and haven't heard that voice since. Not only that, but this voice guided me into a church, against my will (meaning, I had absolutely no intention of going to a church that day), where a preacher was speaking about the 'Still Small Voice of God' - the very thing that I believe had just happened to me.

Edit: To answer your question, 'have i considered that', the answer is yes. I've spoken to a psych person I know and I've read multiple texts/articles on the phenomena of 'hearing voices', and none of it convinced me thats what it was. Conversely, literally hundreds of instances of this phenomena are reported within the church; the fact that others have experienced the same thing, to me at least, validates my story.

:disappoin

Also, how can you claim to believe in all that other stuff, while not even acknowledging even the remote possibility of the existence of any God? It seems a little double-standard to me.

[Arnifix]

And does the physical exist? Physicality is a matter of perception in relation to physical laws. You cannot prove one without the other.

Does that make any sense?

I'll take some LSD and get back to you.

Sidenote: Yes, it makes sense. Since our arguments are based around the existance of the universe, it seems logical to assume that it does. If we can't assume the universe exists, specifically in the form we currently accept, we have entered the land of infinite turtles.

[Ngati_Grim]

O.K., these are my thoughts on these matters. Won't be surprising, I suspect.

Do you believe in:
- psychics/mediums/clairvoyants?

No, I believe that there are people who are very good at manipulating and reading people's reactions/responses, who prey on people's superstitions. As an aside, I can't stand that programme "Sensing Bullshit"....or at least that's what I think it should be called.

- ghosts/poltergeists/spirits?

No, I don't believe that they exist. I have had no personal experiences and in my investigations into these matters there seem to be elaborate hoaxes or overactive imaginations.

- a soul in any shape/form?

Personally, No, I don't believe in this.

- any kind of telepathic ability (no matter how big or small)?

If you call people living together for years and knowing each other so well that they can sometimes appear to be telepathic, then maybe....but the keyword here is 'sometimes'. It a coinkidink thing.

- any form of spirituality at all?

What do you mean by this? People 'feel' 'spiritual' about things, but I feel it's more to do with hormones etc (our physiology, central nervous system and cetera) than anything ethereal.

- any shape/form of God or God-like being?

Beatrice Dalle is pretty close, but she could only move the mountain in my pants (I wish)...
So, for me, No.

These are just my personal opinions. I'm not asking anyone to agree or disagree (though feel free to).

I guess MY Universe gets along fine without these.

[philo-sofa]

Yes, it makes sense. Since our arguments are based around the existance of the universe, it seems logical to assume that it does. If we can't assume the universe exists, specifically in the form we currently accept, we have entered the land of infinite turtles.

Naaah, isn't it a matter of debating what its apprent existence really means?  Physicality it in no way really implied by what we observe in the universe AFAIK...

[Arnifix]

Naaah, isn't it a matter of debating what its apprent existence really means?  Physicality it in no way really implied by what we observe in the universe AFAIK...

I'm working on the assumption that we are still operating in the realm of the physical and trying to establish a connection, or a lack of connection to the realm of God. For the time being at least, I'd prefer to not think of the universe as god, because that leads me to think of god being inside me and that makes me feel a little gay. Assuming god is a midget.

The next assumption to make is to assume that what we observe is real. To assume otherwise leads to the dark side.

[cobra]

The next assumption to make is to assume that what we observe is real. To assume otherwise leads to the dark side.

I get around that assumption by using "for all intensive purposes", because for all intensive purposes what we observe is real, it is useful to get around philosophical madness

[Dr Woomanchu]

There is much to be understood, and the fact that you think the universe is predictable makes me wonder. I think you have over drastically simplified things.

I wrote pat answers to many of the questions you posed, but it's impossible to do them any sort of justice at all in this context, so I'll frame my answer more generally.

This is a metaphysical debate that could span volumes. I'll just leave this with the observation that I have thought through the points you raise deeply and I disagree.

It is not required to know every detail to understand  something in general.
The answers to the questions you posed for example,all derive from the very straightfoward physical laws that the universe operates under. There is, as you say, much to be understood. My point is that based on  everything we've managed to learn to date, it's all understandable eventually.

The universe has demonstrated itself repeatedly to be predictable. All our knowledge, understanding, in fact our very existence depends on that. The issues at a quantum level in no way invalidate or threaten that. I think you've drastically overcomplicated things

May I refer you to Quantum physics as I'm sure they will tell you that what you have claimed above is incorrect. In fact a core concept in physics today is the uncertainty principle that states you can never predict the location of any particle to within half a wavelength of light. I think therefore that you should perhaps study physics a bit before presuming to be an expert in it.

EDIT
I missed this bit in your post. I was waiting for someone to squawk about quantum as well. It's a shame you were stupid enough to be patronising about it. it indicates a lack of understanding on your part.

The quantum level is a fascinating part of physics because it's one of the leading edges of our development in understanding of the universe. To date, every discovery in that area  has continued to fall within and reinforce the fundamental laws the universe operates under.  Heisenbergs  principle and the implications of it are more about our inability to measure at that level than any change in how the universe is operating.  The predictions we can make at a quantum level are probablisitic, but predictions can still be made.

You should have brought up some of the retrocausal implications of the arguments that Einsten and Bohrs had on this topic. That would have been a much better rebuttal attempt, than claiming that the measurement limitations inherent in Heisenbergs principle meant the universe wasn't predictable.

I'll stand by claim that the universe is a predictable place that operates under a set of consistent knowable laws.

[philo-sofa]

I'm working on the assumption that we are still operating in the realm of the physical and trying to establish a connection, or a lack of connection to the realm of God. For the time being at least, I'd prefer to not think of the universe as god, because that leads me to think of god being inside me and that makes me feel a little gay. Assuming god is a midget.

The next assumption to make is to assume that what we observe is real. To assume otherwise leads to the dark side.

I get around that assumption by using "for all intensive purposes", because for all intensive purposes what we observe is real, it is useful to get around philosophical madness

In spit of philosophical madness, the universe does not imply that it's physically real in the sense we understand it to be, that however doesn't imply that it's God.

But then again, as Cobra says it hardly matters that much, in the same sense that it doesn't matter that much to someone making 15th century maps that the world is round, not flat - it still has all the things that we associate with it, just no implied 'physical' nature, a way of thinking about the universe physics seems to have transcended, or made irrelevant.  

The caveat comes when you do come across a situation where the 'physical nature' clause is relevant, much like the maker of a 16th century map post Magellan's expedition - you can't simply use the 'effectively flat' argument to remove the fact that you can travel west to reach the far east and vice versa.

Similarly, we can't dismiss the vague implication that the universe is more implicitly analogous to a computational engine than a clod of matter.  To me this makes it more like a CPU than a God, but I feel the debate on the universe 'being' God may have to be argued out on those terms rather than simply saying it's physical.

Not really, not if you apply the anthropic principle. Us being here to examine a universe which permits our existence is an inevitability.

On a side note, physicists have recently determined that 1/3 of potential universes should be capable of supporting matter

Just to continue my trend of disagreeing with everyone (I'm trying to be Socratic...) the Anthropic priciple can't answer the common question of why the universe has produced an apparently special outcome whereby it supports intelligent life. It's fundamental that an observed universe must be able to support life, and thus it's utterly unsurprising that we are here viewing a life supporting universe, but unless there are multiple universes it appears 'special' that the one universe has this 'special quality'.

Other than arguing for the likely existence of other universes, it seems valid to question the assumption that life is special, as only cogniscent life or a God could define something as special - both of which appear circular in terms of arguing for the existence of God.

[Arnifix]

Sidenote: People in medieval times did not generally believe the earth was flat.

[philo-sofa]

Sidenote: People in medieval times did not generally believe the earth was flat.

Uneducated people generally did and a majority of sailors tended to fear it was; many firmly belived Magellan would sail off the edge of the world. In either case noting that the world was round was largely irrelevant up to a certain point.

[Ngati_Grim]

But the World isn't round. If it was it would still be flat!


It is, essentially, an oblate spheroid.

[philo-sofa]

But the World isn't round. If it was it would still be flat!


It is, essentially, an oblate spheroid.

An oblate spheroid is round.  

I never said spherical.

[Arnifix]

But the World isn't round. If it was it would still be flat!


It is, essentially, an oblate spheroid.

It is closer to round than it is to flat. Now stop nibbling at delicious bait.

[Ngati_Grim]

An oblate spheroid is round.  

I never said spherical.

'nasty wiki' link

I know you never....that was my introduction...and no, it's not round, more of an ellipsoid (round implies 2-D)

It is closer to round than it is to flat. Now stop nibbling at delicious bait.

Om nom nom nom

Round can be flat too, which is why I prefer spheroid, or ellipsoid

[ThaFleastyler]

:popcorn:

I'm loving that a thread dealing primarily with religion is being kept alive by a bunch of guys who don't believe in the effectiveness of religious institutions, arguing about who is more correct about the science that supposedly wipes religion out

Please, continue ...