Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Arnifix]

: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 ...

We're not arguing. We are collaborating.

[Black Heart]

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.

http://forums.iconzarena.co.nz/showpost.php?p=55929&postcount=87

page 3 dealt with this.

[philo-sofa]

'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)


Om nom nom nom

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

Earth's equatorial bulge was formed due to the rotation of the proto-earth, and its continued rotation... orly, U don't say??  :eek:

However, claiming that *deep breath* only a perfect sphere is round, and that it's incorrect to talk of a planet as being round seems a bit unfair and pedantic.  I'm not sure if this is the accepted scientific definition TBH, however dictionary.com defines round as being:

"......6. shaped more or less like a part of a sphere; hemispherical."

http://forums.iconzarena.co.nz/showpost.php?p=55929&postcount=87

page 3 dealt with this.

I have to go with what I learnt in a lecture about this, which was that many people did in fact believe the earth was round  - the historian in question went on for some time about how this affected Astronomy and so on.  In addition, it was used as an analogy for heaven's sake.

: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 ...

TBH Flea, "the science that wipes religion out" is a bit of a let down that the muppet that titled this thread would have been proud of. Ur making me sad

Also, we're not so much arguing about the science as exhibiting a devotion to logical reasoned debate, by debating a point of logic to find out who is correct.  Albeit seasoned with occasionaly bitch fights and totally academic smilies.

[Ngati_Grim]

I feel dirty, like a Vichy frog :disappoin


....and yes Philo, you're correct,I was being pedantic

[philo-sofa]

I feel dirty, like a Vichy frog :disappoin


....and yes Philo, you're correct,I was being pedantic

The question (to be pedantic) is were you correct?

Also, no one feels dirty like a Vichy, but a Vichy Frenchman.  Except maybe Charles De Gaulle.  He was even worse in the end.

[ThaFleastyler]

TBH Flea, "the science that wipes religion out" is a bit of a let down that the muppet that titled this thread would have been proud of. Ur making me sad

I was trying to be ironic

[philo-sofa]

I was trying to be ironic

O... I geddit.

Sorry, have your :popcorn: back.

[Ngati_Grim]

The question (to be pedantic) is were you correct?

Also, no one feels dirty like a Vichy, but a Vichy Frenchman.  Except maybe Charles De Gaulle.  He was even worse in the end.

Well, I believe I am. I have faith in my 1st Year Professor (going back a bit)


Re Monsieur De Gaulle: Yes, the gall of that Gaul!

[Turkish]

I doubt you will find a physicist claiming that the universe is not predictable and repeatable.

According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.

Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event. In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."

According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon.

When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.

Adds Dr. David D. Deutch:

If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.

The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:

The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125). Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of "Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of Life" was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department.

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

[KiLL3r]

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?
no they are all frauds using something that no one can ever prove (just like religion) to make money off others (just like religion)
- ghosts/poltergeists/spirits?
no. have never seen a ghost spirit myself or seen any credible evidence to suggest they exist
- a soul in any shape/form?
as above
- any kind of telepathic ability (no matter how big or small)?
no
- any form of spirituality at all?
no
- any shape/form of God or God-like being?
do super smart aliens count? otherwise no

i like quizzes

[Ngati_Grim]

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/creatorfacts.htm

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2003d/121203/121203a.php

http://www.2001principle.net/

O.k...that was an interesting read. However, I would like to see the same comments in a peer-reviewed Scientific Journal as opposed to a selection of Faith-based websites that generally prey on scientific illiteracy in the wider community.


(This was gained through a google search of the initial sentence:
http://www.google.com/search?q=According+to+growing+numbers+of+scientists%2C+the+laws+and+constants+of+nature+are+so+%22finely-tuned%2C%22+and+so+many+%22coincidences%22+have+occurred+to+allow+for+the+possibility+of+life%2C+the+universe+must+have+come+into+existence+through+intentional+planning+and+i&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGFB_enNZ221NZ222

...nice to see that a source was provided. It's o.k., I'm not psyched :heheh:)

[brucewillis2]

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

That sir is a gem!!

and that video posted on the other page was brilliant! people selling invisible, you say 'no', so they return the next day to try again. Also interesting the way he talks about people making enormous amounts of money off people believing in religion. shameful really, the greedy exploiting the needy.

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?

all no, just more made up stuff that people wish to believe in.

Nice big read there turkish, but so what. So they say the possibilities of us existing are incredibly small, but to say they are so impossibly small that some divine being must of created us. Its it like a cop out. We are still learning and still discovering things. To say we should know everything is silly, and if we don't then the only other possibility is a universe planned by a greater intelligence.

It's like gravity, back in the days we didn't understand it so guys like those professors would say "it makes no sense so some invisible hand must be pushing things back down"

[nick247]

thats a good post, very interesting, and good use of logic.

My only problem is with these scientists = "According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence"

I reckon for them to claim that it must have been created is a big call. I think when you step away from proving that something IS and start discussing the possibility of something that is when you can get a really interesting debate going which is what i can see happening here. It becomes more about arguing the existance of doubt and possibility than firm absolutes

Also when dealing with the universe i believe probability is not quite the same as flipping a coin 100 times. Because if you are dealing with infinity then probability goes out the window................................

Also the doesnt the existance of intelligence bring about its own set of unlikeliness, ie wouldnt it be more likely that these things would occur naturally than they would occur PLUS be a result of intelligence?

[cobra]

thats a good post, very interesting, and good use of logic.

its almost like psyche didn't write it........

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

ctrl c ctrl v

[dirtyape]

According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

No. This concept is obsolete. Recent studies show that about 1/4 of potential universes would support stars.

Ref:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35363/title/Stars_ablaze_in_other_skies

[philo-sofa]

^^ And the frontiers of science keep on rolling forward..

It would be interesting to know whether those broadly defined stars would produce heavy elements or analogues which could form the a basis for life, though it might be casting the net a little narrowly to assume that it couldn't flourish in simple universe over time.

[Turkish]

O.k...that was an interesting read. However, I would like to see the same comments in a peer-reviewed Scientific Journal as opposed to a selection of Faith-based websites that generally prey on scientific illiteracy in the wider community.
d :heheh:)

I meant to include a source, just forgot. That 2001 website doesn't appear to be a 'faith-based' site though, but thanks for the link - I love reading interpretations of 2001 a Space Odyssey.

I imagine most scientists wouldn't get away with publishing statements about design and intelligence in peer-reviewed scientific journals - the atheist scientists might kick up a fuss and start accusing them of being Intelligent Design advocates which is probably why they tend to make such statements publically or in their own personal literature. Keeping their work and beliefs seperate 'n all that.

No. This concept is obsolete. Recent studies show that about 1/4 of potential universes would support stars.

Ref:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35363/title/Stars_ablaze_in_other_skies

So you are willing to completely reject the notion of God due to there being no physical evidence, yet willing to accept the existence of other universes despite there not being a single bit of physical evidence for seperate universes either?

I was actually aware of that article, having had this discussion with a guy at another forum whom quoted the same article, but - I have two problems with the 'multiverse' argument, which seemingly appeared from the realm of science-fiction not long after the Anthropic Principle was stated..

1) As Stephen Hawking said in his book and quoted in my post, assuming there are other seperate universes that exist outside our own; the physical constants and laws of nature would be so out of whack that they would not allow for intelligent or complex life of any kind. Stars maybe, but that's just stars... As far as I'm concerned, this is the only universe we know and will ever know, it's the only universe that supports life, it's the only universe that we should care about. Any 'other' universe that may or may not exist is pretty irrelevant, furthermore it makes very little sense and the theory is completely outside the realm of any real scientific enquiry. It is clear to me from all that I see and understand, our ability to understand the complex and ordered universe, and all the many fields of scientific evidence, that the universe exhibits evidence of some underlying intelligence. I am not sure why you and others have such a difficult time grasping it.

2) Even if the multiverse theory were true, whatever the mechanism is that is creating a multitude of universes would be so complex it would have to have been designed. It's falling back into the problem of infinite regress.

When it comes to the infinite, I honestly believe there are just some things we just aren't meant to know:

Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.

- Albert Einstein

[dirtyape]

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.

You put words in my mouth. I never said you did have a mental illness, I asked if you had considered it.  A perfectly reasonable thing to consider given the data you provided. Lets not get emotional. I honestly didn't mean to offend. We are mature enough to discuss these matters objectively?

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

So churches are full people who hear voices? And that validates what exactly? That there may be lots of people with mental illnesses in churches?

I have seen studies into people that experience "miracles" such as talking to god or angels. I have seen the state induced. The brain is an amazing thing, and the funny thing about having hallucinations is that you think that they are real. Very real. That's kind of their modus operandi, in actual fact.

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.

I see, so me saying that there is no evidence for the non-existence of certain phenomena means that I believe that those that those phenomena exists? Interesting that you think like that.

Because to me it means I cannot make any informed decision regarding the phenomena, as I have no data. But it is still negative until proven otherwise. That does not mean it is impossible. It may be possible - we just may not have figured it out.

Does that make sense?

And I'm mostly agnostic btw, and I'm atheist to religions. An agnostic-atheist. Fancy that.

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

Maybe the LSD is taking you!

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

Sure, relativity does a pretty good job of describing how the physical universe behaves. Newtons, not so good - be still pretty good (and a lot easier).

But, and this is the problem, relativity doesn't describe "why" very well. Curvature in spacetime? That is a description - not a reason.

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.

My comment debunked your statements and therefore served their purpose - I had neither the time nor inclination to get into any form of "debate" on the subject.

Predictions based on probabilities is effectively covering all bases btw, it's not saying what IS going to happen - it's saying what MAY happen. It's still a toss of the coin. Would you bet your life on a cat?

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.

1/4 universes can support life then the anthropic principle requirement on a multiverse is weakened, instead of our life sustaining universe being considered as very very special - it is now much more mundane - which in turn reduces the intelligent designer argument. Apparently 1 in 4 universes has stars.

Roll 1d4, 1 = life, 2 - 4 = not life.

Oh you rolled a tw....

[brucewillis2]

its almost like psyche didn't write it........

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

ctrl c ctrl v

LOL!!

[Turkish]

Apparently 1 in 4 universes has stars.

Where did you get the idea that other universes even exist? There are no other universes as far as mainstream science is currently concerned.

Nice big read there turkish, but so what.

So what? Well, I guess it depends on how you interpet the evidence. Perhaps you won't be suprised by anything unless it's farting out magical rainbow-colored unicorns? I dunno...

It's like gravity, back in the days we didn't understand it so guys like those professors would say "it makes no sense so some invisible hand must be pushing things back down"

Actually, Isaac Newton understood the laws of gravity very well, even if he didn't fully understand the precise mechanics that made them work so efficiently. He did not say "an invisible hand" must be controlling gravity, however he did say:

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.

thats a good post, very interesting, and good use of logic.

My only problem is with these scientists = "According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence" .I reckon for them to claim that it must have been created is a big call.

I agree it's a bold claim to make, but apparently the evidence is that convincing. I wouldn't necessarily accept it as 100% conclusive evidence that the universe was designed and created by divine intelligence, but it's definetely compelling and reaffirms some of my own personal beliefs.

[nick247]

It is clear to me from all that I see and understand, our ability to understand the complex and ordered universe, and all the many fields of scientific evidence, that the universe exhibits evidence of some underlying intelligence. I am not sure why you and others have such a difficult time grasping it.

Because i still believe it is far more likely that intelligent design as we know it is still the more unlikely scenario

after all...........

When it comes to the infinite, I honestly believe there are just some things we just aren't meant to know:


- Albert Einstein

[dirtyape]

^^ And the frontiers of science keep on rolling forward..

It would be interesting to know whether those broadly defined stars would produce heavy elements or analogues which could form the a basis for life, though it might be casting the net a little narrowly to assume that it couldn't flourish in simple universe over time.

It's life Jim, but not as we know it.

So you are willing to completely reject the notion of God due to there being no physical evidence, yet willing to accept the existence of other universes despite there not being a single bit of physical evidence for seperate universes either?

You work on proving god exists, and we'll work on proving multiple-universes exist. I'll give you a race - GO!

[dirtyape]

Where did you get the idea that other universes even exist? There are no other universes as far as science is currently concerned

Because our observable universe is all that can exist? Where does that put your god? Within his construction?

[nick247]

but it's definetely compelling and reaffirms some of my own personal beliefs.

i can understand and appreciate that

I would argue that intelligent design could also simply be scientific rationality

in either case where does that leave things.........theres a chance of some intellgent design, but what does that actually mean for us?

how does that change the status quo and change the way i see life compared to those who believe?

I see life as being soemthing special and amazing and i really appreciate it, how would the existance of intelligent design change my world view?

in addition i want to throw this out there......

if you throw a dice for infinity you are 100% guaranteed to eventually land tails 1000 times in a row

[philo-sofa]

1/4 universes can support life then the anthropic principle requirement on a multiverse is weakened, instead of our life sustaining universe being considered as very very special - it is now much more mundane - which in turn reduces the intelligent designer argument. Apparently 1 in 4 universes has stars.

Roll 1d4, 1 = life, 2 - 4 = not life.

Oh you rolled a tw....

I am concerned I rolled something other than a 1 sometimes.

Thanks for bringing up that article, I'd like to read more about it - if the conclusions are true... it does do an awful lot towards making the goldilocks theory plain irrelevant.

*eats porridge*

I agree it's a bold claim to make, but apparently the evidence is that convincing. I wouldn't necessarily accept it as 100% conclusive evidence that the universe was designed and created by divine intelligence, but it's definetely compelling and reaffirms some of my own personal beliefs.

How about the above 1/4?