Help support TMP


"Darwin Day" Topic


1657 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Animals Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

The Amazing Worlds of Grenadier

The fascinating history of one of the hobby's major manufacturers.


Featured Workbench Article

Deep Dream: Getting Personal

Generating portraits using Deep Dream Generator.


Current Poll


47,753 hits since 2 Feb 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP13 Sep 2009 9:11 a.m. PST

"IDers, Creationists, have a point: "God did it" is still the best term for explaining why we have Existence in the first place and not a dark Void with nothing."

Can only by said if you don't know enough about cosmology and astro physiscs.

Why have sevral hypothesis that are far more rewarding as explanations about the start of our current universe then a god.

Becasue the extremely simply yet impossbile to ignore is who created god, and who created what ever created god, and what created what created god ect.

The only answer theist gives god is outside time ans space and needs no start but that leaves most people empty and is no answer at all

RockyRusso13 Sep 2009 11:02 a.m. PST

Hi

by coincidence, this month, Scientific American has a "special issue" on the origin of things. Ranging from the mundane (scotch tape) to the universe. And, have a lot of fun discussing speculation about the first few microseconds of creation….and state "before" is just speculation.

I would offer that some like me are comfortable with the idea that beyond a certain point, "I don't know". For some, they need someone to tell them that all is known to make them feel safer. And there are a few studies that indicate that the religious just "hear" something the rest of us do not that makes them religious.

My wife was a world class scientist…and tone deaf. She knew the idea of music. And mechanically learned how to play the piano because her culture valued women doing so. But the first time she played for me, she couldn't hear her piano was out of tune. Her extended family is very religious and I don't know that they just don't "hear" something I do not.

Rocky

Daffy Doug13 Sep 2009 2:32 p.m. PST

Becasue the extremely simply yet impossbile to ignore is who created god, and who created what ever created god, and what created what created god ect.

Naw, you're not looking for something big enough. This universe is not even a speck compared to the totality of Existence. "God" is just a word that means Existence to me, and Existence just IS.

You can look at the physical phenomena of appearance and replication of matter/energy endlessly: either look with science or without science, it doesn't matter: it just can't be without some Necessary Cause.

If you want the universe to always exist, then the universe itself IS "God" manifesting.

Why some people need a containable, anthropomorphic "Father" God must have something to do with insecurity growing up. But to have and to hold isn't the same thing as to feel. I feel like part of "God" while I am doing this. That concept endures regardless of what religion says or does. Hard to put into words.

Like Rocky said, I guess I "hear" something….

crhkrebs13 Sep 2009 7:01 p.m. PST

…..I guess I "hear" something……..

Perhaps. And perhaps you can be open to the fact that what you hear is indeed an auditory hallucination, signifying nothing real.

And there are a few studies that indicate that the religious just "hear" something the rest of us do not that makes them religious.

And those studies would be………….?

Ralph

Daffy Doug14 Sep 2009 8:32 a.m. PST

What would I be hallucinating, Ralph? That my Existence is real?…

crhkrebs14 Sep 2009 9:06 a.m. PST

Doug,

Read Rocky's posts again and try to follow the conversation. Oh, and existence isn't capitalized.

wink

Ralph

RockyRusso14 Sep 2009 11:16 a.m. PST

Hi

Ralph, my field isn't the social sciences which, largely, i don't consider science. One of the curses of reading at some 1500wpm, is that I read a lot of things but don't bother "tagging" it as a quotable refrence. That includes virtually anything resembling soft science.

I read a couple studies several years ago that speculated that there was a "religion" gene in that people who didn't know they were related tended to have the same attitudes and "feelings" about spiritualism.

Oddly, yesterday on NPR, there was a segment on what it called "The third man" syndrome. This is a case that derives from the deadly Shackleton expedition. The short version is that as S and a buddy are walking alone across the ice they "knew" there was a third man with them who was guiding them. A "guardian" angel. And the author had written a book looking at these reported instances. He also mentioned a bio test where a trickle of electricity in some parts of the brain triggered a "feeling" involving spirituality, but not this definate "presence" thing.

I think we all have had a "feeling" of someone guiding us somewhere somehow. However, I am also cognizant of the "magic" phenomena. That is, one remembers when it works and forgets the more common event where it didn't!

Anyway, my brain isn't big enough for the concepts of ultimate cosmology. Doug, day job stuff, involved precion work with his hands that the vast majority of the world cannot approach. But he has no clue how to follow the math I take for granted, let alone the stuff I do in my head. Similarly, I just cannot handle fractals. If there is a god like doug "feels" my problem isn't the concept, it is my nature. I am "thomas the doubter". I put my fingers in the holes and don't really concern myself thing things I cannot test.

Further, ralph, you missed a point implied by Doug's attitude. Consider that if the universe is just a portion of how "god" exists and all…he ends up agreeing with a lot of people who believe in god, just not a personal god.

Rocky

Daffy Doug14 Sep 2009 11:50 a.m. PST

Yesh….

crhkrebs15 Sep 2009 10:03 a.m. PST

One of the curses of reading at some 1500wpm, is that I read a lot of things but don't bother "tagging" it as a quotable refrence.

Well I can read very fast too, unfortunately, comprehension seems to lag behind. Skimming doesn't lead to understanding.

I read a couple studies several years ago that speculated that there was a "religion" gene in that people who didn't know they were related tended to have the same attitudes and "feelings" about spiritualism.

Ya. This was Dr. Hamer's speculation on the "God Gene" or, VMAT2 in genetic parlance. VMAT2 codes for a carrier protein that transports monoamines across cell walls. The monoamines regulate the secretion and uptake of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and L-dopamine. The regulation of these transmitters are seen in states when a subject says he/she is having a mystical experience. Increase the monoamine content in a test subject and viola!……they have a religious moment.

Other drugs as hallucinogens and cocaine also have this affect. Dr. Hamer has been criticized for calling this the "God Gene" and saying religion is hard wired into us. His book can be seen here:

link

A good criticism follows a little further down the page.

Further, ralph, you missed a point implied by Doug's attitude.

Allow me to disagree. You mentioned:

…..there are a few studies that indicate that the religious just "hear" something the rest of us do not that makes them religious.

Doug chimed in with:

Like Rocky said, I guess I "hear" something….

I countered with:

……perhaps you can be open to the fact that what you hear is indeed an auditory hallucination, signifying nothing real.

I think I "got" the point actually. It was NOT about Doug's existence (nor his Existence).

Ralph

RockyRusso15 Sep 2009 12:12 p.m. PST

Hi

It isn't skimming, what I do. It is a complete lack of interest in what I call "religious argument", Ralph. I wont quote from the bible to argue against something in the koran, either. The point isn't critical that I read the papers and perhaps the same book. It is the concept being discussed.

Genetics in humans is full of suggested aspects that don't apply to every individual. And that leads back to the aspect of soft science. Having a bad temper(related to a Trek episode) accepting being violent doesn't REQUIRE bad behavior.

Thus, having the "god gene"..doesn't prove or disprove anything. There is no way to test what others "hear" when they feel spiritual. Not that it might be there, but if the felt being is real.

No one can prove or disprove a "prime mover". No way to test. And as long as no one like TJ tries to force his version, or others another, I don't really care.

Rocky

Ghecko15 Sep 2009 5:30 p.m. PST

Good morning one and all.

And what "version" did I try to force?

Daffy Doug16 Sep 2009 8:39 a.m. PST

"Someone like TJ" means that there ARE IDers who will use force to get ID taught as science in public schools, if they can. You're associated with "bad company" and must clear your name. Welcome back….

Daffy Doug16 Sep 2009 8:48 a.m. PST

Ralph, in going the rounds with this, you never express any interest in pursuing an answer to the question, "why does the universe exist instead of nothing?" And by universe I mean matter and energy in any form whatsoever for any amount of time whatsoever. You have the "stuff" of Existence and no explanation as to why that instead of a Void and darkness with nothing.

The reason why "God" is a good concept to answer Existence in the first place is because anything less than such a concept fails on individual points of greater logic, and science, e.g. a BB only answers "when" for this observable universe; it doesn't address origin of the BB: while positing with quantum mechanics various hypotheses on a continuous state of energy/matter in some state "outside of space-time" only tries to dispense with a need for "God" by offering an existence of the "stuff" without any design or purpose..

But, as I have said many times, it is illogical (and I am sure, unscientific) to believe in any kind of ex nihilo. The fact that our species has sapience and purpose demands that these qualities exist in the "original stuff" that has always existed: even as latent properties, sapience and purpose have to be there: they cannot spring out of nothing.

Therefore it is logical to accept that energy/matter as we see it manifested either posseses those qualities in itself or energy/matter as we see it is a manifestation of a greater Power. I don't see a third option….

crhkrebs17 Sep 2009 4:14 a.m. PST

Ralph, in going the rounds with this, you never express any interest in pursuing an answer to the question, "why does the universe exist instead of nothing?"

How do you know that I don't have an interest in that? I just don't make up answers for it.

The reason why "God" is a good concept to answer Existence in the first place is because anything less than such a concept fails on individual points of greater logic, and science………..

I guess we have different definitions of "good concept".

But, as I have said many times, it is illogical (and I am sure, unscientific) to believe in any kind of ex nihilo.

We don't know what happened before the BB so we don't know how ex nihilo "ex nihilo" really is. Things may appear ex nihilo simply from lack of understanding.

The fact that our species has sapience and purpose demands that these qualities exist in the "original stuff" that has always existed: even as latent properties, sapience and purpose have to be there: they cannot spring out of nothing.

That's your hypothesis, but you haven't provided a convincing argument for it. There are just too many gaps in our knowledge for me to make that claim as forcefully as you do.

Therefore it is logical to accept that energy/matter as we see it manifested either posseses those qualities in itself or energy/matter as we see it is a manifestation of a greater Power. I don't see a third option….

Well, inanimate objects arrange themselves into patterns of complexity all the time without having any internal "need" or "want" or "desire" for complexity. It is simply a function and law of physics that we all have to follow. Manifestation does not require intent. Is that a 3rd option?

Ralph

Daffy Doug17 Sep 2009 8:03 a.m. PST

Things may appear ex nihilo simply from lack of understanding.

Of course: but the concept of Existence in the first place ultimately remains. You're just putting that off with the oldest excuse: ignorance. If we could suddenly see why everything exists, what do YOU think that cause (or Cause) would be?

Well, inanimate objects arrange themselves into patterns of complexity all the time without having any internal "need" or "want" or "desire" for complexity. It is simply a function and law of physics that we all have to follow. Manifestation does not require intent. Is that a 3rd option?

"Laws of physics": were they always in place, then? Or were they "created" as part of the BB? See, only two options, still. Either they always exist as integral with matter/energy, or they are a manifestation of some greater Power….

RockyRusso17 Sep 2009 9:27 a.m. PST

Hi

Doug, I don't value speculation without evidence.

What color was William the Conqueror's favorite mistress's eyes?

The first microseconds of the big bang is something where I am lost with the math and the evidence isn't good. Thus, I don't bother looking at the BB. Recent Sci Am goes on about this "origin", but while it is interesting to read, I don't have an opinion.

Similarly, the "meaning of existence" hasn't enough actual evidence to speculate. In "real" boards, I don't weigh in on general ratings because of the same reason. Not enough data to have a meaninful discussion. I buy, for example, Sam Mustapha's rules and he loves commander ratings, but has never explained HOW that happens!

As you know, I prefer to observe that there is a likely range here, and if it matters, roll inside that range. About as close as I will come and I ADMIT that it is raw speculation.

Were the laws of physics always in place. Well, not necessarily. I have read papers in the journals speculating on this subject in the variant of BB that has it as an infinate cycle of repeated expansiion and collapse (though that is now out of fashion), but it is more "religious" than "physics"…especially for me as I cannot follow the math.

Rocky

crhkrebs17 Sep 2009 11:07 a.m. PST

@Doug

Just because you can frame a question, doesn't mean the question is valid or that it has a meaningful answer. Asking, "Why is there existence rather than nonexistence?", is like asking "What colour is love?". If there was only the state of nonexistence, then no one would be around to contemplate it.

You're just putting that off with the oldest excuse: ignorance.

Well in my case ignorance is a good excuse.wink

If we could suddenly see why everything exists, what do YOU think that cause (or Cause) would be?

I have absolutely no idea. But I doubt it involves magic invisible space pixies, deities, supernatural entities or other mythological inventions that derived from human minds. I suspect that the "cause" will be a physical, materialistic event and therefore be a disappointment to you.

"Laws of physics": were they always in place, then? Or were they "created" as part of the BB? See, only two options, still. Either they always exist as integral with matter/energy, or they are a manifestation of some greater Power….

Again, I don't think I know enough to state that with such certitude. Complexity arises from non complexity without a purpose. The simple components do not have a "purpose of complexity" when they form themselves in complex patterns. I don't know if you are grasping the difference.

@Rocky

Well gosh, it was bound to happen. I totally agree with you. Most of the math eludes me also……..so it does seem to have a mystical/magical component to it. Of course I fully realize that my mysticism is a manifestation of my ignorance. Remember (Arthur C.) Clarke's Corollary?

Ralph

138SquadronRAF17 Sep 2009 12:24 p.m. PST

Interestingly enough, this cropped up in the New York Times:

link

Another call for ignorance in general from the religious.

Why are the laws of Physics the way they are? That is one of the great unanswered questions, but there is certainly the idea within physics of the the multiple-universes, theoretically with different rules. Now since physicists isn't my field I'll not express this as any form of Theory – knowing the way creationists/IDer's tend to twist the English language saying "It's just a theory" when referring to evolution, where as scientists use that word differently from the general population.

The case of Shackleton, or others who claim to feel a presence is interesting. BUT, how do you prove it Show me the evidence. Otherwise we're dealing with Carl Sagan's Dragon. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What they are asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on their say-so.

We will, naturally, place the proof on those making the claims. The more extra-ordinary the claim the greater the evidence. No we are not going to accept the arguments from the 13thC "Quinque viae" of Aquinas because they have been refuted by philosophers since the 18thC.

Some IDers are getting together at the end of October in Colorado with the theme "The Legacy of Darwin Intelligent Design Conference"

shepherdproject.com/idconf

It's a little bit revealing, too, that this is organized by the Shepherd Project, which provides "Christian speakers, conferences and resources to help Christians maximize their impact on the world for the sake of God's Kingdom". I thought ID was a secular hypothesis? Was I wrong?

138SquadronRAF17 Sep 2009 2:40 p.m. PST

As this reviewer says:

"Thank the Lord for creationists. Without their blinkered belief in the biblical account of how life came to be, Richard Dawkins would never have felt the need to give us The Greatest Show on Earth. And what a fine, lucid and convincing exhibition he puts on, walking us through the natural world to demonstrate that evolution by natural selection is everywhere."

link

Daffy Doug17 Sep 2009 3:43 p.m. PST

I suspect that the "cause" will be a physical, materialistic event and therefore be a disappointment to you.

If the Event is materialistic, then materialism contains intellect and purpose. If it didn't originally, it certainly does NOW: but that's so against the science that's been explained to me, i.e. something coming to exist without a cause for it….

Daffy Doug17 Sep 2009 3:59 p.m. PST

Paul Griffiths seems an utter ass.

Curiosity is the engine of change; and if there's ONE truth about the world, it is that everything changes. So we need to get behind curiosity so that WE can effect the changes instead of always being acted upon by the changing world.

"Curiosity is inherently insatiable; its satisfactions are only momentary; there is always another horizon."

And is this a bad thing for immortal beings? I suppose that Griffiths is a believer in eternal life. What could be more hellish than being stuck for eternity in a mode where you never learn anything?

We need to know what we mean by "worship". To me it is pursuing "God" in everything I am about. And knowing that I will never do more than begin to "know God" shouldn't make me desperate, unsatisfied or disappointed: it should fill me with infinite awe at the enormity of Existence: a state of Being that I will always be learning more about forever….

Daffy Doug17 Sep 2009 4:05 p.m. PST

Doug, I don't value speculation without evidence.

What am I speculating about without evidence?

All I am saying is that Existence has to have a Necessary Cause: and that that Necessary Cause must possess within itself everything we see manifested in this world. As we are sapient and with purpose, it is fallacious logic to assume that the Necessary Cause is bereft of those qualities. The evidence for this conclusion is definitely scientific: adherring to the fundamentals which forbid perpetual motion machines and matter/energy ex nihilo….

Last Hussar17 Sep 2009 4:16 p.m. PST

There is no evidence for assuming the the 'Cause' is sapient, merely because we are. Why must the cause be like that which eventually descends from it. Is the Cause also Hard, soft and with both a high and low atomic weight?

I feel once again this thread is erroneously straying down the "You don't know how the universe/life started, so therefore evolution is wrong" path. Evolution is true. Cause of existence is not dependent on evolution, nor is knowing evolution to be correct dependent on knowing what caused the first life form.

I usually don't like posting YouTube links, but these ones says everything I need to say.

YouTube link

YouTube link

I think Douglas Adams would enjoy that one.

138SquadronRAF17 Sep 2009 5:55 p.m. PST

Thanks Last Hussar, great links.

Ghecko17 Sep 2009 10:46 p.m. PST

Just catching up on the thread…

It's shot off on a philosophical tangent I notice.

Ok; being somewhat philosophical: Is there anything we know that is absolutely true; something that we would all agree on; what is it that we can all say that we know is absolutely true?

Not much is there? The only thing I can think of is that we actually do "think".

If we think then I would logically assume that thinking require a thinker; thus those who think must exist. Thus we as thinkers exist. I think, therefore I am.

It seems thought requires the passage of "time". Of course it is possible that thought may not require the passage of time, but it would be difficult to argue the position that a thought does not require the passage of time. Thus, it seems that time does also exist.

So, what exactly is "thought"? We can kind of describe it, but what exactly is it? Is it tangible? What exactly is "time"? We can also describe it, but what exactly is it? Is it tangible?

It appears that things can clearly exist that don't have any physical characteristics… "god", by definition, has no physical characteristics; that's going to make it hard to prove scientifically that "god" either exists or does not exist.

crhkrebs18 Sep 2009 5:28 a.m. PST

If the Event is materialistic, then materialism contains intellect and purpose.

Sorry Doug, I disagree. Because such complexity has developed to manifest sentience does NOT indicate or prove purpose. This is an unsupported speculation on your part. Hussar is correct with where his questions point.

As we are sapient and with purpose, it is fallacious logic to assume that the Necessary Cause is bereft of those qualities.

No it is fallacious logic to expectations of the qualities of a totally unknown "necessary cause". Again, what's with the capitalization. Why is it necessary for you to deify any unknown that you happen to speculate on?

Ralph

crhkrebs18 Sep 2009 5:41 a.m. PST

So, what exactly is "thought"? We can kind of describe it, but what exactly is it? Is it tangible? What exactly is "time"? We can also describe it, but what exactly is it? Is it tangible?

Thoughts are manifestations of the electrical activity of the cortical areas of the human brain, in the same way as "Mind" is a manifestation of our brain's activity. If I chemically alter the brains functions by a mechanical or chemical means (eg. injecting iodine into your CSF) then all thought will stop. Therefore thought is part of a physical, materialistic, biological process.

Time is another dimension of time-space. We generally split time-space into two phenomena based of how our brain receives external data. We percieve space and time differently. There is an evolutionary advantage for a predator to hunt his prey in 3 dimensions of space only. Perhaps a predator who sees the world in accurate time-space needs too much brain processing power to do so. His larger heavier skull would make it less efficient to hunt.

It appears that things can clearly exist that don't have any physical characteristics…

No, there was no advantage in evolving a means to perceive the physical characteristics of time-space. That doesn't mean time doesn't have tangible characteristics.

"god", by definition, has no physical characteristics; that's going to make it hard to prove scientifically that "god" either exists or does not exist.

The "god of the gaps" again.

Ralph

Daffy Doug18 Sep 2009 8:19 a.m. PST

There is no evidence for assuming the the 'Cause' is sapient, merely because we are. Why must the cause be like that which eventually descends from it. Is the Cause also Hard, soft and with both a high and low atomic weight?

Scientific law, as shown by repeated experiment, forbids ex nihilo; it forbids perpetual motion machines, ergo the universe is either running down or being renewed from some Necessary Cause. As we are sapient and purposeful beings within the universe, we cannot come to (evolve to) possess qualities not latent to that Necessary Cause. The Necessary Cause provides everything that manifests within the universe.

"You don't know how the universe/life started, so therefore evolution is wrong" path. Evolution is true.

I never said evolution wasn't true. Inasmuch as both Rocky and Ralph, both very thoroughly edjimacated men and sound in mathematics (especially compared to moi) have just expressed failure to understand the math upon which quantum mechanics is founded, i.e. believing/trusting the math but not understanding it, I can do no less than they in saying that I BELIEVE biological evolution is real: even though I lack the education to KNOW so many of the facts claimed for it. I TRUST the consensus of the scientific community: that they are devoted to finding out what the truth is: that they are not concerned where truth takes us: that truth is always the goal no matter how we come to it, etc. Therefore I don't listen to the handful of prattling scientists who happen to possess an anti religious agenda: they give the vast majority of scientists a bad name (most scientists couldn't care less about religion one way or the other, and just want "it" to stay out of their way).

Cause of existence is not dependent on evolution, nor is knowing evolution to be correct dependent on knowing what caused the first life form.

Both true statements, imho….

Daffy Doug18 Sep 2009 8:43 a.m. PST

Ok; being somewhat philosophical: Is there anything we know that is absolutely true; something that we would all agree on; what is it that we can all say that we know is absolutely true?

"We" exist. That's about it.

So, what exactly is "thought"?

Awareness of Existence beyond mere sentience. We don't know the origin of thought-sapience. It sure as hell doesn't originate in a mere, temporary biological brain: because the evolution that caused such brains to exist had to take the capacity to think from thought already in Existence; if that isn't what happens, then thought is an ex nihilo and not demonstrated scientifically.

…"god", by definition, has no physical characteristics; that's going to make it hard to prove scientifically that "god" either exists or does not exist.

You're departing from science here: the universe is evidently physical, ergo it must derive from physical matter/energy, or be an ex nihilo, i.e. not following demonstrated scientific laws, ergo a phantasm.

For the universe to be physical, "God" must also possess physical attributes. Imho, the entire physical universe IS "God" manifesting: that isn't the same as saying "The universe is God": because the concept of the multiverse, limitless and eternal, is much larger than just "the universe", it must be true. The multiverse has no quantifiable number within itself, as it is constantly expanding and can be known only by the Necessary Cause of it.

As I have illustrated before: we could take all of the concepts of "God", in the multiverse at a given moment in time, combine them, and the sum concept of "God" would not even be a measureable beginning of the totality of "God" (Existence)….

crhkrebs18 Sep 2009 8:45 a.m. PST

Inasmuch as both Rocky and Ralph, both very thoroughly edjimacated men and sound in mathematics (especially compared to moi) have just expressed failure to understand the math upon which quantum mechanics is founded, i.e. believing/trusting the math but not understanding it,……

Hi Doug, I fear you are giving me far too much credit, math-wise.laugh

Ralph

Daffy Doug18 Sep 2009 8:47 a.m. PST

Ralph, (capital "R"), am I deifying you? My use of "Necessary Cause", "Existence", "God". is admitting that none of this universe is some happy or unfortunate accident.

We obviously have purpose. It cannot come into existence as part of the way we have evolved without the NC having purpose; purpose is not an ex nihilo.

Furthermore, although it would shock a "good Christian" enormously to say it: imho, our thinking is "God's" thinking: it is impossible for sapient beings to have a thought that "God" doesn't already possess: and taking this even further, we can't think of impossible things: somewhere/sometime in the multiverse, everything we can conceive (yea, even invisibile space pixies) is possible and exists under some subset of physical/empirical laws: even the Void of darkness with nothing (surely "God" can and does choose that "Existence" too). I think that "thou has made (man) a little lower than the angels" comes about as close to my concept of what we are as the Bible can get

crhkrebs18 Sep 2009 9:00 a.m. PST

As we are sapient and purposeful beings within the universe, we cannot come to (evolve to) possess qualities not latent to that Necessary Cause.

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. Complexity is one example of something that arises from non-complexity. As much as you try to put the individual particles under some sort of microscope you will not find a penchant for, or a need for , or a purpose for complexity. It happens from simple interactions with other, equally purposeless particles.

A sense of purpose is something that sentient beings derive internally. It is an anthropomorphic concept.

Ralph

crhkrebs18 Sep 2009 9:03 a.m. PST

Ralph, (capital "R"), am I deifying you?

What are you, ten years old?

Ralph

Daffy Doug18 Sep 2009 9:13 a.m. PST

Yes, and a bit more besides. Why are you getting hung up on my personal use of capitalization? Is it confusing you? Is that part of your brain not advanced beyond "ten years old?" (read my previous post in this regard; I am still editing it with more content)….

crhkrebs18 Sep 2009 9:15 a.m. PST

purpose is not an ex nihilo….

Sure it is. We invent all sorts of things that aren't real all the time. The are all ex nihilo. Suppose I conceive of magic invisible space pixies that brought the entire universe into being with all it's inherent physical laws. Does that mean:

a) Because I can conceive of them, they must be real?

or

b) Because I can conceive of them, then the universe must be made up of particles imbued with some quality of magic invisible space pixies?

There is no "purpose" to the universe outside of the purpose we make for it. The particles that make up the universe do not have the quality of "purposefulness" imbued within them. If you think they do, then the onus is upon you to find this quality, just as it would be upon me to prove the existence of the space pixies.

Anything else is idle speculation.

Ralph

Daffy Doug18 Sep 2009 9:21 a.m. PST

Complexity is one example of something that arises from non-complexity.

Utterly defying the laws of entropy, as I imperfectly understand the concept: the whole universe is "running down" according to some astro physicists: which begs the question: how can something breaking down (and eventually returning to a state of entropy) ever have "started up" in the first place? How can non complexity reverse itself and start becoming complex? Not without an outside Necessary Cause of that reversed state.

As much as you try to put the individual particles under some sort of microscope you will not find a penchant for, or a need for , or a purpose for complexity.

Except that the pinnacle, the ultimate complexity that we have observed, is our very own sapience which forms the basis of our observations and "'satiable curiosity". And we have purpose; it is "anthropomprphic purpose", naturally: what other kind could we possibly be possessed with? How does that distinction of OUR purpose remove the fact that purpose can't exist ex nihilo?…

Daffy Doug18 Sep 2009 9:24 a.m. PST

There is no "purpose" to the universe outside of the purpose we make for it.

Bingo! All the tomes of philosophy can be reduced to that simple truth. How does OUR purpose come to be without purpose existing in the first place? No ex nihilo in science: we are with purpose, ergo purpose exists along with our universe. We decide what OUR purpose is; it seems to be how/why we are "made"….

crhkrebs18 Sep 2009 12:30 p.m. PST

Utterly defying the laws of entropy, as I imperfectly understand the concept: the whole universe is "running down" according to some astro physicists:

Sigh. The formation of complexity does NOT contravene the 2nd Law of thermodynamics as long as entropy increases in the process. You need to learn some science. Honestly, you're the guy with the knife at a gunfight.

And it's not "some astro-physicists". It's everyone who took at least high school science and beyond. It's like saying,"Some oceanographers and ichthyologists consider whales to be mammals". Sorry to sound harsh.

How does that distinction of OUR purpose remove the fact that purpose can't exist ex nihilo?…

???

How does OUR purpose come to be without purpose existing in the first place?

Same way the imaginary space pixies exist. In my mind and nowhere else.

No ex nihilo in science: we are with purpose, ergo purpose exists along with our universe.

Hey Rocky. You enjoy bad syllogisms. Here's a doozy!

Ralph

RockyRusso18 Sep 2009 1:13 p.m. PST

Hi

I know. Actually, Ralph, part of the problem is that you didn't realize how much I do agree with you!

I put this down to Doug "hearing" stuff I don't "hear". And, in the reverse, the math and mechanics thing for doug versus me!

Asimov actually discussed this in one of his essays 35 years ago where he talked about being a math geek…then one day walking into a class and being exposed to something new that MADE NO SENSE. It was real, but unlike the past, he just didn't follow it…switched to biochem. He offered that everyone does the same thing. You live your life learing math, it comes easily, then suddenly you run into a wall where it doesn't make sense anymore.

Anyway, my issue isn't what you might seem. It is a discussion powered by our personal limits. I am a tiny subset of the universe and not arrogant enough to assume I could possibly understand the greater set. Call it God? fine with me. But don't assert that you have a book RIGHT HERE that lets you understand the entirety of the universe.

Our problem is with trying to suppress people. The extreme IDers would force their opinion. And the atheists would enforce theirs! Thus, I don't find Dawkins other than the mirror image of who he was when he was a believer.

I have an observation about the "curiosity is bad" thing. One viewpoint of the Hebrew dietary laws is seen as misplaced. That is, the "cloven hoof" meaning no ham sandwich for you. (And in my universe an important reason to NOT be jewish! Fie on Pogroms, I cannot give up hand sandwiches with miracle whip and tomato slices!) But the aspect of some of these rules is giving god a personal sacrifice, not the supposed good of avoiding trichinosis which no one understood in the 9th century BC, but personal sacrifice. Like walking to temple and so on. Thus, the story about the apple and curiosity could be seen through the aspect of sacrifice.

Now, we have basic instincts towards sex that we are asked to suppress. And hunger for food and other "natural" drives.

thus "whatever you do, don't look in that box or eat that apple" as a sacrifice. Dunno'

Rocky

crhkrebs18 Sep 2009 3:25 p.m. PST

I enjoy eating pig too but I think I'll pass on the "hand sandwiches".laugh
Ralph

Daffy Doug18 Sep 2009 7:51 p.m. PST

I wasn't aware that this is a fight at all, much less a knife fight: bad analogy, Ralph, bad analogy.

So EVERYONE who is scientifically edjimacated says the universe is running down? Or is it everyone has heard that its running down, but nobody really knows for sure? Because I sure as heck haven't run into this consensus on it that you claim.

The point is that if the universe as a whole is running down then the entropy will finally become universal. I don't care if complexity occurs somewhere and energy goes away somewhere else to "power" the complexity: if the net effect is continual loss of dynamic energy WITHIN the universe as a whole, then that means the universe is a closed system. If the universe is not a closed system, then it can't be running down; the entropy of a closed system won't apply "here". That means that some outside Necessary Cause is keeping things going.

Now, if you aren't feeling too harsh: disabuse me of my incorrect notions on this topic.

There isn't anything wrong with the conclusion that purpose must necessarily exist in order for us to learn what it is: our species didn't invent purpose out of nothing. If you believe everything arises in your head because of a mindless biological process of simplicity to complexity, then of what possible use is thinking to you? You'd be better off living with bears in the woods, enjoying sunsets….

crhkrebs18 Sep 2009 9:52 p.m. PST

I wasn't aware that this is a fight at all, much less a knife fight: bad analogy, Ralph, bad analogy.

No Douglas, what is bad here is your comprehension. There is no fight here, Doug. It is a common saying in English, like "the shoe's on the other foot", or "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". I am not literally talking about a fight, a shoe or a bird. "Bringing a knife to a gunfight" means you are woefully inadequate or ill prepared to the task at hand. Maybe you were not familiar with it, but the analogy is actually quite apt.

So EVERYONE who is scientifically edjimacated says the universe is running down?

Maybe you could drop the childish spelling if you are asking for help in understanding a problem.

I don't know who uses the term "running down". The universe is not like the spring on a large mechanical timepiece. The best and simplest explanation is still by Rudolf Clausius who coined the Second Law of Thermodynamics as: "The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum". All high school aged kids in my country learn about entropy and know that it increases with every activity. It has now been 33 years since Dr. Sorger taught me that complexity, such as that found in living systems, does NOT contravene Clausius's postulate.

Eventually as the universe continues to expand and entropy continuously rises the universe will die out. This is known as the latent heat death of the universe. I'd say this is common knowledge to anyone with some science education.

The point is that if the universe as a whole is running down then the entropy will finally become universal.

Huh? Entropy is already universal. As the universe expands entropy approaches the maximum.

I don't care if complexity occurs somewhere and energy goes away somewhere else to "power" the complexity…..

I suspect you do care….in fact you care a lot. That is why you and your family eat food.

There isn't anything wrong with the conclusion that purpose must necessarily exist in order for us to learn what it is: our species didn't invent purpose out of nothing.

Actually, that is exactly what I believe.

If you believe everything arises in your head because of a mindless biological process of simplicity to complexity, then of what possible use is thinking to you?

Simple, it gives us evolutionary fitness. We don't breed the fastest, we don't run the fastest, we don't see the farthest, we are not good swimmers, we are not the strongest, we are not heavily armoured, we can't fly, we don't have the sharpest teeth or the longest claws. Our best trick is our sapient abilities. It is still too soon to see how well "thinking" will serve us. There are not a lot of sapient species out there so it may not turn out to be the best tactic. I bet the cockroach outlasts us. (They have already a few hundred million years head start).

Ralph

crhkrebs18 Sep 2009 10:04 p.m. PST

But the aspect of some of these rules is giving god a personal sacrifice, not the supposed good of avoiding trichinosis which no one understood in the 9th century BC, but personal sacrifice.

Not quite. They may not have understood the microbiological nature of trichinosis (or trichinella for that matter) but if the neighbouring tribe all got sick and some died after eating pork, then that was enough reason to avoid it. A religious sanction only adds to the seriousness of the situation. Biblical people were very aware of how to handle those afflicted with leprosy without knowing anything about it's bacteriological source either.

Ralph

138SquadronRAF19 Sep 2009 8:40 a.m. PST

Quick question – why are rules from am minor middle eastern tribe from iron age of the 9thC BCE still relevant to me 3,000 years later? Why should I have anything but contempt for their superstitions? Yes, I've had the misfortune to work in occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza strip and I understand that without modern amenities some of those rules make sense, but please we live in a different world.

Off to have my shellfish whilst wearing different types of cloth.

Daffy Doug19 Sep 2009 9:48 a.m. PST

"Bringing a knife to a gunfight" means you are woefully inadequate or ill prepared to the task at hand. Maybe you were not familiar with it, but the analogy is actually quite apt.

I know that: I "reinvented" that phrase myself ages ago (sort of like the wheel, it gets reinvented all over the place): or was it Rocky who first used it for me, also ages ago, I can't remember now. And it is a crap analogy, because the "fight" was never involved in this discussion: that's why it is a bad analogy. The apt part is my ignorance, not my (or hopefully your) attitude.

Maybe you could drop the childish spelling if you are asking for help in understanding a problem.

Ironic spelling, Ralph: and scornful spelling.

Although I trust the body of science to be seeking truth from wherever it can be found, I think, as human beings with fat heads, many (maybe most) scientists are both too full of themselves and in competition: they lose sight of the bigger picture by focusing on their specialized "fly specks": then they "publish or perish" and must make enough of a splash to be taken seriously by a consensus, and so it goes. The consensus gets overturned in the near future by the next scientist(s) to make a big enough splash to impress everyone and we have a new consensus.

Huh? Entropy is already universal. As the universe expands entropy approaches the maximum.

And here's where you could stretch yourself, be a little bit charitable, and make the effort to take my meaning; instead of hold priggishly to the "educated" (specific) meaning of scientific terms.

"Entropy", as I understand it, is the original state of parity where energy/matter is concerned: being in a static state where all energy/matter is gravitationally stable and unmoving, nothing will ever change within that closed system where the matter-energy resides. When we are talking about the entire universe, the theory (as I understand the concept, even though I may misuse the terms) is that the BB caused a momentary dynamism, causing matter to errupt into dynamic energy. Since the BB, parts or sections of that dynamic energy have been "running down" (returning to their eternal, static state), but in doing so the expended energy has "fueled" the process of simplicity (the static state and few if any compounds) evolving into complexity. BUT, if nothing acts upon the universe, so the observation through quantum physics tells us, it will continue to "run down" until all the dynamic energy is used up, complexity returns to simplicity, and everything universally returns to a non dynamic state: where matter/energy is gravitationally, evenly and statically juxtaposed and inert.

Which of course begs the question of why this eternal state ever changed in the first place: which question is why quantum mechanics tries to "peer" beyond the BB into a "place/state" where space-time and the laws of empirical physics don't apply. Pure poppycock and imagination, posing as science, invented and pursued by mathematicians who are actively looking for a "Godless" explanation for existence. It is the best example of research with your mind already made up that I know of.

Actually, that is exactly what I believe.

See? What I just said. There's no reason behind it: you refute known/proven scientific principles every way you turn: you believe in ex nihilo MORE than the religious do!

Simple, it gives us evolutionary fitness.

And answers nothing about the origin of Existence in the first place. You are focused on fly specks. The bigger picture of Existence in total doesn't even register on your "radar".

Why are WE the only species that thinks at the level we do? Humanists like to compare us to the rest of the animals and point out the similarities and call homo sapiens just one more, albeit more sophisticated, animal. But they don't address the vast superiority of our thinking over ALL OTHER ANIMALS. No other species even approaches sapience as we demonstrate that quality: sentience the other animals possess in plenty: but it is all moment by moment, with no imagination, no tools, no altering of the world/environment, no questioning, no fear of death being some kind of annihilation, etc. The difference between the level of thought we do and ANY other animal's is far greater than any biological similarities.

Evolutionists harp on the genetic closeness of all life on Earth (less than 2% difference, iirc, between the two extremes, with all animals falling in the less than .5% difference, again, iirc): and point to how we all evolved from the same "soup" of dynamic cells replicating into more complex life forms, ergo human beings were just "apes" once, and before that were on all fours in the mud as some earlier species, etc. The real "missing link" isn't physiological, it is mental: if we are just an evolved Earth animal, then where are the lesser, yet still sapient, intellects among the animals? There are none.

Try this on for size: ALL DNA in the universe is the same. Homo sapiens came to this planet when they chose to, and part of our sojourn here is to be bereft of any knowledge of our origins. Evolution on Earth has nothing to do directly with evolution of our species, at, all.

That's the most speculative statement I can make: it does not deny the reality of evolution, and it allows for a human origin that would please religious people as well. And it's not unreasonable in any way: sure it can't be tested, yet, but it is a nice hypothesis that could easily be true. I like harmony….

Daffy Doug19 Sep 2009 10:03 a.m. PST

Quick question – why are rules from am minor middle eastern tribe from iron age of the 9thC BCE still relevant to me 3,000 years later?

Quick answer, the 9th century BCE isn't relevant, at, all, to living in the 21st century CE. Religion founded back then can be traced to earlier religious forms; and modern religions are just "compounds" of earlier religions. The Bible gives us the best window into our religious past. But PAST it is and should remain.

Religion, if it is to answer modern needs, must evolve into modern religion. The only constant in the universe is CHANGE. Why should religion be the only exception to that singular, eternal law? As we change our religions must change, and if they don't they die….

RockyRusso19 Sep 2009 12:01 p.m. PST

Hi

Geeze, this gets complex. OK, doug, your simplifed evolution of man is, um…wrong. Which oddly feeds into other discussions in this massive thread.

With education for ME, what I thought I knew became "not so much". The more I learn, the more I can appreciate what it is that I do not know. Scientists are not as you picture them. It is more on the order of "I don't know, but the particular point you made is one we have demonstrated isn't true". Say the 10 lost tribes becoming american indians. Or in other religions, creatures with their faces in their chests. Or sympathetic magic.

Science doesn't explain everything, but the false syllogism involved here is the idea of the IDers and your post above is "the "knowledge" changes, will change again, and therefore I know better through untestable mysticism." Whis is the essence of your post to Ralph.

You are right, he cannot demonstrate the lack of a "Prime Mover", no one can. The tension between science and religion is actually at the center of this. "you science guys admit you cannot know everything, therefore THIS BOOK answers all questions". A basic syllogism.

Ironically, western religions stress humility, but when it comes to the answers for life, existance, the univers and everything, the humility goes away. So, your "why should religon be the only exception…" begs the question when addressing science and its limits.

Ralph, the pig issue, you are correct, they MIGHT have observed the disease, though your post suggests that you don't understand how it looks. But the issue is the same, I used Pig because of my love of ham. But lets go with, say, not having meat and milk on the same plate or in the same cabinent, or cooked together. sacrifice not observed science. Along with wearing certain types of clothing.

Entropy is observed. Even better, it is observed that the universe is expanding. If the trend is unabated, you have whole galaxies going relativistically off the effective "horizon" of our ability to observe and, therefore, cease to exist for us. Long enough, Earth is a lone dead chuck of junk in silence and the dark. Or not.

See, science knows where it is guessing.

Rocky

crhkrebs19 Sep 2009 4:40 p.m. PST

Although I trust the body of science to be seeking truth from wherever it can be found, I think, as human beings with fat heads, many (maybe most) scientists are both too full of themselves and in competition: they lose sight of the bigger picture by focusing on their specialized "fly specks": then they "publish or perish" and must make enough of a splash to be taken seriously by a consensus, and so it goes. The consensus gets overturned in the near future by the next scientist(s) to make a big enough splash to impress everyone and we have a new consensus.

Albeit you use a cynical turn of the phrase, what you say is fundamentally true. I will add two provisos to what you have said:

1) The consensus is not turned over by the next group of scientists who want to make a splash and impress everyone. A paradigm shifts when a new theory is formulated that better explains the existing facts. The new theory must survive by best explaining already collected data and by making predictions that can be confirmed by experimentation. If the new theory stands, then you can expect the scientists involved to become famous, and rightly so.

2) The "publish or perish" pressure scientists face is felt most acutely in the sciences that are horrendously expensive, such as the physics of sub-atomic particles. But it is ubiquitous in all fields. I'm not sure this is such a bad situation as it adds a competitive aspect to doing science. It pushes the scientists a little further. Want a good example of this success?

The US ranks poorly when compared to other developed countries with education spending. Teachers are poorly paid compared to other developed countries. The amount of science taught in high schools is less in the US than other countries. You can follow this disturbing trend at the NCSE reports. Sounds like the US is in the dumps, right?

Not really. In the decade ending in 2004, Americans and non-Americans working in US universities and various research institutes have won:

71% of Nobel Prizes in Physics
61% of Nobel Prizes in Medicine and Physiology
58% of Nobel Prizes in Chemistry
in 2006 American won all the Noble Prizes in Science

Now the reasons for this are many and beyond my reason for writing this. Let's just say that the way that Us science goes about it's business, as you described above, is working very, very, well.

"Entropy", as I understand it, is……….

Hmmm….. I can't tell from your writing if you do understand it. Try this Wiki entry:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

And answers nothing about the origin of Existence in the first place. You are focused on fly specks. The bigger picture of Existence in total doesn't even register on your "radar".

Why are WE the only species that thinks at the level we do?

Sorry you don't like the answer of: it gives us evolutionary fitness, but there you have the gist. Sapience and the included ability for abstract thought, tool making, and language, is our tactic for ensuring our survival. Survival IS the BIG PICTURE.

Evolutionists harp on the genetic closeness of all life on Earth (less than 2% difference, iirc, between the two extremes, with all animals falling in the less than .5% difference, again, iirc):

What is the old saying? "What you are saying isn't right, it isn't even wrong"! Sorry Doug, there is less than 3% difference between Homo Sapiens and our nearest relative, Pan Troglodytes (the common chimp). There is almost no genetic similarity between us and, oh lets say Clostridium Botulinum (a particularly nasty soil bacterium). You are totally off the mark here.

Try this on for size: ALL DNA in the universe is the same.

I tried it on and it doesn't fit at all. All the DNA on this planet isn't the same. It is made up of the same base pairs and sugars but that doesn't make them the same. It's like saying all books written in English are the same because they use the same 26 letters.

Why would other creatures who developed on other planets, in other solar systems, in other galaxies, use the same chemical for inheritance that we do? You've been watching too much Star Trek.

That's the most speculative statement I can make: ………… And it's not unreasonable in any way:

Sheesh.

Ralph

crhkrebs19 Sep 2009 4:47 p.m. PST

Ralph, the pig issue, you are correct, they MIGHT have observed the disease, though your post suggests that you don't understand how it looks.

I sure do. Here's some help:

link

Ralph

Daffy Doug19 Sep 2009 6:12 p.m. PST

All the DNA on this planet isn't the same.

I didn't say it was; my recollection of the amount of difference probably relates to mammals, then; so what, it doesn't change what I meant when I said, "All DNA in the universe is the same." The total variance in DNA is probably a constant everywhere. I don't know what Scifi has to do with the hypothesis: since the elements of other suns observed via the light spectrum tells us that our solar system is typical. Or are you saying that there are virtually limitless compounds out there? Wouldn't one protoplanetary mass be much (or even the same) as any other?

A paradigm shifts when a new theory is formulated that better explains the existing facts.

"Better" or just newer? I wonder if scientists, being human after all, like new things as much as the rest of us: and the old stuff/explanations get mundane. A new explanation is seen as a "better" one when it really leaves different angles/questions just as unanswered, while appearing to answer previous questions. That's how we get two astrophysics fields going at the same time, isn't it? We can explain the universe with either relativity or quantum theory, but not both together.

"In simple terms, the second law of thermodynamics states that for a system [the universe, let's say], the differences in intensive thermodynamic quantities such as temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to become more uniform ["run down"] as time goes by, unless there is an outside influence which works to maintain the differences."

So all the existing energy/matter of which the universe is composed was inert, and since the BB is returning to a uniform, inert state. What is this "outside influence" which caused the BB?

"Therefore, following the same reasoning but considering the whole universe as our "room", we reach a similar conclusion: that, at a certain point in the distant future, the whole universe will be a uniform, isothermic and inert body of matter, in which there will be no available energy to do work. This condition is known as the "heat death of the Universe"."

Yes, then I do understand the concept (forget the mathematics of the thing, yegods!).

The question remains: If there is a "heat death of the Universe" approaching, and it will remain "dead" for all eternity, whatinheck outside influence caused the BB in the first place?

If the universe is eternal in itself, and BB's are apparently spontaneous resulting in dynamic energy/matter, which then "runs down" only to be slapped awake again by yet another BB: then how can we, the only sapient species in the universe that we know of, assume that our very intellect and purpose is without origin? How can the eternal universe (which is constantly "banging" itself) NOT be intelligent and yet produce intelligence? And pardoxically, wouldn't the eternal universe BE intelligent since we evolved, since we are a part of the universe?

If the universe is merely Existence in the first place ("God") manifesting, then the origin of our intellect isn't any mystery: but of course, "why Existence and not Void?" will always be with us….

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34