Atheism , religion , ID etc
-
>>they simply are. so , why , in a space of possibilities does only _those rules_ exist? why arnt there infinite different rules? what made exactly those rules apply to our universe? Im not saying there is a supreme being nor that there is not. I just find it interesting and this is an area where atheist normally just close their eyes and cover their ears and say "but thats just how it is" for me, that is just as naive as beleiving in a christian god.
Roger J wrote:
I just find it interesting and this is an area where atheist normally just close their eyes and cover their ears and say "but thats just how it is" for me, that is just as naive as beleiving in a christian god.
I would say that "naive" is the wrong word here. What you seem to be recognising is the fact that everyone has faith in *something*. Some atheist scientist types will tell you that they don't need faith at all, and that everything can be explained by the scientific method. I would disagree - science cannot answer these kinds of "why" questions. I am fond of pointing out that it requires a lot of faith to be an atheist. You have to believe, without any evidence either way, that life and matter and the laws of the universe *just somehow* exist. You are putting your faith in Chance, or Randomness, as the basis of the universe.
-
Well, there's also the rule that rules will behave consistently over large periods of time. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
Consistently perhaps, but not necessarily identically. There are suggestions that some of the cosmological "constants" have changed subtly through the life of the universe.
-
Ok, Im gonna give this religious stuff a shot here :P Im a true beleiver of evolution, evolution is proved every day when you use genetic algorithms to fine tune systems , or when bacterias become resistent versus some medicines.. so in my mind I "know" evolution works. but in order for evolution to work , you need an environment where things can evolve under fixed or slowly changing rules , prefferably fixed rules. eg a simulated evolution can only work if you provide some sort of rules in which something can evolve. and the same goes for our universe , we know we have certain natural laws etc , which makes things act a certain way.. which in turn allows evolution.. so far so good. now Id like to know what other atheists or determinists think sustain those rules? (in our universe) can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it? where did such rules come from? why doesnt the law of gravity suddenly start acting different, whats stopping it from doing so? if those rules didnt exist , everything would be truly random and no evolution would work. (just a thought in the spirit of atheism vs ID vs whatever :-) ) //Roger
Roger J wrote:
we know we have certain natural laws etc , which makes things act a certain way.. which in turn allows evolution..
The only "rule" you need for evolution is that the "fitter" organisms (in the sense of "better-suited to living in their current environment") survive and pass their traits on to their offspring, while the less-well-adapted die off. As this will happen anyway there doesn't need to be any external being enforcing the "rules" of evolution. As soon as life appears evolution and adaptation will occur automatically.
-
Roger J wrote:
I just find it interesting and this is an area where atheist normally just close their eyes and cover their ears and say "but thats just how it is" for me, that is just as naive as beleiving in a christian god.
I would say that "naive" is the wrong word here. What you seem to be recognising is the fact that everyone has faith in *something*. Some atheist scientist types will tell you that they don't need faith at all, and that everything can be explained by the scientific method. I would disagree - science cannot answer these kinds of "why" questions. I am fond of pointing out that it requires a lot of faith to be an atheist. You have to believe, without any evidence either way, that life and matter and the laws of the universe *just somehow* exist. You are putting your faith in Chance, or Randomness, as the basis of the universe.
yes but isnt that beleif ("*just somehow* exist") pretty weak? if the atheist main argument against other beleifs is that you cant prove or test them , and in the end atheism turns out the same way if we look at this aspect. "i beleive the rules just somehow exists" dont seem more valid to me than "i beleive that god created everything" everything was so much simple as an atheist when I just ignored/didnt think of that part :P now I just feel like a confused darwinist :P
-
Roger J wrote:
we know we have certain natural laws etc , which makes things act a certain way.. which in turn allows evolution..
The only "rule" you need for evolution is that the "fitter" organisms (in the sense of "better-suited to living in their current environment") survive and pass their traits on to their offspring, while the less-well-adapted die off. As this will happen anyway there doesn't need to be any external being enforcing the "rules" of evolution. As soon as life appears evolution and adaptation will occur automatically.
wrong... "As soon as life appears evolution and adaptation will occur automatically" cannot happen without any rules.. thus, no evolution.. you have to have an environment with rules in order for evolution work..
-
Ok, Im gonna give this religious stuff a shot here :P Im a true beleiver of evolution, evolution is proved every day when you use genetic algorithms to fine tune systems , or when bacterias become resistent versus some medicines.. so in my mind I "know" evolution works. but in order for evolution to work , you need an environment where things can evolve under fixed or slowly changing rules , prefferably fixed rules. eg a simulated evolution can only work if you provide some sort of rules in which something can evolve. and the same goes for our universe , we know we have certain natural laws etc , which makes things act a certain way.. which in turn allows evolution.. so far so good. now Id like to know what other atheists or determinists think sustain those rules? (in our universe) can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it? where did such rules come from? why doesnt the law of gravity suddenly start acting different, whats stopping it from doing so? if those rules didnt exist , everything would be truly random and no evolution would work. (just a thought in the spirit of atheism vs ID vs whatever :-) ) //Roger
One article I've read (in Discover magazine I think) was why was the speed of light that speed. Some researchers believe that a billion years ago, the speed of light had a much faster speed than what it is today in order for the universe to have a big bang. The four "rules" of the universe (i.e., gravity, electromagnetism) are based on observations we have of them. For all we know, there is some other form of measurement or sense that we're not "seeing" that may give us a better understanding of it. An atheist tells you that since bacteria evolves, evolution is it. A religious person tells you that it can only be the work of God. Those of us in between believe that God created evolution so that we can better direct ourselves and our lives and not leave everything up to faith and Him/Her. "If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
>>they simply are. so , why , in a space of possibilities does only _those rules_ exist? why arnt there infinite different rules? what made exactly those rules apply to our universe? Im not saying there is a supreme being nor that there is not. I just find it interesting and this is an area where atheist normally just close their eyes and cover their ears and say "but thats just how it is" for me, that is just as naive as beleiving in a christian god.
Roger J wrote:
so , why , in a space of possibilities does only _those rules_ exist?
No one has said that those are the only rules.
Roger J wrote:
why arnt there infinite different rules?
Maybe there are. We only know of the ones we've observed.
Roger J wrote:
what made exactly those rules apply to our universe?
We observed the universe and concluded that it was conforming to those rules.
Roger J wrote:
I just find it interesting and this is an area where atheist normally just close their eyes and cover their ears and say "but thats just how it is"
It's actually the opposite. It's because they have opened their eyes that they know that that's how it is. When more things become evident, their eyes will be open for them too.
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
wrong... "As soon as life appears evolution and adaptation will occur automatically" cannot happen without any rules.. thus, no evolution.. you have to have an environment with rules in order for evolution work..
-
>>we know about them because a universe that relies on them exists. well, that doesnt prove they dont need to be sustained in some way, does it? humans relies on air to live, that doesnt mean that air can exist just by itself (w/o rules deciding how atoms bind together etc). >>there's simply nothing more fundamental: they are what determines everything. yes , I fully agree. however, that feels just as weak as the religious arguments "it has always been that way , tehre is no reason to question it , nor what it comes from" with that logic you can defend any beleif.. "donald duck has existed forever and he created everything ,its fundamental" , how do one know that or verify it?
Roger J wrote:
humans relies on air to live, that doesnt mean that air can exist just by itself
i don't know what you're trying to say here.
Roger J wrote:
however, that feels just as weak as the religious arguments "it has always been that way , tehre is no reason to question it , nor what it comes from"
i would never say "don't question it". but, either one accepts that the (possibly as yet unknown) laws of physics govern the universe or one doesn't. thus far, the entirety of the evidence is against those who choose to disbelieve. and there is simply no evidence that the universe is controlled by any kind of anthrophomorphic intelligence or 'will'. so, maybe the religious argument 'feels' like the scientific one, and maybe they attempt to describe the same processes and events, but the religious argument is based in pure fantasy - it's a pure figment of imagination. of course, some will disagree with that last sentence. i invite them to provide actual conclusive physical proof to the contrary. and, yes, i admit that it's possible that one day we could find that the universe is controlled by a consciousness of some kind (assuming we could recognize it as a consciousness and that such a powerful entity would allow itself to be discovered, etc). but as of yet, nobody has done that, and pretending that's where science will inevitably, or even probably, lead us is just dishonest.
Roger J wrote:
with that logic you can defend any beleif.
i'm familiar with the problems with the religious argument. ;) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Ok, Im gonna give this religious stuff a shot here :P Im a true beleiver of evolution, evolution is proved every day when you use genetic algorithms to fine tune systems , or when bacterias become resistent versus some medicines.. so in my mind I "know" evolution works. but in order for evolution to work , you need an environment where things can evolve under fixed or slowly changing rules , prefferably fixed rules. eg a simulated evolution can only work if you provide some sort of rules in which something can evolve. and the same goes for our universe , we know we have certain natural laws etc , which makes things act a certain way.. which in turn allows evolution.. so far so good. now Id like to know what other atheists or determinists think sustain those rules? (in our universe) can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it? where did such rules come from? why doesnt the law of gravity suddenly start acting different, whats stopping it from doing so? if those rules didnt exist , everything would be truly random and no evolution would work. (just a thought in the spirit of atheism vs ID vs whatever :-) ) //Roger
As much as scientists hate it because it smacks of everything that ID does, this is the best reason that cosmology has come up with for us having the laws of physics that we do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle[^] Essentially we can only exist in a universe with the laws of physics that we have. Almost any other set of laws would not allow life as we know it. I personally think it is crap because I suspect there are plenty of possibilities for life as we don't know it.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
-
Roger J wrote:
humans relies on air to live, that doesnt mean that air can exist just by itself
i don't know what you're trying to say here.
Roger J wrote:
however, that feels just as weak as the religious arguments "it has always been that way , tehre is no reason to question it , nor what it comes from"
i would never say "don't question it". but, either one accepts that the (possibly as yet unknown) laws of physics govern the universe or one doesn't. thus far, the entirety of the evidence is against those who choose to disbelieve. and there is simply no evidence that the universe is controlled by any kind of anthrophomorphic intelligence or 'will'. so, maybe the religious argument 'feels' like the scientific one, and maybe they attempt to describe the same processes and events, but the religious argument is based in pure fantasy - it's a pure figment of imagination. of course, some will disagree with that last sentence. i invite them to provide actual conclusive physical proof to the contrary. and, yes, i admit that it's possible that one day we could find that the universe is controlled by a consciousness of some kind (assuming we could recognize it as a consciousness and that such a powerful entity would allow itself to be discovered, etc). but as of yet, nobody has done that, and pretending that's where science will inevitably, or even probably, lead us is just dishonest.
Roger J wrote:
with that logic you can defend any beleif.
i'm familiar with the problems with the religious argument. ;) Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
i'm familiar with the problems with the religious argument.
I'm curious why would you reference that? It was just a pretty weak argument that you made attempting to deny that atheism was a religious belief system that displayed your lack of understanding about religion.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
i'm familiar with the problems with the religious argument.
I'm curious why would you reference that? It was just a pretty weak argument that you made attempting to deny that atheism was a religious belief system that displayed your lack of understanding about religion.
espeir wrote:
I'm curious why would you reference that?
because his "donald duck" line reminded me of my Flying Spaghetti Monster line.
espeir wrote:
It was just a pretty weak argument that you made attempting to deny that atheism was a religious belief system that displayed your lack of understanding about religion.
please, i beg you: quit trying to break the English language. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
yes but isnt that beleif ("*just somehow* exist") pretty weak? if the atheist main argument against other beleifs is that you cant prove or test them , and in the end atheism turns out the same way if we look at this aspect. "i beleive the rules just somehow exists" dont seem more valid to me than "i beleive that god created everything" everything was so much simple as an atheist when I just ignored/didnt think of that part :P now I just feel like a confused darwinist :P
Roger J wrote:
yes but isnt that beleif ("*just somehow* exist") pretty weak?
Well, I would certainly say so, yes. And given that atheism *is* a faith, it does seem to be a faith singularly lacking in helpful hints on what one's purpose is or how one should live one's life. You often find that atheists borrow parts of their moral framework from other faiths, because moral frameworks are a practical necessity (you have to choose to live your life *somehow*) and atheism is inadequate to supply them.
-
espeir wrote:
I'm curious why would you reference that?
because his "donald duck" line reminded me of my Flying Spaghetti Monster line.
espeir wrote:
It was just a pretty weak argument that you made attempting to deny that atheism was a religious belief system that displayed your lack of understanding about religion.
please, i beg you: quit trying to break the English language. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
please, i beg you: quit trying to break the English language.
Sorry. I will use small sentences. I forgot my audience.
-
Ok, Im gonna give this religious stuff a shot here :P Im a true beleiver of evolution, evolution is proved every day when you use genetic algorithms to fine tune systems , or when bacterias become resistent versus some medicines.. so in my mind I "know" evolution works. but in order for evolution to work , you need an environment where things can evolve under fixed or slowly changing rules , prefferably fixed rules. eg a simulated evolution can only work if you provide some sort of rules in which something can evolve. and the same goes for our universe , we know we have certain natural laws etc , which makes things act a certain way.. which in turn allows evolution.. so far so good. now Id like to know what other atheists or determinists think sustain those rules? (in our universe) can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it? where did such rules come from? why doesnt the law of gravity suddenly start acting different, whats stopping it from doing so? if those rules didnt exist , everything would be truly random and no evolution would work. (just a thought in the spirit of atheism vs ID vs whatever :-) ) //Roger
Roger J wrote:
but in order for evolution to work , you need an environment where things can evolve under fixed or slowly changing rules , prefferably fixed rules.
I don't agree here. As soon as you 'try' to monitor evolution you have changed the condition. Evolution is something that needs to be 'obsevered' and not 'watched'. At the root of it all there is a difference between watching and observing.
Roger J wrote:
can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it?
Yes, because the rules that we discuss (gravity, thermodynamics, time, etc..) are all fundamental rules. They are THE rules that are the basis for all others. They are the 'Bass Classes' of the universe. They do not need to be sustained because they themselves are the sustainers of the rest of the universe.
Roger J wrote:
where did such rules come from?
Again I don't see them as coming from anywhere because that implies that there was some cognitive 'thing' that said 'hey, we need a rule here' and built it. These rules come from the basic properties of universal matter and under the right conditions they do just happen.
Roger J wrote:
why doesn't the law of gravity suddenly start acting different, whats stopping it from doing so?
Who says at some point it will not? Given the grand nature of gravity I do not think that we have been around nearly enough to say with any degree of certainty that even gravity is steady state in it's behavior. Perhaps given enough time it would change (evolve) into something else. OR, perhaps it happens so slow that it already has and we simply evolved along with it.
Roger J wrote:
if those rules didn't exist , everything would be truly random and no evolution would work.
As long as the rate of change (or randomness) is slower than the rate of evolution I don't see a problem. Evolution only requires that the conditions be consistent and steady for long enough for the evolving organisms to 1 - notice the need to change, 2 - make the change in relation to the surrounding stimulus, 3 - then pass those changes on to offspring to propagate it forward within the species. The bottom line here with the entire religion vs. science thing (at least in my opinion) is that I believe in what can be proven and refuse to believe in
-
Roger J wrote:
but in order for evolution to work , you need an environment where things can evolve under fixed or slowly changing rules , prefferably fixed rules.
I don't agree here. As soon as you 'try' to monitor evolution you have changed the condition. Evolution is something that needs to be 'obsevered' and not 'watched'. At the root of it all there is a difference between watching and observing.
Roger J wrote:
can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it?
Yes, because the rules that we discuss (gravity, thermodynamics, time, etc..) are all fundamental rules. They are THE rules that are the basis for all others. They are the 'Bass Classes' of the universe. They do not need to be sustained because they themselves are the sustainers of the rest of the universe.
Roger J wrote:
where did such rules come from?
Again I don't see them as coming from anywhere because that implies that there was some cognitive 'thing' that said 'hey, we need a rule here' and built it. These rules come from the basic properties of universal matter and under the right conditions they do just happen.
Roger J wrote:
why doesn't the law of gravity suddenly start acting different, whats stopping it from doing so?
Who says at some point it will not? Given the grand nature of gravity I do not think that we have been around nearly enough to say with any degree of certainty that even gravity is steady state in it's behavior. Perhaps given enough time it would change (evolve) into something else. OR, perhaps it happens so slow that it already has and we simply evolved along with it.
Roger J wrote:
if those rules didn't exist , everything would be truly random and no evolution would work.
As long as the rate of change (or randomness) is slower than the rate of evolution I don't see a problem. Evolution only requires that the conditions be consistent and steady for long enough for the evolving organisms to 1 - notice the need to change, 2 - make the change in relation to the surrounding stimulus, 3 - then pass those changes on to offspring to propagate it forward within the species. The bottom line here with the entire religion vs. science thing (at least in my opinion) is that I believe in what can be proven and refuse to believe in
Ray Cassick wrote:
Roger J wrote: can a rule exist w/o anything sustaining it? Yes, because the rules that we discuss (gravity, thermodynamics, time, etc..) are all fundamental rules. They are THE rules that are the basis for all others. They are the 'Bass Classes' of the universe. They do not need to be sustained because they themselves are the sustainers of the rest of the universe.
How do you know this? Can you prove these assertions scientifically? Or are they just articles of your faith?
Ray Cassick wrote:
The bottom line here with the entire religion vs. science thing (at least in my opinion) is that I believe in what can be proven and refuse to believe in what cannot be.
But your statements above show that you believe in some things that aren't proven. You have already made statements of faith without realising it.
-
As much as scientists hate it because it smacks of everything that ID does, this is the best reason that cosmology has come up with for us having the laws of physics that we do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle[^] Essentially we can only exist in a universe with the laws of physics that we have. Almost any other set of laws would not allow life as we know it. I personally think it is crap because I suspect there are plenty of possibilities for life as we don't know it.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
andy brummer wrote:
Almost any other set of laws would not allow life as we know it. I personally think it is crap because I suspect there are plenty of possibilities for life as we don't know it.
i don't see how your first sentence is in disagreement with your second. of course a different set of laws would allow for life "as we don't know it". we're still finding life we don't know with the set of laws we do have. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Roger J wrote:
yes but isnt that beleif ("*just somehow* exist") pretty weak?
Well, I would certainly say so, yes. And given that atheism *is* a faith, it does seem to be a faith singularly lacking in helpful hints on what one's purpose is or how one should live one's life. You often find that atheists borrow parts of their moral framework from other faiths, because moral frameworks are a practical necessity (you have to choose to live your life *somehow*) and atheism is inadequate to supply them.
Richard Northedge wrote:
You often find that atheists borrow parts of their moral framework from other faiths, because moral frameworks are a practical necessity (you have to choose to live your life *somehow*) and atheism is inadequate to supply them.
err... that's a gigantic leap. have you ever considered that what you call "moral frameworks" are simply fundamental human behaviors, and that religions just re-brand what already exists in people ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Richard Northedge wrote:
You often find that atheists borrow parts of their moral framework from other faiths, because moral frameworks are a practical necessity (you have to choose to live your life *somehow*) and atheism is inadequate to supply them.
err... that's a gigantic leap. have you ever considered that what you call "moral frameworks" are simply fundamental human behaviors, and that religions just re-brand what already exists in people ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
have you ever considered that what you call "moral frameworks" are simply fundamental human behaviors, and that religions just re-brand what already exists in people ?
Religion discourages you from engaging in fundamental human behaviors (specifically animal-like traits found in our primate brothers). Those moral frameworks come from religion.
-
andy brummer wrote:
Almost any other set of laws would not allow life as we know it. I personally think it is crap because I suspect there are plenty of possibilities for life as we don't know it.
i don't see how your first sentence is in disagreement with your second. of course a different set of laws would allow for life "as we don't know it". we're still finding life we don't know with the set of laws we do have. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
we're still finding life we don't know with the set of laws we do have.
It is the whole nature of the principle. There is nothing logically inconsistent with it at all. If the universe did not support life then we couldn't be there to observe it, so of all possible universes we can only exist in the ones that we can exist in. What is troubling is how sensitive things like atoms, stars, galaxies and planets are to the physical constants of the universe, and there are at least 30 of them if not hundreds. The probability of getting the values that produce our universe is so slim, the only ways to rationalize it are to assume multiple universes, either through time or extended landscape or things like the anthropic principle. I imediately start thinking about other options for life and our limited rules for understanding how life could exist in one of these alternate universes, but that is really just avoiding the big question. Why are we in a universe like this one.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
