Superstition
-
Is there something akin to red-baiting, but about atheists? I know this is probably a sin, not because it's fun, because I'm not really doing it with love in my heart. :-O
Opacity, the new Transparency.
People like Tim ( and Dawkins for that matter ) are fascinating in the way they use hyperbole and hysteria to 'promote reason'. It's always tempting to engage such people because of the contradictions they represent, and the obvious hypocrisy built in to their approach. However, at the core, Tim's approach is based on an arrogance and an overriding desire to make sure that he puts people down at every chance he gets, to show everyone how wise and 'right' he is. I do not claim to be perfect, but I do the best I can to avoid the temptation to be pulled in to their web. It's just not worth it in the long run. But I am not denying that it can be fun to engage someone who obviously is not presenting any sort of rational debate, while at the same time calling you irrational....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
People like Tim ( and Dawkins for that matter ) are fascinating in the way they use hyperbole and hysteria to 'promote reason'. It's always tempting to engage such people because of the contradictions they represent, and the obvious hypocrisy built in to their approach. However, at the core, Tim's approach is based on an arrogance and an overriding desire to make sure that he puts people down at every chance he gets, to show everyone how wise and 'right' he is. I do not claim to be perfect, but I do the best I can to avoid the temptation to be pulled in to their web. It's just not worth it in the long run. But I am not denying that it can be fun to engage someone who obviously is not presenting any sort of rational debate, while at the same time calling you irrational....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I believe Science is the exploration, discovery and attempt to gain understanding, of God's Creation. There are some people who have a 'God of the cracks' - He fits into the cracks between knowledge. I'm not one of those People, and my God is not like that. As I learn more stuff, I reconcile it with my faith.
Well, I'm right with ya, except for the "God's Creation" part... Science is the exploration, discovery, and attempt to gain understanding of the universe, regardless of how it was formed :)
RichardM1 wrote:
The Bible teaches free will (and determinism, I don't really know how to do both, but I don't know how to create a universe, either). The Newtonian universe got fully mechanistic, and its adherents even argued that crime was not a person's own fault, since it was all clockwork. No room for free will. Quantum mechanics came along, and Penrose (IIRC) said, effectively, that quantum uncertainty turned to creativity and free will, at the synapses.
Interesting... I'd never really thought about free will that way... I mean, every "decision" we make is really just a calculation based on memories and sensory inputs. If movement at the molecular level is completely deterministic, then free will really is non-existent. If it's not deterministic, then free will is just our way of explaining randomness. Of course, our decisions are based on the way our brain is wired, as the same experiences and sensory inputs would not produce the same results in different people (Different genetics)... So in essence, the actions are still "our fault," because someone else wouldn't necessarily have done the same thing. Definitely an interesting point, though... Science does kind of work the same way, adjusting theories to fit the facts. I think the real difference is in phrasing... Religion starts off by saying "The earth was created in six days. Period. That's the truth, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong." Then no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary, religion thinks of excuse after excuse to avoid being found in error... If science was thinking along all of those lines, it would have been "I think the earth was created in six days... Let's find some way to prove it... Hmm... Can't prove it... Ok, the earth MIGHT have been created in six days... Wait, you have something that contradicts it? Ok, guess my hypothesis was wrong." I think it's a matter of r
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Religion starts off by saying "The earth was created in six days. Period. That's the truth, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong."
Only Bible based religions believe the six era idea. Only some Christians and Jews believe six day Creation. Even some scientists are dogmatic - look at what is going on with AGC, both sides.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some people think of the bible as completely accurate
Some people say that. When you run them to ground, they will say that there is interpretation to understand parts of the Bible. Creation in 6 days. For God a day is as a thousand years. Prophetic interpretation says "week" means seven years. I believe the Bible is completely accurate, but not completely literal. The Bible is the key to understanding the Bible. It is internally consistent, so how you read it must take that consistency into account. If I don't believe it is accurate and internally consistent, then I have no basis on which to rest Christianity, as there is nothing else that is the source of Christianity.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anyway, late for work... Crap...
If it makes you feel any better, this was a 14 hour day, it's the shortest I've had, and it's back to work now. :sigh: Richard
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Religion starts off by saying "The earth was created in six days. Period. That's the truth, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong."
Only Bible based religions believe the six era idea. Only some Christians and Jews believe six day Creation. Even some scientists are dogmatic - look at what is going on with AGC, both sides.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some people think of the bible as completely accurate
Some people say that. When you run them to ground, they will say that there is interpretation to understand parts of the Bible. Creation in 6 days. For God a day is as a thousand years. Prophetic interpretation says "week" means seven years. I believe the Bible is completely accurate, but not completely literal. The Bible is the key to understanding the Bible. It is internally consistent, so how you read it must take that consistency into account. If I don't believe it is accurate and internally consistent, then I have no basis on which to rest Christianity, as there is nothing else that is the source of Christianity.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anyway, late for work... Crap...
If it makes you feel any better, this was a 14 hour day, it's the shortest I've had, and it's back to work now. :sigh: Richard
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Only Bible based religions believe the six era idea. Only some Christians and Jews believe six day Creation. Even some scientists are dogmatic - look at what is going on with AGC, both sides.
You missed the point... The point is that religion makes a statement and says "This is the truth, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong." Science says "We think this is the truth, but feel free to try to disprove it."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Science changed to match Christianity
Um, in a word, no. Christianity is always trying to grasp at bits of science to prove its beliefs. It cherry picks and those doing the picking generally don't have a clue about what they're trying to understand.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
Um, in a word, no.
:laugh: Oh, you are too much fun. See, I give a minor treatise that shows that I am not cherry picking, that I look at what I know, and I have an integrated view of the world and God. You can't take it that I can do that and be a Christian, can you?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Only Bible based religions believe the six era idea. Only some Christians and Jews believe six day Creation. Even some scientists are dogmatic - look at what is going on with AGC, both sides.
You missed the point... The point is that religion makes a statement and says "This is the truth, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong." Science says "We think this is the truth, but feel free to try to disprove it."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
You missed the point...
No, I didn't. I think your claim is unremarkable, so I did not remark. But if you want it... Science is about belief, it requires belief in observational validity*. Faith is about belief, it requires belief in something, for Christianity, the Bible. I have faith. I believe the Bible is true. I also believe that what we observe in Creation is truth, and science is about observation. For the Bible, observation is essentially complete**, and analysis continues. For science, observation is ongoing, as is analysis. I believe both are truth, and both are prone to analytical error. If I analyze Biblical text and believe it supports 6 day creation, and observation and analysis shows that not to be the case, I need to reconcile my analysis of the Biblical text with both sets of observation. There are bigoted scientists and believers, and there are open minded people, as we. * There are philosophies that say all observation is unreliable. I don't know how they can trust any observation that shows this. :rolleyes: ** We discover new Biblical texts, gain information about Biblical Hebrew.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You missed the point...
No, I didn't. I think your claim is unremarkable, so I did not remark. But if you want it... Science is about belief, it requires belief in observational validity*. Faith is about belief, it requires belief in something, for Christianity, the Bible. I have faith. I believe the Bible is true. I also believe that what we observe in Creation is truth, and science is about observation. For the Bible, observation is essentially complete**, and analysis continues. For science, observation is ongoing, as is analysis. I believe both are truth, and both are prone to analytical error. If I analyze Biblical text and believe it supports 6 day creation, and observation and analysis shows that not to be the case, I need to reconcile my analysis of the Biblical text with both sets of observation. There are bigoted scientists and believers, and there are open minded people, as we. * There are philosophies that say all observation is unreliable. I don't know how they can trust any observation that shows this. :rolleyes: ** We discover new Biblical texts, gain information about Biblical Hebrew.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Science is about belief, it requires belief in observational validity*.
That's a stretch... I mean, you can reproduce the experiments that prove scientific theories and laws... You can see the results with your own eyes. I think it's a bit of a stretch to equate that with just believing what you read in a book. Granted, the vast majority of people DO just believe the science they read in books, but they have the option to verify it for themselves. No such option exists in religion.
RichardM1 wrote:
There are bigoted scientists and believers, and there are open minded people, as we.
Completely agreed... There are people on both ends of the spectrum in every category. Being theistic or atheistic doesn't automatically make someone more or less intelligent or open-minded.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Science is about belief, it requires belief in observational validity*.
That's a stretch... I mean, you can reproduce the experiments that prove scientific theories and laws... You can see the results with your own eyes. I think it's a bit of a stretch to equate that with just believing what you read in a book. Granted, the vast majority of people DO just believe the science they read in books, but they have the option to verify it for themselves. No such option exists in religion.
RichardM1 wrote:
There are bigoted scientists and believers, and there are open minded people, as we.
Completely agreed... There are people on both ends of the spectrum in every category. Being theistic or atheistic doesn't automatically make someone more or less intelligent or open-minded.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I opened it in a firefox page, and lost track of it till now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's a stretch... I mean, you can reproduce the experiments that prove scientific theories and laws... You can see the results with your own eyes.
Not trusting observation is mainly about Eastern religions, and existential angsty new age relativistic there-is-no-truth crap. I believe in observation, math, physics, biology, responsibility, and a pays-your-money-and-takes-your-choice kind of philosophy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Granted, the vast majority of people DO just believe the science they read in books, but they have the option to verify it for themselves. No such option exists in religion.
I agree about the vast majority of people, but I disagree about religion. I have made observations of what happens in my life. I can't do repeated experiments on my life, as all my data points are altered by all previous data points, so I can only watch it unfold and take the data as it comes. I'm not saying in a helpless-victim way. My choices change the scenario as I go along, part of why I can't reproduce any experiments. I have read books that attempt to give explanation of the possible bigger pictures. Science does not give that. It gives equations and theories that model the world to different levels of precision, but at the base, is describes what is, not why it is. Even if you could use QM to follow all particles back to the Big Bang (uncertainty be damned), why was the Big Bang? Something of the universe did not cause the universe, because it would not have been around to create it. Something outside the universe must have created it. That, by definition, is super-natural. Given all my experience, I have come to believe that Christ is the Lord, God is His Father, the Apostolic creed, yada yada, etc., etc. I'm sure you have heard it all before. I have verified it to the level of experimental certainty that I believe it, like I do the Big Bang and Quantum mechanics. Maybe more, as I have had direct experience in my life, and am willing to bet my life on it, in the short and long run. I have fewer first hand data points with, say, General Relativity and relativistic velocities and time dilation. :laugh: Seems nobody trusts me with the equipment! I just wanted that tac-nuke for the weekend (shaking head), I was gonna give it back!
Opacity, th
-
Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I opened it in a firefox page, and lost track of it till now.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's a stretch... I mean, you can reproduce the experiments that prove scientific theories and laws... You can see the results with your own eyes.
Not trusting observation is mainly about Eastern religions, and existential angsty new age relativistic there-is-no-truth crap. I believe in observation, math, physics, biology, responsibility, and a pays-your-money-and-takes-your-choice kind of philosophy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Granted, the vast majority of people DO just believe the science they read in books, but they have the option to verify it for themselves. No such option exists in religion.
I agree about the vast majority of people, but I disagree about religion. I have made observations of what happens in my life. I can't do repeated experiments on my life, as all my data points are altered by all previous data points, so I can only watch it unfold and take the data as it comes. I'm not saying in a helpless-victim way. My choices change the scenario as I go along, part of why I can't reproduce any experiments. I have read books that attempt to give explanation of the possible bigger pictures. Science does not give that. It gives equations and theories that model the world to different levels of precision, but at the base, is describes what is, not why it is. Even if you could use QM to follow all particles back to the Big Bang (uncertainty be damned), why was the Big Bang? Something of the universe did not cause the universe, because it would not have been around to create it. Something outside the universe must have created it. That, by definition, is super-natural. Given all my experience, I have come to believe that Christ is the Lord, God is His Father, the Apostolic creed, yada yada, etc., etc. I'm sure you have heard it all before. I have verified it to the level of experimental certainty that I believe it, like I do the Big Bang and Quantum mechanics. Maybe more, as I have had direct experience in my life, and am willing to bet my life on it, in the short and long run. I have fewer first hand data points with, say, General Relativity and relativistic velocities and time dilation. :laugh: Seems nobody trusts me with the equipment! I just wanted that tac-nuke for the weekend (shaking head), I was gonna give it back!
Opacity, th
RichardM1 wrote:
Science does not give that. It gives equations and theories that model the world to different levels of precision, but at the base, is describes what is, not why it is.
Partly agreed... Science tries to explain the cause and effect, which is in some sense the "why." Objects fall toward the Earth because the mass of the Earth (somehow) causes gravitational force... Of course, it doesn't have all of the answers yet. It doesn't, however, attempt to explain the greater purpose, true. Maybe it just tries to teach us that there doesn't have to be one. Why are we here, in the greater sense? Why is the Earth the Earth? Why are we what we are? The only answer science has is that there is no answer. It's a matter of statistics and chance. Out of the billions and billions of galaxies and stars, it's a statistical certainty that at least one would become capable of supporting life (Likely many). With the amount of elapsed time, and the sheer number of chemical reactions going on, just on this planet, it would have been statistically likely for some form of life to develop... Or maybe it was just a fluke. Personally, and I apologize if this offends, but personally I believe one of the real reasons for religion is that people have trouble dealing with the idea that there may NOT be a reason for being here, or a meaning of life, or any sort of purpose besides the mere continuation of life.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something of the universe did not cause the universe, because it would not have been around to create it. Something outside the universe must have created it. That, by definition, is super-natural.
Now, this is a conversation I've had before. It usually goes something like this: Theist: "Well something must have created the universe. That's God." Atheist: "Well what created "god"?" Theist: "God has always been here." Atheist: "Maybe the universe has always been here." The point is, of course, that if everything has to be created by something, then why is "god" exempt? Science, of course, can't tell us where the universe came from. Maybe it always existed, and the "Big Crunch" theory is true, and it just keeps exploding and collapsing, forever. Maybe there are other dimensions, and this one just formed in some way similar to how the planets formed from the galaxy, in which case the question is how all of the dimensions came to be. We may never know the answer.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Science does not give that. It gives equations and theories that model the world to different levels of precision, but at the base, is describes what is, not why it is.
Partly agreed... Science tries to explain the cause and effect, which is in some sense the "why." Objects fall toward the Earth because the mass of the Earth (somehow) causes gravitational force... Of course, it doesn't have all of the answers yet. It doesn't, however, attempt to explain the greater purpose, true. Maybe it just tries to teach us that there doesn't have to be one. Why are we here, in the greater sense? Why is the Earth the Earth? Why are we what we are? The only answer science has is that there is no answer. It's a matter of statistics and chance. Out of the billions and billions of galaxies and stars, it's a statistical certainty that at least one would become capable of supporting life (Likely many). With the amount of elapsed time, and the sheer number of chemical reactions going on, just on this planet, it would have been statistically likely for some form of life to develop... Or maybe it was just a fluke. Personally, and I apologize if this offends, but personally I believe one of the real reasons for religion is that people have trouble dealing with the idea that there may NOT be a reason for being here, or a meaning of life, or any sort of purpose besides the mere continuation of life.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something of the universe did not cause the universe, because it would not have been around to create it. Something outside the universe must have created it. That, by definition, is super-natural.
Now, this is a conversation I've had before. It usually goes something like this: Theist: "Well something must have created the universe. That's God." Atheist: "Well what created "god"?" Theist: "God has always been here." Atheist: "Maybe the universe has always been here." The point is, of course, that if everything has to be created by something, then why is "god" exempt? Science, of course, can't tell us where the universe came from. Maybe it always existed, and the "Big Crunch" theory is true, and it just keeps exploding and collapsing, forever. Maybe there are other dimensions, and this one just formed in some way similar to how the planets formed from the galaxy, in which case the question is how all of the dimensions came to be. We may never know the answer.
I will answer this in parts :)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It doesn't, however, attempt to explain the greater purpose, true. Maybe it just tries to teach us that there doesn't have to be one.
Science does not try to teach us anything. We discover things through science. 'Sciences' current answer to a greater purpose is that it has no data. This is like when people say evolution created something. 'Evolution', like 'scientific method' is the description of a process. The process described in evolution is random mutation, survival based on a fitness function. Not a directed process. If something else effected the fitness function, this does not change our description of the process, until we know about it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's a matter of statistics and chance. Out of the billions and billions of galaxies and stars, it's a statistical certainty that at least one would become capable of supporting life
Statistics and chance. I spent years in modeling and simulation. We would apply probabilistic outcomes to things that were too complex for us to model. Given our current physical constants, the probability approaches, but does not get to, one. If the constants differed by much, the current wisdom is that life would not be possible.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Personally, and I apologize if this offends, but personally I believe one of the real reasons for religion is that people have trouble dealing with the idea that there may NOT be a reason for being here, or a meaning of life, or any sort of purpose besides the mere continuation of life.
No offense taken, and none meant here: I personally believe that a lot of atheists disbelieve because they do not want to be responsible for their thoughts and actions, that if they thought they had a reason for being here, they would have to go out of their way to figure out what it was and accomplish it. I know I want to disbelieve for all those reasons. But for the same reason I won't accept 'above unity generators', I won't accept my disbelief. For me, the data does not support it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
I will answer this in parts :)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It doesn't, however, attempt to explain the greater purpose, true. Maybe it just tries to teach us that there doesn't have to be one.
Science does not try to teach us anything. We discover things through science. 'Sciences' current answer to a greater purpose is that it has no data. This is like when people say evolution created something. 'Evolution', like 'scientific method' is the description of a process. The process described in evolution is random mutation, survival based on a fitness function. Not a directed process. If something else effected the fitness function, this does not change our description of the process, until we know about it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's a matter of statistics and chance. Out of the billions and billions of galaxies and stars, it's a statistical certainty that at least one would become capable of supporting life
Statistics and chance. I spent years in modeling and simulation. We would apply probabilistic outcomes to things that were too complex for us to model. Given our current physical constants, the probability approaches, but does not get to, one. If the constants differed by much, the current wisdom is that life would not be possible.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Personally, and I apologize if this offends, but personally I believe one of the real reasons for religion is that people have trouble dealing with the idea that there may NOT be a reason for being here, or a meaning of life, or any sort of purpose besides the mere continuation of life.
No offense taken, and none meant here: I personally believe that a lot of atheists disbelieve because they do not want to be responsible for their thoughts and actions, that if they thought they had a reason for being here, they would have to go out of their way to figure out what it was and accomplish it. I know I want to disbelieve for all those reasons. But for the same reason I won't accept 'above unity generators', I won't accept my disbelief. For me, the data does not support it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Given our current physical constants, the probability approaches, but does not get to, one. If the constants differed by much, the current wisdom is that life would not be possible.
Life as WE know it would not be possible. It's hard to imagine what the universe would be like with different constants... Maybe some other form of life would exist.
RichardM1 wrote:
No offense taken, and none meant here: I personally believe that a lot of atheists disbelieve because they do not want to be responsible for their thoughts and actions, that if they thought they had a reason for being here, they would have to go out of their way to figure out what it was and accomplish it.
I'm sure there are some like that. Personally, I "disbelieve" because the idea of a deity just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't need a religion to give me a reason to live. As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't think there's a "reason" for humanity. Humans are just animals, and we live because our instincts drive us to live. Of course, everyone needs their own reason to persevere, and I think we each need to find our own. I've decided that my reason for living is to contribute to society as much as I can, in the short time I have. Right now, I do that with my novels, since my programming skills have so far just amounted to moving numbers around for rich people... Heh. My grandfather used to say, and I don't remember who he was quoting (Thomas Paine, I think, but not sure)... "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's sufficient for me.
RichardM1 wrote:
But for the same reason I won't accept 'above unity generators', I won't accept my disbelief. For me, the data does not support it.
Not familiar with that... I'll have to look that up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Science does not give that. It gives equations and theories that model the world to different levels of precision, but at the base, is describes what is, not why it is.
Partly agreed... Science tries to explain the cause and effect, which is in some sense the "why." Objects fall toward the Earth because the mass of the Earth (somehow) causes gravitational force... Of course, it doesn't have all of the answers yet. It doesn't, however, attempt to explain the greater purpose, true. Maybe it just tries to teach us that there doesn't have to be one. Why are we here, in the greater sense? Why is the Earth the Earth? Why are we what we are? The only answer science has is that there is no answer. It's a matter of statistics and chance. Out of the billions and billions of galaxies and stars, it's a statistical certainty that at least one would become capable of supporting life (Likely many). With the amount of elapsed time, and the sheer number of chemical reactions going on, just on this planet, it would have been statistically likely for some form of life to develop... Or maybe it was just a fluke. Personally, and I apologize if this offends, but personally I believe one of the real reasons for religion is that people have trouble dealing with the idea that there may NOT be a reason for being here, or a meaning of life, or any sort of purpose besides the mere continuation of life.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something of the universe did not cause the universe, because it would not have been around to create it. Something outside the universe must have created it. That, by definition, is super-natural.
Now, this is a conversation I've had before. It usually goes something like this: Theist: "Well something must have created the universe. That's God." Atheist: "Well what created "god"?" Theist: "God has always been here." Atheist: "Maybe the universe has always been here." The point is, of course, that if everything has to be created by something, then why is "god" exempt? Science, of course, can't tell us where the universe came from. Maybe it always existed, and the "Big Crunch" theory is true, and it just keeps exploding and collapsing, forever. Maybe there are other dimensions, and this one just formed in some way similar to how the planets formed from the galaxy, in which case the question is how all of the dimensions came to be. We may never know the answer.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now, this is a conversation I've had before. It usually goes something like this: Theist: "Well something must have created the universe. That's God." Atheist: "Well what created "god"?" Theist: "God has always been here." Atheist: "Maybe the universe has always been here."
Currrent theory does not support that. Maybe there was, but the atheist invoking this argument is going outside of nature, into the realm of the supernatural, which the atheist does not believe in.
The point is, of course, that if everything has to be created by something, then why is "god" exempt?
What we know is pertinent to the universe, it is all we can observe. God is clearly external to the universe, and does not have the same constraints. Christianity state there is a beginning and end to time. Current theory, says there is a beginning, and might define the end as heat death. Christianity says there is an 'eternity' outside of time. Current theory does not discuss it.
Science, of course, can't tell us where the universe came from. Maybe it always existed, and the "Big Crunch" theory is true, and it just keeps exploding and collapsing, forever. Maybe there are other dimensions, and this one just formed in some way similar to how the planets formed from the galaxy, in which case the question is how all of the dimensions came to be. We may never know the answer.
That is a lot of maybes, all of which fall outside of current theory. I don't mind if you speculate, but understand that it is either fantastic, or religious, speculation.
I mean, at one point, we didn't know anything but the Earth, Moon, and Sun existed... Then we learned about the solar system... Then we learned about galaxies... Then about galactic clusters and the universe in general... Maybe there's another step beyond that. Science, of course, isn't afraid to say "I don't know" when faced with something currently unprovable. Religion tries to create an answer to everything.
The best current theory on God is "I don't know", unprovable and all. Some religions may attempt to create an answer to everything, by which I take it you mean explain everything in detail. Christianity has the answer to the big picture, but does not attempt to override scientific answers. Some people who are running organized religions do, but I'm Protestant, and we are totally unorganized. If
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Science does not give that. It gives equations and theories that model the world to different levels of precision, but at the base, is describes what is, not why it is.
Partly agreed... Science tries to explain the cause and effect, which is in some sense the "why." Objects fall toward the Earth because the mass of the Earth (somehow) causes gravitational force... Of course, it doesn't have all of the answers yet. It doesn't, however, attempt to explain the greater purpose, true. Maybe it just tries to teach us that there doesn't have to be one. Why are we here, in the greater sense? Why is the Earth the Earth? Why are we what we are? The only answer science has is that there is no answer. It's a matter of statistics and chance. Out of the billions and billions of galaxies and stars, it's a statistical certainty that at least one would become capable of supporting life (Likely many). With the amount of elapsed time, and the sheer number of chemical reactions going on, just on this planet, it would have been statistically likely for some form of life to develop... Or maybe it was just a fluke. Personally, and I apologize if this offends, but personally I believe one of the real reasons for religion is that people have trouble dealing with the idea that there may NOT be a reason for being here, or a meaning of life, or any sort of purpose besides the mere continuation of life.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something of the universe did not cause the universe, because it would not have been around to create it. Something outside the universe must have created it. That, by definition, is super-natural.
Now, this is a conversation I've had before. It usually goes something like this: Theist: "Well something must have created the universe. That's God." Atheist: "Well what created "god"?" Theist: "God has always been here." Atheist: "Maybe the universe has always been here." The point is, of course, that if everything has to be created by something, then why is "god" exempt? Science, of course, can't tell us where the universe came from. Maybe it always existed, and the "Big Crunch" theory is true, and it just keeps exploding and collapsing, forever. Maybe there are other dimensions, and this one just formed in some way similar to how the planets formed from the galaxy, in which case the question is how all of the dimensions came to be. We may never know the answer.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Heh, I'm not too keen on general relativity... I forget whether I said it in this thread or another, but I think that's too complex and convoluted to be right... Nature tends to work in very simple ways, that are only complex through sheer magnitude. Molecular interactions are, at their core, incredibly simple... The four basic forces work in tandem with inertia... But the sheer speed and number of such interactions create an infinite variety of more complex situations. I think there's probably kind of force we haven't figured out how to measure yet, maybe related to the so-called "dark matter," that would explain the effects of "time dilation" and such. Of course, I have no proof, and I don't have the expertise to find proof, so right now, I'm comfortable just saying "I don't know."
GR really has an elegance to it. It is tough to wrap your head around, and I only get pieces at a time, and some pieces never at all. Light turns, not because of gravity, but because time is going slower on the side closer to a massive object, so it turns in that direction. 'Gravitational' acceleration may be a manifestation of the same change in the rate of time flow. QM is another one that can't all fit in the brain at once, for me, but that the pieces I know are all pretty, and pretty weird. But yes, there is so much out more there than we know, or can know!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now, this is a conversation I've had before. It usually goes something like this: Theist: "Well something must have created the universe. That's God." Atheist: "Well what created "god"?" Theist: "God has always been here." Atheist: "Maybe the universe has always been here."
Currrent theory does not support that. Maybe there was, but the atheist invoking this argument is going outside of nature, into the realm of the supernatural, which the atheist does not believe in.
The point is, of course, that if everything has to be created by something, then why is "god" exempt?
What we know is pertinent to the universe, it is all we can observe. God is clearly external to the universe, and does not have the same constraints. Christianity state there is a beginning and end to time. Current theory, says there is a beginning, and might define the end as heat death. Christianity says there is an 'eternity' outside of time. Current theory does not discuss it.
Science, of course, can't tell us where the universe came from. Maybe it always existed, and the "Big Crunch" theory is true, and it just keeps exploding and collapsing, forever. Maybe there are other dimensions, and this one just formed in some way similar to how the planets formed from the galaxy, in which case the question is how all of the dimensions came to be. We may never know the answer.
That is a lot of maybes, all of which fall outside of current theory. I don't mind if you speculate, but understand that it is either fantastic, or religious, speculation.
I mean, at one point, we didn't know anything but the Earth, Moon, and Sun existed... Then we learned about the solar system... Then we learned about galaxies... Then about galactic clusters and the universe in general... Maybe there's another step beyond that. Science, of course, isn't afraid to say "I don't know" when faced with something currently unprovable. Religion tries to create an answer to everything.
The best current theory on God is "I don't know", unprovable and all. Some religions may attempt to create an answer to everything, by which I take it you mean explain everything in detail. Christianity has the answer to the big picture, but does not attempt to override scientific answers. Some people who are running organized religions do, but I'm Protestant, and we are totally unorganized. If
RichardM1 wrote:
Currrent theory does not support that. Maybe there was, but the atheist invoking this argument is going outside of nature, into the realm of the supernatural, which the atheist does not believe in.
Current theory can't explain anything from before the big bang. All we can do is speculate.
RichardM1 wrote:
What we know is pertinent to the universe, it is all we can observe. God is clearly external to the universe, and does not have the same constraints.
Or from the perspective of an atheist, "God" is whatever you define him to be.
RichardM1 wrote:
Current theory, says there is a beginning, and might define the end as heat death.
Who says the big bang was the beginning, or that the "heat death" (I assume you mean the theorized big crunch) is the end? Maybe it just keeps imploding and exploding, and has been doing so infinitely in both directions. I'm not saying I believe this to be true, as I neither believe nor disbelieve it... I'm saying science simply can't give an answer to this, and may never be able to.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is a lot of maybes, all of which fall outside of current theory. I don't mind if you speculate, but understand that it is either fantastic, or religious, speculation.
It's entirely speculation, as I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever... The point I'm trying to make is that we simply don't know what's "outside" the universe, if there is an "outside"... Claiming the existence of a "creator" is no more credible than claiming the existence of other dimensions or infinite time.
RichardM1 wrote:
The best current theory on God is "I don't know", unprovable and all.
Agreed. I won't go as far to say that "god" definitely does not exist, as I don't think that statement is any more sensible than saying one definitely does exist. I just think it unlikely. I look at nature and physics and such, and it all seems simple and mechanical, even if I'm not very good with the equations... It seems like everything is just an extension of particle physics, and there's no room for any sort of "creator" pulling the strings. I'd welcome anyone to prove me wrong, but I don't think that likely to happen.
RichardM1 wrote:
Christian
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Heh, I'm not too keen on general relativity... I forget whether I said it in this thread or another, but I think that's too complex and convoluted to be right... Nature tends to work in very simple ways, that are only complex through sheer magnitude. Molecular interactions are, at their core, incredibly simple... The four basic forces work in tandem with inertia... But the sheer speed and number of such interactions create an infinite variety of more complex situations. I think there's probably kind of force we haven't figured out how to measure yet, maybe related to the so-called "dark matter," that would explain the effects of "time dilation" and such. Of course, I have no proof, and I don't have the expertise to find proof, so right now, I'm comfortable just saying "I don't know."
GR really has an elegance to it. It is tough to wrap your head around, and I only get pieces at a time, and some pieces never at all. Light turns, not because of gravity, but because time is going slower on the side closer to a massive object, so it turns in that direction. 'Gravitational' acceleration may be a manifestation of the same change in the rate of time flow. QM is another one that can't all fit in the brain at once, for me, but that the pieces I know are all pretty, and pretty weird. But yes, there is so much out more there than we know, or can know!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Yeah, it's a difficult theory, and maybe I have trouble with it because I can't quite wrap my head around it.
RichardM1 wrote:
Light turns, not because of gravity, but because time is going slower on the side closer to a massive object, so it turns in that direction.
See, that's what bugs me... I have trouble coming to terms with time dilation. I admit I don't really understand a lot of the research and theories, but the concept of time actually slowing down... Just doesn't sit right with me. Perception of time, sure, but not actual time... I start to wonder if the time dilation they've "seen" in experiments might have been the high speeds affecting the instrumentation... The ruler stretching, as opposed to the distance shrinking, if you get my drift. The trick is trying to measure something when we rely on that same thing to observe it. Sorry, after midnight, so not sure if that makes sense... I mean all of our observations take time, and everything we "see" is delayed by the time light takes to reach our eyes... Ugh, long weekend, and I can't really describe this coherently right now... Suffice it to say, I think time is constant, and that general relativity is trying to compensate for something we haven't actually discovered yet. Maybe it's something like the theoretical "tachyons," or maybe it's something to do with "dark matter," or something else entirely... I don't know, really... Something about it just doesn't sit right with me.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Yeah, it's a difficult theory, and maybe I have trouble with it because I can't quite wrap my head around it.
RichardM1 wrote:
Light turns, not because of gravity, but because time is going slower on the side closer to a massive object, so it turns in that direction.
See, that's what bugs me... I have trouble coming to terms with time dilation. I admit I don't really understand a lot of the research and theories, but the concept of time actually slowing down... Just doesn't sit right with me. Perception of time, sure, but not actual time... I start to wonder if the time dilation they've "seen" in experiments might have been the high speeds affecting the instrumentation... The ruler stretching, as opposed to the distance shrinking, if you get my drift. The trick is trying to measure something when we rely on that same thing to observe it. Sorry, after midnight, so not sure if that makes sense... I mean all of our observations take time, and everything we "see" is delayed by the time light takes to reach our eyes... Ugh, long weekend, and I can't really describe this coherently right now... Suffice it to say, I think time is constant, and that general relativity is trying to compensate for something we haven't actually discovered yet. Maybe it's something like the theoretical "tachyons," or maybe it's something to do with "dark matter," or something else entirely... I don't know, really... Something about it just doesn't sit right with me.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
See, that's what bugs me... I have trouble coming to terms with time dilation.
That is definitely one of the hard-to-get-your-head-around parts! Let me ask you, how do you slow down the perception of time? Time is the thing that makes perception possible. 'Time' seems to be a constant for all things in your frame of reference. I used to fall into the 'perception' trap - it 'looks' short coming at you, since it almost catches up with it's own light, or something. Here is the learning course on relativity! On sale! $35 download, 12 hours of lecture in MP3[^] The guy knows his stuff, and there are other good courses.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Given our current physical constants, the probability approaches, but does not get to, one. If the constants differed by much, the current wisdom is that life would not be possible.
Life as WE know it would not be possible. It's hard to imagine what the universe would be like with different constants... Maybe some other form of life would exist.
RichardM1 wrote:
No offense taken, and none meant here: I personally believe that a lot of atheists disbelieve because they do not want to be responsible for their thoughts and actions, that if they thought they had a reason for being here, they would have to go out of their way to figure out what it was and accomplish it.
I'm sure there are some like that. Personally, I "disbelieve" because the idea of a deity just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't need a religion to give me a reason to live. As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't think there's a "reason" for humanity. Humans are just animals, and we live because our instincts drive us to live. Of course, everyone needs their own reason to persevere, and I think we each need to find our own. I've decided that my reason for living is to contribute to society as much as I can, in the short time I have. Right now, I do that with my novels, since my programming skills have so far just amounted to moving numbers around for rich people... Heh. My grandfather used to say, and I don't remember who he was quoting (Thomas Paine, I think, but not sure)... "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's sufficient for me.
RichardM1 wrote:
But for the same reason I won't accept 'above unity generators', I won't accept my disbelief. For me, the data does not support it.
Not familiar with that... I'll have to look that up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not familiar with that... I'll have to look that up.
Above unity generator claims to produce more energy than is put into the system. The street name is perpetual motion machine.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Life as WE know it would not be possible. It's hard to imagine what the universe would be like with different constants... Maybe some other form of life would exist.
There have been some simulations run using different sets 0f constants. IIRC, the majority don't survive very long, either burning out or unable to form complex particles that could form atoms
Ian Shlasko wrote:
My grandfather used to say, and I don't remember who he was quoting (Thomas Paine, I think, but not sure)... "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's sufficient for me.
What country are you a citizen of? Because the world won't come to save you. No matter how much you claim its citizenship.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
See, that's what bugs me... I have trouble coming to terms with time dilation.
That is definitely one of the hard-to-get-your-head-around parts! Let me ask you, how do you slow down the perception of time? Time is the thing that makes perception possible. 'Time' seems to be a constant for all things in your frame of reference. I used to fall into the 'perception' trap - it 'looks' short coming at you, since it almost catches up with it's own light, or something. Here is the learning course on relativity! On sale! $35 download, 12 hours of lecture in MP3[^] The guy knows his stuff, and there are other good courses.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Let me ask you, how do you slow down the perception of time? Time is the thing that makes perception possible.
Something moving away from you at a significant fraction of the speed of light would appear to slow down... I wonder if measurement devices on-board would be affected in a similar way... Would the electronics on-board experience a similar effect, if the speed of light is limited? Like a chronometer might slow down, because the current slows... I don't know... Just random thoughts.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Not familiar with that... I'll have to look that up.
Above unity generator claims to produce more energy than is put into the system. The street name is perpetual motion machine.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Life as WE know it would not be possible. It's hard to imagine what the universe would be like with different constants... Maybe some other form of life would exist.
There have been some simulations run using different sets 0f constants. IIRC, the majority don't survive very long, either burning out or unable to form complex particles that could form atoms
Ian Shlasko wrote:
My grandfather used to say, and I don't remember who he was quoting (Thomas Paine, I think, but not sure)... "I am a citizen of the world, and my religion is to do good." That's sufficient for me.
What country are you a citizen of? Because the world won't come to save you. No matter how much you claim its citizenship.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
There have been some simulations run using different sets 0f constants. IIRC, the majority don't survive very long, either burning out or unable to form complex particles that could form atoms
I don't know... All we can do is speculate... Who knows how the basic laws of physics would be effected by a completely different universe?
RichardM1 wrote:
What country are you a citizen of? Because the world won't come to save you. No matter how much you claim its citizenship.
I think the point is more like, "I'm a member of the human race," as opposed to "I'm with these guys, and everyone else has to die" :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
There have been some simulations run using different sets 0f constants. IIRC, the majority don't survive very long, either burning out or unable to form complex particles that could form atoms
I don't know... All we can do is speculate... Who knows how the basic laws of physics would be effected by a completely different universe?
RichardM1 wrote:
What country are you a citizen of? Because the world won't come to save you. No matter how much you claim its citizenship.
I think the point is more like, "I'm a member of the human race," as opposed to "I'm with these guys, and everyone else has to die" :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the point is more like, "I'm a member of the human race," as opposed to "I'm with these guys, and everyone else has to die"
I think the point is more : "If I'm in trouble, who can I count on to help me?" I help people, as much as I can. US and foreign. Who can I count on to help me when I'm down? Everyone else doesn't need to die.
Opacity, the new Transparency.