Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Bladerunner]

Nascombe said: So has Man begun to unravel the secrets of how parts of the universe work or has Man just sat back and said "Because that's how God made it."

There are several ways to look at that statement meaning but here is mine. I have never seen anywhere in scripture where God nor Jesus told man to leave specific area of science alone. In fact, he gave us a good enough brain to decipher anything we might come across. I guess the question for you and the others to ponder upon would be ' Would God be pleased that we found him?'

I think Jesus will return before we even get close to that scenario. No, not the end of the world just the beginning.

have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

This could get confusing.

One minute I'm posting about Microsoft Access VBA the next about biblical philosophy.

Perhaps I could condense it down to a bit of VBA.

Debug.Print Not IsMissing(God)

True or False.

LOL, guess it could get difficult especially if you have a one tracked mind, like mine is.


Have a nice day:>)


Bladerunner

 

[Galaxiom]

God choose to appear as a burning bush to Moses.

Plenty of people have seen gods after rolling small amounts of particular bush into a cigarette paper and burning it.

 

[Galaxiom]

Perhaps I could condense it down to a bit of VBA.

Debug.Print Not IsMissing(God)

Well God does have the first requirement for this to work. He is certainly a Variant as the hundreds of thousands of versions of gods worshiped on the planet can attest.

 

[Galaxiom]

It is more that the organization of our universe - the known one at least, implies an intelligence to me.

If you knew more about science you would not be under that illusion. You go on to show that your grasp of both maths and science is quite poor, leading you to conclusions that cannot be substantiated.

If you saw a table with a bunch of scrabble tiles arranged on it, and you read what it said, and you saw this exact paragraph written out, would it not be an absurd conclusion to propose that someone had just scattered the tiles without any thought and they happened to be arranged just so? Or would you propose that someone must have arranged them to form these sentences?

No. If I looked at trillions of Scrabble boards I would be very surprised if many different paragraphs were not written out. Maybe not this exact but this exact one but neither is this Universe the only one where a sentient being capable of reading it could have occurred.

If there are more variations on a chess board after just several moves
than there are atoms in the universe (I've heard it said - and it may
not be literally true but it is in spirit),

Not even close. There is something like 10^80 atoms in the visible Universe. This would be at least 70 orders of magnitude more than the total number of all possible chess games.
http://www.chess.com/chessopedia/view/mathematics-and-chess

The actual universe is far more complex

The Universe is incredibly simple at its basic level. Indeed even the way stars work is very very simple. The complexity we see is built up from combinations of that simplicity.

and who says it started out with this complexity anyway?

Those who claim that a designer is behind it all. The designer would have to be more complex than the design. Hence the pointlessness of proposing a designer is behind it.

All that does is move the conundrum one step further without explaining anything. One might as well say that the Universe has always existed. Indeed that is where the religious belief started with "In the beginning there was a void". Their God put stuff in that void.

In science, not even the void was here. Over the history of science there have been less and less things that required a god to explain. There is so little space left for a god now it might as well be completely abandoned.

A life form - especially a multicellular one - especially an intelligent one, is a trillion times more complex than this paragraph or any chess position. A blade of grass has far more going on than the most complicated supercomputer ever conceived of.

Yes but that complexity didn't just come about by random changes alone. It was driven by natural selection. Life is really nothing more than minerology. Mineral crystals are self replicating. The crystals of life are just very complex.

Is there a higher intelligence or is there not?
Nobody really knows now, do we? The physicists and the theologians may disagree fundamentally, but neither of them can prove their position.

Science has already shown that no higher intelligence is necessary for the Universe and everything in it to exist. Science has already completely refuted the claims made by theists about the origins. Slowly but surely, their dearly held beliefs such as the Earth being the centre have crumbled. Why should we expect any of them to endure?

And for whatever reason, believing is comforting.

By all means believe if that makes you feel comfortable. However this in no way provides the slightest evidence for the existence of a god. And it certainly does not comprise a valid basis for the religious to decree that they have a sound base to guide the development of public policy.

 

[Galaxiom]

I have never seen anywhere in scripture where God nor Jesus told man to leave specific area of science alone.

Like all the religious, your position is inseparable from the complete acceptance of old stories dreamed by by ancient arrogant misogynists. It is called "circular reasoning" which invariably comes to irrational conclusions because it has no solid foundations.

I think Jesus will return before we even get close to that scenario. No, not the end of the world just the beginning.

Your religion is nothing more sophisticated than a cargo cult.

 

[Libre]

Galaxion, you are nothing more than a puffed out bloviator, masquerading (poorly) as an authority.
You've made some valid points, but they are undone by your statements "the Universe is incredibly simple at its basic level"; that "the way stars work is very very simple"; and that "life is nothing more than mineralogy". These contentions are so foolish that it is ridiculous to debate this with you. Fundamental discoveries are still being made, and Nobel Prizes have just been awarded for the Higgs Boson and allotropes of carbon, like graphene. The Nobel committee missed you, for some reason. Must be politics, politics, politics. If you're so familiar with the eternal secrets of the universe, why, I wonder, do you waste your genius posting on an internet forum and taking pot-shots at an ignoramus such as myself. Establishing a stable environment for superconductivity or cold fusion would be a nice feather in your cap, or proving Einstein's unified field theory is still up for grabs if you want to take a shot at it.
I don't claim to have specific knowledge of cosmology and particle physics, as you do - I'm just a college educated man with a 35 year technical career in mechanical design and database programming. You even go so far as to state the number of atoms in the universe (you missed a few - there are some dust bunnies under my bed you forgot to count), and claim to know just how many chess variations there are, as though you were counting beans in a jar. I can search on the internet as well as anyone, and Shannon's number is just one man's attempt to calculate the incalculable. There are estimates from 10^43 up to 10^123 and beyond.

I have no evidence that God exists. I don't even insist on it - I was simply pondering the issue, as other thinking men and woman have done since there were people capable of it. You seem to think that this is a mechanical problem that simple calculation can resolve. It is an eternal philosophical question, open to debate, interpretation, and opinion, and only an arrogant fool would claim that it has all been proven beyond any doubt.

 

[Rabbie]

Let's keep the attacks to each other's arguments and avoid personal attacks. They can so easily turn much nastier than is probably meant.

 

[Dick7Access]

Let's keep the attacks to each other's arguments and avoid personal attacks. They can so easily turn much nastier than is probably meant.

Amen and amen!

 

[Mihail]

Let's keep the attacks to each other's arguments and avoid personal attacks. They can so easily turn much nastier than is probably meant.

Fully agree.

 

[Libre]

Let's keep the attacks to each other's arguments and avoid personal attacks. They can so easily turn much nastier than is probably meant.

Oops. Quite right. When one feels attacked and trivialized for one's philosophy (which I certainly did) it is sometimes difficult not to answer in kind.
Apologies.

 

[dan-cat]

Oops. Quite right. When one feels attacked and trivialized for one's philosophy (which I certainly did) it is sometimes difficult not to answer in kind.
Apologies.

Did you get the time to listen to the podcast I posted? It addresses the complexity issue quite well.

 

[Libre]

Did you get the time to listen to the podcast I posted? It addresses the complexity issue quite well.

I just listened to part of it now.
I'll catch the rest later.
Thanks for the link.

 

[Bladerunner]

God choose to appear as a burning bush to Moses.

LOL I guess so,, just don't know if the bush was physically burning or burning with a glow of light. each would produce the same result in Moses...?? just don't know. LOL

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Old Man Devin]

Old Man Devlin-
I want to tell you that most of my life I believed as you do, that random chance could account for anything.
It's not like I saw an apparition of Moses or a burning bush or anything of the sort.
It just occurred to me that the tower of sand theory is not only implausible, it is impossible. Whether there is one universe or an infinite number, randomness that results in organization is rare enough, and when you compound the probabilites over and over again millions and trillions of times, the word IMPOSSIBLE starts to rear large - at least in my mind.
Anyway, I am a ***** about my philosophies.
Today I believe in God.
Tomorrow, who knows?

I contend the opposite: that an infinitely large universe, or or an infinite number of finite universes, outlandish events are CERTAIN to occur, just because any event that doesn't have a probability of exactly zero will occur at some point, and some point, somewhere in reality.

Keep in mind that 'organisation' isn't entirely random, it just requires a few random events at the beginning of time of beginning or the evolution of life for it to be set up in such a way that natural processes effecting it will cause an increase in complexity, rather than destroying it. The requirement for random events is not all that extreme.

 

[Old Man Devin]

To Galaxiom and Old Man Devin:

As atheist how do you two account for the 'universal and timeless phenomenon of man's relationship with God' Evolution?

have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

I haven't heard that phrase before. Does it mean the idea that societies all independently believe in gods of some kind? I think that is easily accounted for: it is a product of the human mind's drive to assume pattern and reason in the world, a behaviour that on a practical level makes us a superior animal, but doesn't work when applied to issues that we don't understand at all, as we are forced to 'invent' patterns (e.g. when its dark, you assume all noises you dangerous because you don't know better).

So the creation of religious cultures is simply a response to the fact that we can comprehend ourselves and the universe far better than any animal that came before us, and we strive to explain it in terms we can understand (e.g. gods are often similar to humans, because humans are extremely good at understanding the motivations and interactions of other humans).

Oh, and if that's not the question you meant by that phrase, do ask again but perhaps explain it a little as I'm not familiar with the idea.

Many thanks.

 

[Galaxiom]

"the Universe is incredibly simple at its basic level"; that "the way stars work is very very simple";

It is and they do. Stars are the best understood objects in all of cosmology. So much so that they can be characterised so easily and then used to calculate the distance to them by observed brightness.

and that "life is nothing more than mineralogy".

The leading hypothesis for explaining abiogenesis is the serpentization of olivine in deep sea alkaline hydrothermal vents. The reaction that occurs in these locations is chemically identical to the most fundamental of all organic reactions. It produces a free electon and every living creature uses it. It occurs in cell sized pockets in the structure that is accreted.

Many assume there is a deep chasm between living an non-living but that is not the case. Life is indeed made from insanely complex crystals.

These contentions are so foolish that it is ridiculous to debate this with you. Fundamental discoveries are still being made, and Nobel Prizes have just been awarded for the Higgs Boson and allotropes of carbon, like graphene.

Nothing fundamentally new there at all. The Higgs boson was predicted in the 1960s. It has taken a long time to build the machine to detect them. Their detection confirms the theory.

Graphene was know theoretically long before it was found.

If you're so familiar with the eternal secrets of the universe, why, I wonder, do you waste your genius posting on an internet forum and taking pot-shots at an ignoramus such as myself.

I am fascinated by many things. I have been working on my own cosmological theories for my whole adult life. That is why I take such an interest in cosmology. Consequently I am quite knowledgeable in the subject and I won't apologise for being so.

I was simply pondering the issue, as other thinking men and woman have done since there were people capable of it. You seem to think that this is a mechanical problem that simple calculation can resolve. It is an eternal philosophical question, open to debate, interpretation, and opinion, and only an arrogant fool would claim that it has all been proven beyond any doubt.

A good place to start pondering such questions is among what is already known. Those who ponder in the dark because they are not dedicated enough to take the time to understand often do come up with conclusions that are not consistent with what has already been observed.

Of course there is no shame in this unless one is offended by the the knowledge of others.

 

[Libre]

It is and they do. Stars are the best understood objects in all of cosmology. So much so that they can be characterised so easily and then used to calculate the distance to them by observed brightness.

As a layperson (in astrophysics and cosmology at any rate) I would have thought there is more to know about stars than just their distance and brightness.

Nothing fundamentally new there at all. The Higgs boson was predicted in the 1960s. It has taken a long time to build the machine to detect them. Their detection confirms the theory.

Graphene was know theoretically long before it was found.

Theoretical knowledge and actual, provable knowledge are two distinctly different things.
What machine, I pause to wonder, has now been built that confirms the non-existence of God?

I am fascinated by many things. I have been working on my own cosmological theories for my whole adult life. That is why I take such an interest in cosmology. Consequently I am quite knowledgeable in the subject and I won't apologise for being so.

I too am fascinated by many things - and I've spent MY whole adult life persuing subjects that I would wager are quite alien to you.

A good place to start pondering such questions is among what is already known. Those who ponder in the dark because they are not dedicated enough to take the time to understand often do come up with conclusions that are not consistent with what has already been observed.

Of course there is no shame in this unless one is offended by the the knowledge of others.

I was under the impression that this watercooler section, and especially this particular thread - was for general remarks and ideas, and not restricted only to those that have devoted their lives to the formal study of the deep dark secrets of the universe.

Now, don't get me wrong, Galaxion.
I fear that you have "sized me up" based on my philosophical musings.

About 5 years ago I declared that I was an "atheist".
The term is ugly, though. I don't like it.
I was reading this thread that addresses that specific question - not the composition of stars, but the existence vs the non-existence of God - and I started thinking about this age-old question - God or no God?
I wanted to contribute to the discussion, which had evolved into a discussion of whether the Japanese Emperor should have been tried as a war criminal, and I wanted to address the subject of the thread and get it back on track. How the heck could I answer this?
I decided it would be easier, more philosophical, and more poetic to write about an existent God than a non-existent one.
So that's what I did. That's the truth. I don't believe, and I don't disbelieve. I waver and vacillate - as I opened my article with. I didn't expect to be treated as a friviolous, ignorant dope. I really did not!
If you've made up your mind about it - congratulations to you sir. But a true scientist (like a "true Scottsman", I expect) would never arrive at a definite, conclusive position in the absense of definite conclusive proof, and as far as I am concerned, (and not only me but a huge percentage of the human beings on this planet), the question is very much still open - and probably always will be.
Lastly, Galaxion, I think Socrate's quote - which I have made my signature on this forum, bears some reflection. A little more of THAT attitude, and a little less OH, I HAVE ALL THIS FIGURED OUT would go a long way.

 

[Dick7Access]

because humans are extremely good at understanding the motivations and interactions of other humans).

Many thanks.

I must have been sick and miss school the day they taught that, as for the life of me, there are many, many times that I can't understand the motivation and interactions of some people.

 

[Old Man Devin]

I must have been sick and miss school the day they taught that, as for the life of me, there are many, many times that I can't understand the motivation and interactions of some people.

Yes it does seem hard at times. But take heart in the fact that you probably understand other people better than cats understand other cats!

At the very least we can always come to vague 'they are stupid' or 'they have X trait' conclusions when we don't understand behaviour. Having the ability to guess a persons motivation (correctly or not) when you have no idea what it actually is is something to be proud of as a homo-sapien!