Copenhagen, the wash up

[Mike375]

Wrong again

There are less assumptions in assuming the laws of nature than in assuming Supernatural beings created the universe.

Where do the supernatual beings come from, who created them. Sooner or later down this chain you cometo a point when a universe/crator just appears.

I (and Occams razor) prefer the simplest explanation that the universe arose as a consequence of the laws of nature

But which laws of nature, which universe....see GalaxiomAtHome..will you be supporting his new theory yet to be released.....or do prefer one of the other theories.....Days of Our Lives.

 

[Galaxiom]

The supernatural hypothesis is the dead end. First and formost because it can never explain the origin of the creative "life force". Starting with a powerful, intelligent and highly organised structure with the preeminent knowledge of all potential makes no sense.

Time and time again phenomena have been attributed to the supernatural only to be demonstrated by science to be entirely natural.

Some believers simply refuse to acknowledge their hypothesis has been blown out of the water while others like Mike retreat to a bunker beyond current scientific understanding. However scientific progress is not a dead end and will continue to overrun bunker after bunker until eventually there will be nowhere for God to hide.

Ultimately the origin of everything will come down to the evolution of complexity from some very basic principle. That is the concept alluded to by Occams razor, not a simplistic notion about a highly complex origin.

 

[Mike375]

The supernatural hypothesis is the dead end. First and formost because it can never explain the origin of the creative "life force". Starting with a powerful, intelligent and highly organised structure with the preeminent knowledge of all potential makes no sense.

Not right. It is supernatural, above the laws of nature. it set the laws of nature.

To use my chemical/nuclear analogy. Hawking and yourself are like chemical energy and restricted to electrons. You know a 1 ton bomb can shift a mountain but no matter how much effort and time you put in you cant find how that 1 ton bombs works because you are restricted to electrons.

The believers in a supernatural would be like someone saying to you.....there is something beyond what you are doing with these electrons, you are not even coming close.

Some believers simply refuse to acknowledge their hypothesis has been blown out of the water while others like Mike retreat to a bunker beyond current scientific understanding. However scientific progress is not a dead end and will continue to overrun bunker after bunker until eventually there will be nowhere for God to hide.

"God" is about religion. Man made out of probably some basic desire.

their hypothesis has been blown out of the water

Just the opposite. For example, you will be the next person with a theory on how it all started and then your theory will be assigned to the collection of fairy tales that preceded yours Another one in a very long list blown out of the water.

I think you and others are unable to consider a supernatural as the possible answer because you keep referencing religion and the Bible etc.

 

[Galaxiom]

I think I understand what you are saying Mike. You have accepted the conjecture made by some scientists that reality is not only stranger than we think, but stranger than we can think.

I guess it is plausible that the whole universe is some trivial consequece of an incomprehensible entity. Perhaps the whole universe could be nothing more substantial than a grain of sawdust in the construction of a house.

All the same I want to know all I can about that grain of sawdust and I don't believe we are there yet. I am optimistic that we will reach a satisfactory understanding because observations so far have all showed that the complexity we see is constructed of ever simpler structures and laws. I would be happy with that as a dead end.

The correct theory will based on a single force in a simple and intuitive energy field. Einstein once said that the solution to reality will be so simple that it could be explained to a young child and that makes sense to me. The possibility of complexity in the scale of magnitude beyond might get interesting after we reach the limit of the simplicity.

The solution must surely involve explaining the genesis of the Big Bang. As for the source of the original energy I would happily concede that it might as well be considered supernatural but I would not entirely discount that we might even manage to explain that as a conseqence of the hypernature of reality.

I am reminded of a story I enjoyed in my youth. In Kurt Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan", life on Earth was brought by passing aliens whose space ship required repairs. It was too far to return home for parts and impossible to carry enough spares for the immense journey undertaken.

Instead their tool kit was the seeds of life which they cast on a suitable planet and waited for the evolution of a technological lifeform that was capable of making the required components.

This kind of possibility aught rightly be contemplated in a fully rounded contemplation of one's place in the greater scheme of things. It is healthy to be humbled by such thoughts. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.

 

[Mike375]

All the same I want to know all I can about that grain of sawdust and I don't believe we are there yet.

I also want to know.

Obviously I don't have the type of knowledge you have so as to formulate a theory on how it all came about. I am limited to being a spectator and day dreaming. But as I posted earlier I see it all as being like making a business decision today based on the evidence today. My position is not one based on a philosophical view where I have a desired outcome.

At different times I think we are missing a sense and if we had that sense the answer would be obvious. Imagine if you will that all life on earth has ended and a bunch of super intelligent aliens arrive. These aliens do not have and have never had the sense of sight. They would be extremely confused by all the objects such as cars and buildings that have weak structures inserted throughout. Computer monitors and TV sets would cause some really strange theories to be formed. But of course if they gained the sense of sight then all the puzzles would be instantly solved.

I guess it is plausible that the whole universe is some trivial consequece of an incomprehensible entity. Perhaps the whole universe could be nothing more substantial than a grain of sawdust in the construction of a house.

That idea has been there since at least when I was a kid. My guess is the idea came about because of the drawings of the atom and the similarity to the solar system.




.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Atheists leaders like religious leaders have their different "religions" to gather different flocks for a different approach to what they see as the problem.

Lower case i's are vowels and have dots, just as lower case j's have dots, therefore both are vowels. That statement makes about as much sense as your statement that atheism is a religion. When you start from a faulty premise, all of your evidence is going to be faulty.

Out of curiosity of how other people's minds work, under your incredibly odd viewpoint, are agnostics also religious as they believe that they don't care enough to figure out what they believe?

 

[Alc]

Lower case i's are vowels and have dots, just as lower case j's have dots, therefore both are vowels. That statement makes about as much sense as your statement that atheism is a religion. When you start from a faulty premise, all of your evidence is going to be faulty.

Out of curiosity of how other people's minds work, under your incredibly odd viewpoint, are agnostics also religious as they believe that they don't care enough to figure out what they believe?

I'd give up now, Adam.

From the number of posts you've made, I'd guess (perhaps incorrectly) that you weren't around for the lengthy atheism vs religion threads that took place last year, on this forum. In a last ditch attempt by certain pro-religion posters, it was switched to a semantic debate about whether or not atheism was just a type of religion, thereby ensuring that the whole conversation ceased to make any progress.

Chalk it up to the same sort of 'reasoning' that says the evidence of evolution, etc. exists because some god or other created it to look like evidence wihout actually being such, and move on. If not, you'll drive yourself mad trying to get out of the circular argument certain posters will do their best to drag you into.

 

[Rabbie]

But which laws of nature, which universe....see GalaxiomAtHome..will you be supporting his new theory yet to be released.....or do prefer one of the other theories.....Days of Our Lives.

I thought it was obvious I was referring to the universe we are in and the the natural laws that apply in it. This is because I have zero knowledge of any other universe.

I would not support any theory yet to be announced until I had seen what that theory was. Then I would make a judgement.

 

[Mike375]

Lower case i's are vowels and have dots, just as lower case j's have dots, therefore both are vowels. That statement makes about as much sense as your statement that atheism is a religion. When you start from a faulty premise, all of your evidence is going to be faulty.

Out of curiosity of how other people's minds work, under your incredibly odd viewpoint, are agnostics also religious as they believe that they don't care enough to figure out what they believe?

Have you not heard somone say about someone's hobby......it is like a religion for him etc.

This topic runs for most postings than any other on this forum.

 

[Thales750]

Fundamentalist Atheism run amuck.

I have yet to witness religion more extreme than the atheist.

Ya’ll are funny.

I’m right; no I’m right. Blah, blah.

Ya’ll are wasting time because you cannot solve the hard problems.
Christians, Muslims, let it go. They (atheist) are the most closed minded folks you will ever meet.

 

[Vassago]

They (atheist) are the most closed minded folks you will ever meet.[/SIZE][/FONT]

The irony of this statement makes me laugh and cry all at the same time.

 

[Thales750]

The irony of this statement makes me laugh and cry all at the same time.

I'm just doing a little egging Vas.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I'm just doing a little egging Vas.

and its all over your face.

Brian

 

[Pauldohert]

Christians, Muslims, let it go. They (atheist) are the most closed minded folks you will ever meet.

Its been shown to be true here over and over again. They are also the most evangelical.

 

[Rabbie]

Its been shown to be true here over and over again. They are also the most evangelical.

What a load of garbage! I have never had atheists knocking on my door as the Jehovahs Witnesses do. And how open are the minds of many religous people? Closed minds can be found in all religious sects.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Fundamentalist Atheism run amuck.

I think the main difference between a fundamentalist atheist, if I can borrow the term, and a fundamentalist religious person is that a fundamentalist atheist wants religion out of government where as a fundamentalist religious person wants their brand of religion, and only their brand, in government.

I have yet to witness religion more extreme than the atheist.

You must not get out much. When was the last time you seen an atheist kill someone over their beliefs? I would say murder is more extreme than loud/aggressive debating on an online message board.

I’m right; no I’m right. Blah, blah.

That's what I have always found very interesting and endearing about atheists. An atheist doesn't claim to have all of the answers, and is always seeking more.

They (atheist) are the most closed minded folks you will ever meet.

On the subject of religion, I would totally agree with you. I don't consider that a bad thing though. Just as I don't believe in Santa Claus, I also don't believe in a deity. If you wanted to joke around or play "what if" as to either's existence I may indulge you. But if you're being serious I would be quick to point out all the lack of evidence and logical problems as to your belief.

 

[Rich]

Where has my post concerning Catholicism gone and why?

 

[Thales750]

I would be quick to point out all the lack of evidence and logical problems as to your belief.

I don't think you have a clue as what I believe.

 

[Thales750]

and its all over your face.

Brian

hehehe. That's funny Brian.
It's not on my face; I haven't wasted a single byte on trying to get anyone to see my point of view.

I confine my persuasions to economic conversations, of which I am indeed the best predictor I know.

I do find however that, like the study of God (or lack of it), most people’s comprehension is predictably muted.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I don't think you have a clue as what I believe.

Nor do I care. My statement was based on the hypothetical situtation I was describing, not trying to prove to you that you are wrong.