| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > > The existence of a creator, to me, implies that he's still hanging around.
> > > Since there is no evidence to support that, and it seems like there would • have
> > > to be if He were really there, I choose to go with spontaneous order.
> >
> > No evidence to support the existance of God?
>
> Right.
>
> > THe sustaining of all physical properties is not enough?
>
> Uh, no. Is it really your assertion that Jehova is personally seeing to it
> that every electron tunnels just so? Man, what a bore. He ought to code the
> universe so that scripts take care of such things.
Again, a finite concept--Every hair on your head is numbered, every grain of
sand, every molecule, He knows--do you get the idea that He is infinite yet?
If it were *our* universe, and as finite beings, sure we would have to
script it, but, alas, it is not our universe, and we are not infinite.
C'est la vie.
> > Sure science can say, 'Oh, these pieces over here
> > are made of these molecules, and these molecules are made of these atoms,
> > and these atoms are made from... etc.. (tho we really are just delving into
> > things smaller than the atom and are just beginning to understand that...).
> > and this works 'cause these parts mesh like that...'
>
> Well, that is a significant part of the search for an understanding of matter.
> But I don't think that we're "just beginning to understand that." I think
> that's been the whole point for quite some time.
And I want science to continue to pursue and explain and test and observe.
I would love to volunteer to be the first expedition to Mars. I want to go
to the stars. My goodness, space is the next step. We came out of the
cave, we looked across the hills, wondered what was out there, we crossed
the ocean, we reached out and touched the moon, we 'see' planets around
other suns--it's the next step. I want to encourage and help where I can.
My *only* point is that this is not *everything*. If you cut to the chase,
logic dictates that a finite universe can only have finite understanding.
What then? Worry about that when we get to it? That's like the quote
earlier--we'll leave the afterlife until we get there. Yeah, makes perfect
sense to just sit back and wait until we're at an impasse before we even
start to consider the issue.
> > Axiom, faith based, whatever--fundamental tenants that we just accept 'cause
> > we don't want to see anything else.
>
> Uh, wrong again. Actually, what are you talking about? The search
> to understand matter is deciphering reality with more and more precision. I
> don't see the "just accepted" tenets.
Again, the wording is racist against any other POV other than science.
"Deciphering reality" with science, as in anything else is *not* reality.
The tenants science accepts--The Big Bang, Spontaneous order, something from
nothing. I'm not a scientist, but you ask any math major, and they will
tell you that there are axioms that they have to accept to make the rest
work, just as all the sciences do.
> > Spontaneous order is a euphemism for 'Well,
> > we really don't know how it happened 'cause we can't explain it rationally,
> > and it goes against our own theories of entropy and chaos, but there's order
> > and we'll just say it's spontaneous 'cause we don't want to acknowledge that
> > there *could* be *any* intelligent* thought behind any kind of consistant
> > ordering...'
>
> No. Spontaneous order is a part of Chaos that shows that while the energy in
> the universe is spreading ever more thin, islands of energy can do quite
> complex stuff without any direction. (Of course, you think God personally
> assures that cylindrical temperature cells form in a pan on the stove, I
> suppose.)
I love the Mandelbrot set as well. It's a wonder to behold and was always
there but no one saw it until the advent of the computer and a good graphic
screen. Fractals as well--great to look at. But don't confuse simple
complex due to repetition of the same pattern over and over again on many
levels, with truly complex, like intelligent structures and human
instititutions.
>
> Why is it that you project the fear you have of being wrong onto scientists as
> a whole, as if they could be all alike anyway? People engaged in science
> _like_ to be wrong. That's when we learn more!
I have never projected fear. I love scientists. I love reading scientific
journals and papers--most of which do not belittle things that are outside
the scientific institutions, unlike some posts in these threads. I also
have no problem admitting I'm wrong. Note in so many of *my* posts I have
said 'Hey, this is what I believe, and I will, in no way shape or form,
force that opinion on anyone else.' And if it turns out that God doesn't
exist (even tho, for me, I see evidence everywhere) then I'll still live,
the world will still be here, and we will still have these debates on
LUGNET. Scientists don't mind being wrong--again the 1967 inert gasses
thing, they adapt and reconfigure their POV to accept that and go on.
(My first personal attack in this thread(I think)) You, on the other hand,
won't even begin to accept the very notion that there could be a God, not
only because those that do beleive you have no respect for, and not only
because you find no scientific evidence that He does exist, but it would
mean, even the effort of considering that there *may* be a god, that you
would have to change your worldview, and you're the one that seems unwilling
to do that.
>
> > When you cut to the end of the page and get before, 'Well,
> > this preceeded that, and that preceeded this...' you are left with what?
>
> More questions. So?
But science answered all that there is to know. The entire physicla
universe is mapped out, and reduced to a 'Grande Unification Theory'. What
else is there? What else indeed, but the stuff that exists outside science.
>
> > And then the scientists would come back and say, 'Well, if we can't
> > understand the infinite due to our finite limitations, then why bother--for
> > all intents and purposes, for our daily lives and figuring out how the watch
> > works, the infinite is a moot point, so it factors out of the equation.'
>
> Have you ever actually met a scientist? Or taken a science class above the
> junior high school level?
The smartest man I have ever met is my uncle George. He's about 80 now and
he has more common sense than *anyone* I have ever met. I don't think he
went much beyond grade 6 but he is a well spoken and well read man who seems
to say things that just make sense. From politics to how to fix your car,
he has knowledge about everything. BTW, he is also an athiest, or more of
an agnostic, and the only time he steps into a church for a service is ofr a
wedding or funeral. I love him dearly. His son is a BSc, PHD and whatever
(thie list is endless of letters behind his name). My own brother is a
graduate of pure Chemistry, and ome of my best friends has a double
something or other, one for pure mathematics from Waterloo University and
some sociology degree or other... I can't pay attention to everything my
friends and family do with their time.
Does schooling make you intelligent. Does having a whole whack of letters
after your name automatically imbue you with the right to debate, to speak
your opinion?
If I mentioned that I went to both college and university (college for
computer systems tech, university for english major, poli sci and religion
minor) would what I wrote mean more to you than if I left high school after
grade 12 and have been pumping gas for the last 20 years? Or would it just
come down to how I presented myself here on the boards--whether I was an
intolerant zealous bigot bogged down in my own POV and belittling any other
opinion or a supportive 'can't we all just get along' (hopefully)
well-spoken individual who wants genuine discourse and understanding.
>
> > Again, you could say that, but *if* God made us in His image, and *if* God
> > wants us to have some sort of relationship with Him, *then* He gives us the
> > ability to appreciate Him and know He's there.
>
> So what does that say about me? Instead of the ability to appreciate Him, I
> find only the ability to seek more and more truth. The unending desire to know
> more about the universe. The mental tools to, with the help of others, make
> sense of collected data. Did I get gyped or did you?
Who knows--perhaps no one is gyped, but it doesn't mean any other side is
somehow less than, you know, your side.
> > To reduce *everything* to the realm of science is... wait for it...
> > reductionistic.
>
> How so? And what do you mean by the realm of science? And how could I reduce
> anything, much less everything? Science can attempt to explain any
> observable phenomena.
And we're back to a point I was admonished on a while back--science explains
what is observable--it's part of the scientific method. We build better and
better systems for observing and measuring, and I want to continue to do so.
My issue comes with that 'wall' which says *nothing* has existed, nothing
exists today, and nothing will exist that cannot be explained by science.
Saying the 'realm of science' is my attempt to distinguich the healthy
pursuit of knowledge via science, from the 'God of Science'.
>
> > Taking a concept and reducing it to the sum of its parts is
> > not only reductionistic but is irresponsible for you lose the purpose, the
> > humanity. To take a chair apoart and separate it into piles of wood, nails,
> > glue and padding and say, 'That's a chair'--well, no, it isn't. Sure it
> > helps you understand what makes a chair a chair, but reducing something
> > cannot make it the same, or greater than it was. Our lives, our world, our
> > universe can be reduced to their compnent parts, but the sum of all these
> > parts is so far greater than the individual pieces. Science reducing things
> > is Entropy--something gets lost.
>
> Luckily, science doesn't do that! All science does is learn. Information,
> including an understanding of the synergies to which you allude above, is built
> by science. We get more, not less.
>
> (It took me several reads of that paragraph to come up with an idea of what you
> might mean. So if my response seems non sequitar, just try again.)
No, I think you read it right--the very first scientific experiment that I
remember doing is 'Observer this candle and document what you see' We
discussed the melting of wax, the flame flickering in the breeze, the
shadows on the wall, all observable phenomenon. What science cannot discuss
is why you will find a prevalence of scented candles in the dorm rooms of
19-22 year old women, or why most of us feel comforted or amorous when
there's a few candles about.
>
> > Credible rational scientific evidence to believe. Proof denies faith.
>
> That's sort of true. But without some evidence (proof is a math/logic
> construct, not a science one) I have no reason to have faith.
And with proof, there is no need of faith. If a god is provable, therefore
reducing to what we know and/or understand, he wouldn't be worth following.
> > Credible evidence? Prove to the fish that water exists.
>
> Well, see, fish aren't exactly rocket scientists. While I'm pretty sure they
> feel pain, I don't think they have thoughts. So I don't think such a proof is
> possible.
K, in scientific pursuit, one of the first things to go is literature, and
the concepts therein--like allusions, metaphors, and concepts framed in a
way that we may understand them better instead of a straight scientific
explanation--'It's like...' is a foreign concept, so it seems...
> > It can't see it, it can't feel it, it can't taste it,
>
> Uh...sure it can. I can see, feel, and taste water (and air, for that matter)
> so why couldn't the fish? Actually, I'm rusty on my ichthyology, can they
> taste or just smell?
Again, allusion. The actual issue gets sidetracked and lost due to the
allusionary concept being either ignored or too far above to understand.
> > Something sustains the order of the universe.
>
> Yes, natural explainable phenomena.
No, natural explainable phenomenon are based in the tenants of the
scientific framework which have, as their funamental base tenants concepts
of chaos and the loss of energy, two completely contrary points to order and
intelligence. If you want a house, you build it. If you want chaos, dump a
whole bunch of stuff in the middle of a field and say, 'there you go'.
Call it 'The Blind Watchmaker' or whatever--if you came across a watch in a
field, no natural explainable phenomenon could *ever* explain it.
>
> > The bottom of the page is that something intelligent is at work,
> > going against the scientifically founded principles of entropy
> > and chaos.
>
> I'm not sure I get the whole "bottom of the page" thing you keep going on
> about, but merely because you assert a thing doesn't make it so.
No, what I say doesn't make it so, nor what you say makes it so. But I will
reiterate some points:
The universe is finite.
We are finite creatures.
Our brains are finite.
We can understand and test finite concepts of the universe.
Sooner or later, in our continual quest to understand the finite universe
with our finite minds, we will come to the point where there is nothing left
to understand, for we know it all. Logic dictates this is so, not me.
Then what?
> > A fairly large injustice is done to anybody who reduces their worldview to
> > that which they can prove, for science 'knows' that the universe is finite,
>
> Science doesn't prove anything! Really, really, really. Ignore what anyone
> else says about it, it just doesn't happen. Proof is not within the domain of
> scientific exploration.
Really really really I understand that science does not 'prove' anything.
We have theories--ther theory of gravity, the theory of light, the theory of
evolution, theories which seem to fit the known facts at hand, and which can
be altered when new data presents itself. I love theories. I love
principles. I am not willing, however, to reduce my life to the theories
and principles that humankind came up with for then I'm reducing my reality
to something smaller than it is.
>
> And I have no problem with a worldview based on supportable theories. It
> serves me just fine.
And I have no problem basing my POV on scientifically supportable theories
and the idea that there's something outside scientifically supportable ideas.
> > therefore science should be able to 'prove' everything. What's after that?
> > Well, nothing for those who cannot comprehend the idea of anything outside
> > science.
>
> Well, I agree that aside from some human constructs (in some ways), everything
> is fair game for scientific exploration.
Everything in the physical world is fair game. Heck, if you can come up
with some psychohistory concept, I'd appreciate that, too (that Azimov guy,
what a card!) But open your mind to the idea that not everything can be
found out thru science.
>
> > Again, I can read the last chapter in a book and know whats going to happen.
> > The characters in the book don't have a clue. Does that deny their free
> > will to do as they please in the book?
>
> Do you hear yourself? I mean really! You just asserted that characters in
> books have free will. That was some kind of a slip up right? I'll give you a
> do-over on that one if you'll (please) take it. I'm going to assume that you
> know that a human being decides what all the characters in a book are going to
> do and then writes about it, and those characters don't have any kind of will
> at all because they're pretend.
Allusion. Get over it. Grab some literary concepts and know that when I
watch a movie, even if I know the characters are not real and I may know
what's going to happen, I can still enjoy what's going on with the
characters on the screen. I may even find some applicable ideas to
incorporate into my life. Good literature should not only entartain, it
could inform at the same time. Again, if Shakespeare has something to say
about a topic, why can't we draw from that pool? Do all facts and figures
and concepts for living have to be retrieved from a scientific journal?
>
> > God is *timeless*. He is outside
> > our timeline. He knows where we're going to end up 'cause He's been there.
>
> Then we have no free will, because it has already been determined what we'll
> do. Just like the book example above.
No, again you're not quite grasping the point. You can't see but I just
raised my hand spontaneously--My free will to do so. Just 'cause God knew I
was going to do that did not negate my free will for doing so. He does not
determine what we are going to do, He just knows.
> > Further, He doesn't want mindless automatons that will cave into His will
> > and just bow down and worship Him.
>
> I've always wondered...what does he get from worship?
There's an old monk quote, 'Lord, I don't know what I can do to please you,
but the idea that I want to please you, I think, pleases you'
That's how I live my life, my friend.
> > I have not seen it, am I
> > taking it on faith that it's there? Or has my judgement, my intellect, my
> > rationality weighed all possible ideas and scenarios and said, 'Madagascar
> > exists whether I've seen it or not.'
> >
> > Just as God exists whether I have seen Him or not.
>
> But you _could_ see Madagascar.
And you could _see_ God as I have come to see Him
>
> > And I see how not believing in God would be comforting to those who want to
> > 'live as they please'. You have pointed out that you yourself live a
> > upright life, and love your neighbours 'cause it's the right thing to do. I
> > do exactly the same thing--not because there's a god and I wanna make him
> > happy with me, but because it's the right thing to do. How do we know it's
> > right? Do we just wake up one morning and say, "I think it'll be good to be
> > nice to my neighbour..."
>
> I'm guessing here, but I suspect that as we evolved intelligence, we were
> already social creatures. Those of us who did not have a built-in tendency to
> love thy neighbor were weeded out of the gene pool. So it may well be a
> genetic propensity.
>
> But to me personally, I have two POVs. Being "good" and what that means is a
> deep part of my psyche. And it's often enough not what my contemporaries think
> "good" means. It feels like it's written on the inside of my being. But
> that's not evidence of a creator, it's just part of having a self and a
> psychology. The other side of "good" is that which makes society function.
> These often (luckily) overlap.
Yes, thank God they overlap.
>
> > God does not make bad things happen to people. Bad things happen because
> > that's part of life, as the athiests would say. A Christian would say,
> > 'It's a fallen world and sin is everywhere and has fractured everything.'
>
> And God, in His infinite mercy chooses not to put things right and end our
> suffering. Gotcha! I have to admit to leaning toward the "that's a part of
> life" explanation.
Well, if we have free will that He gave us, it would be an apparent
contradiction for God to force an unwanted 'rightness' on us when it's
obvious we don't want it.
If we do want it, we have it in our very own power to do what's right, just
and just the good thing to do.
I'm leaning towards 'It's part of the bed we made and now we must sleep in
it' POV.
>
> > We, all of us, are sinners. Deal.
>
> I'm dealing.
As am I, but I'm *not* losing sleep over it, nor am I biting my teeth
wondering 'oh oh, I'm not getting into heaven 'cause I'm *bad*' That ain't
my God.
>
> > And where does your love come from?
>
> My hypothalamus[1].
;)
> > Where does the concept of Justice and
> > Responsibility and right and wrong come from?
>
> Well, justice is a sham. But all those ideas, I think, are a melange of innate
> propensity and studied thought. What of it?
These concepts fall outside the purview of scientific explanation, and yet
we have them, and justice is not a sham just because we have some poorly
instituted and implemented legal systems. I know there's Justice for I see
injustices done and I wish to right the wrongs.
>
> > The laws of God are 'written
> > on our hearts'. It might be all touchy feely but it's there. You know when
> > you're doing something wrong--you don't need the police to tell you
> > that--you feel it. And none of that has anything to do with science.
>
> What if you can remove a really small sliver of the brain and the concept of
> right and wrong vanish. Wouldn't that be cool science?
And doctors supposedly have performed just such surgeries and have removed
the 'human' element--now isn't that interesting... a little hunk of meat
that contains all that there is to be human. Well, there's a thought. As a
science appreciator I would lump this into the same category as the
Enquirer, 'My dog gave birth to human triplets!!'.
When I say the law is written on our hearts, I don't mean in a very literal
fashion--you're not going to cut someone open and find sanscript writing on
the heart saying "Thou shalt be happy and do what's right". I'm saying that
the *theory* is that humanity, each and every one of us, inherently knows
the difference between right and wrong. The theory is that there are moral
absolutes. I love the ideas and concepts that science gave us about
understanding, and that there are no laws, just theories that fit the facts
and data as shown. Inherently, across cultures and civilizations, we know
when we smile, it's understood across the board, and we all know that guilty
feeling when we do wrong. Sure it's a theory, and it, presumably, is not
exempt from scrutiny, but it fits what is known.
>
> > I don't write off all Germans bacause of what happened circa 1939-1945.
>
> Gee, I keep a wary eye on them. They could turn on us at any minute! :-)
That's true, they are always scheming and planning... building better cars
than the rest of the world...
>
> > If you have a bad experience with someone, or you read in the paper the
> > atrocities done by certain memebers of whatever group and you hold that bad
> > experience against the entire group (nationality, religion, belief system,
> > whatever) then grow up--life is more complex and complicated than that.
>
> Well, I agree, but I can't figure out where this came from.
It came from the beginning of this thread, and from many posts in this
thread, including 'wacko Xian' remarks that I responded to just before this
post, that hey, there's a baby in that thar bathwater--hopefully you have a
screen door to stop the baby from flying outside.
>
> > (The Columbine kids supposedly went bowling a few hours before they went on
> > their shooting spree--Let's hate all bowlers.)
>
> What, like at five in the morning?
According to sources close to the boys, they went bowling in the morning and
went shooting in the afternoon.
>
> > Take things in context.
> > Understand that, my goodness man--there's a bigger picture!
>
> I will continue to search for the bigger picture. One bit at a time.
And you will hit the wall of science, the immovable idea that nothing exists
outside of it. It's the logical conclusion, if you cut to the bottom of the
page of your belief that science can find out about all that there is. It
is human arrogance that says that a human based institution like science can
know *all* that there is.
>
> Chris
>
> [1] - I'm just making that up, my biopsychology is too rusty to pick the right
> part out.
And it was a good one :)
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| This is too long so I'm snipping at will. I have taken great pains to make sure nothing is responded too out of context. (...) What when? Accepting for the moment, that the universe is actually finite, so what? So if we manage to hang on until we (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) have (...) Right. (...) Uh, no. Is it really your assertion that Jehova is personally seeing to it that every electron tunnels just so? Man, what a bore. He ought to code the universe so that scripts take care of such things. (...) Well, that (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
