FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Federal judge shows fearless good sense (Page 11)

  This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  17  18  19   
Author Topic: Federal judge shows fearless good sense
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
To say "We have a guess" is not a satisfactory answer; to say "We are certain of this" when in fact you're only guessing is just a lie.
I must say that a compromise between "unsatisfactory" and "lie" does not strike me as very promising, thanks kindly.
How do you feel about meteorology then? Weather forecasts neither claim to be certain of tomorrow's weather, nor claim to be just guesses.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I abhor weakness, as I suspect most people do, because I can easily recognize it in myself, and am troubled by it. I don't think there are many people, if any, who are so different.

I think this is true, if you confine your definition of "most people" to young adult males. Particularly those who have philosophical sympathies leaning toward Friedrich Nietzsche. I don't beleive it holds true for humanity in general.
You don't know much about me, or what my philosophical sympathies are. But clearly you show something of your own by tarring me with that particular brush. Hint: just because someone talks about weakness doesn't make them Nietzsche. Now will you dispense with the name calling?

And one point in the context of a much larger conversation is not what anyone would call *a lot*. Perhaps you should reign in your speculations.

I'm not quite catching where I made any claim about you in particular or your philosophical sympathies. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

And while you're at it, why are you refering to anyone calling anything "a lot"? I don't see that term in any of my posts.

Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How do you feel about meteorology then? Weather forecasts neither claim to be certain of tomorrow's weather, nor claim to be just guesses.
And they have a verifiable success rate, which is what they give as their probability. Where are the verifiable successes of religion?


quote:
Your argument about guessing is just as valid for science as it is about religion. Can science provide a definitive answer on the actual size of the universe?
Yes.

quote:
Can science provide definitive answers on whether there is life on other planets?
Yes, although it has not yet done so.

quote:
Can science provide a definitive answer on how advanced these civilizations could be?
Yes; there is an upper bound on the available information in the universe.

quote:
Perhaps you could provide me some examples of some things religion have "no answer" to.
All your above questions, and in addition the following: What is a good life? What is our purpose? How should we act?

Please note, though, that you seem to have misunderstood me. I don't want just "an answer". Any idiot can claim to have an answer, and many do. I want an answer with testable evidence. If you are just going to assert that X is the good life, with no other evidence than an appeal to the authority of Joseph Smith, that's no answer at all; it is mere guesswork, and the guesswork of an ignorant colonial roustabout at that.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Ori, I never said you had no reason to doubt, or question, religion. Organized religion in particular.

I don't believe, since I didn't say that, that the fallacy you mention is what I stated at all. I DO believe that religion has had a positive effect on society, but that doesn't mean I condone what the RC church did with priests who were known pedophiles. But a lot of works were saved by the church over the years, and they sponsored some of the greatest pieces of music and greatest architecture we have ever known.

Just because churches are created by man, and therefore fallible and imperfect, doesn't mean that they get it all wrong all of the time, or that there isn't a God.

I can know that hormones cause emotions, yet that doesn't dismiss the love I feel from my wife, nor does it explain all that love means to me. Science isn't the answer for every question, and even when it is possible to provide an answer we sometimes find that knowing HOW something works only answers part of the problem.

To me, at least, prayer works. I don't mean that I can pray from something and it pops into existence, or that everything I pray from happens, but I feel it is a net positive in my life. I believe in God both because of some of the proof I have experiences AND because I accept that some things are unknowable, at least at this point of our evolutionary progress.

Yet I question things every day, and don't believe that God feels I am doing wrong by doing so.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
My point is that even if (when?) we map the entire universe and beyond and come to a perfect understanding of the universe - it doesn't make any difference.

So if (when?) we map the entire universe and come across a being that is far more advanced than us, and tells us that using the knowledge He/She has, he was able to form Earth and create life, it wouldn't make a difference?

I don't think God is a magician. I think he has a perfect knowledge of the laws of the universe, and uses them to accomplish His will.

Let me ask you this from a scientific standpoint. Would it one day be possible to terraform a planet? Create life in a lab? Use the knowledge we have of the human genome to essentially heal blindness or regrow a limb?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
I'm not quite catching where I made any claim about you in particular or your philosophical sympathies. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

And while you're at it, why are you refering to anyone calling anything "a lot"? I don't see that term in any of my posts.

A lot was not in quotations, I was emphasizing it with *these* little guys.

You made an insinuation about my philosophical sympathies. I responded to that insinuation. If you actually didn't intend to make such an insinuation, then... wow you suck at this.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
No, I made an insinuation about you generalizing your internal experience to humanity in general. I suggested one sub-group of humanity that your generalization likely does apply to at a higher than average rate. That does not imply that everyone who has that particular experience fits is that particular subgroup.

Also, I am aware of the difference between astricks and quotation marks. "a lot" is in quotes in my post because I was *quoting* your post. I still don't understand why you used the term.

Nor why you think saying someone's philosophical sympathies lean Nietzschian would be name calling.

Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Let me ask you this from a scientific standpoint. Would it one day be possible to terraform a planet? Create life in a lab? Use the knowledge we have of the human genome to essentially heal blindness or regrow a limb?
Yes. But you are not making the distinction between "X is possible" and "X is true". It's possible Obama is wearing white underwear today; should I therefore believe it? It's possible that someone is being assaulted in the deserted corridors of the lower levels of the physics building; ought I to call the campus police? This distinction is so elementary that I find it hard to believe you're arguing honestly. "It is possible" is such a weak standard that you would not apply it to any other belief of yours whatsoever. Yet in the case of religion, that's the defense you offer? "Well, it could be true?" Come now. This is not evidence, this is not even argument, this is a kindergartener trying desperately to make Santa give him presents. Here we are all adults; can we not keep this conversation at a higher level than so?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Ori, I never said you had no reason to doubt, or question, religion. Organized religion in particular.

I don't believe, since I didn't say that, that the fallacy you mention is what I stated at all.

Questioning or not questioning religion is not important to an association fallacy- you just made a point: x does good things, therefore x is of positive value. Basically if x is the church, and y is good, and part of x is y, the fallacy is to assume that all of x is y, or vice versa.

Now whether or not you question religion follows from the same problem- many people are cowed by the idea that churches do good work. They certainly do, but that does not establish them as inherently good. Therefore, my objection to you being unwilling to question what good they do, since that good is in many ways married to the bad- eg: the Catholic church spending enormous amounts of wealth on itself, while also helping some poor people, or educating children while attempting to suppress historical documents and literature, etc.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
No, I made an insinuation about you generalizing your internal experience to humanity in general. I suggested one sub-group of humanity that your generalization likely does apply to at a higher than average rate. That does not imply that everyone who has that particular experience fits is that particular subgroup.

No, you were talking about me. You were condescending, and now you're being coy. Rather than simply disagree, you had to put me in my place, and adopt this "who me?" approach. You know damned well why I find the comparison offensive, and you intended it. I don't have to read minds to see that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Let me ask you this from a scientific standpoint. Would it one day be possible to terraform a planet? Create life in a lab? Use the knowledge we have of the human genome to essentially heal blindness or regrow a limb?
Yes. But you are not making the distinction between "X is possible" and "X is true". It's possible Obama is wearing white underwear today; should I therefore believe it? It's possible that someone is being assaulted in the deserted corridors of the lower levels of the physics building; ought I to call the campus police? This distinction is so elementary that I find it hard to believe you're arguing honestly. "It is possible" is such a weak standard that you would not apply it to any other belief of yours whatsoever. Yet in the case of religion, that's the defense you offer? "Well, it could be true?" Come now. This is not evidence, this is not even argument, this is a kindergartener trying desperately to make Santa give him presents. Here we are all adults; can we not keep this conversation at a higher level than so?
I don't know why but I feel like I can hear your accent here, especially in the "come now" part... weird!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
No, I made an insinuation about you generalizing your internal experience to humanity in general. I suggested one sub-group of humanity that your generalization likely does apply to at a higher than average rate. That does not imply that everyone who has that particular experience fits is that particular subgroup.

No, you were talking about me. You were condescending, and now you're being coy. Rather than simply disagree, you had to put me in my place, and adopt this "who me?" approach. You know damned well why I find the comparison offensive, and you intended it. I don't have to read minds to see that.
No, I was not and I am not. You are making an incorrect assumption about my intention and my motives. I am sorry that my post was not more clear, and it was possible for you to interpret it in that way.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
How do you feel about meteorology then? Weather forecasts neither claim to be certain of tomorrow's weather, nor claim to be just guesses.
And they have a verifiable success rate, which is what they give as their probability. Where are the verifiable successes of religion?


quote:
Your argument about guessing is just as valid for science as it is about religion. Can science provide a definitive answer on the actual size of the universe?
Yes.
Which is?
quote:

quote:
Can science provide definitive answers on whether there is life on other planets?
Yes, although it has not yet done so.
So in otherwords, they are guessing that there is, but have not yet been able to.
quote:

quote:
Can science provide a definitive answer on how advanced these civilizations could be?
Yes; there is an upper bound on the available information in the universe.
So again, no.

quote:
Perhaps you could provide me some examples of some things religion have "no answer" to.
All your above questions, and in addition the following: What is a good life? What is our purpose? How should we act?

Please note, though, that you seem to have misunderstood me. I don't want just "an answer". Any idiot can claim to have an answer, and many do. I want an answer with testable evidence. If you are just going to assert that X is the good life, with no other evidence than an appeal to the authority of Joseph Smith, that's no answer at all; it is mere guesswork, and the guesswork of an ignorant colonial roustabout at that.
[/QUOTE]

Right. Let me ask you the same question. What is a good life from a scientific perspective? What is our purpose? How should we act?

From a scientific perspective, the first would be answered by how much we procreate, the second would BE to procreate to ensure our species continues, and the last would be to do anything to survive.

From MY religious perspective, having children and watching them grow and learn is a good life. Our purpose would be to be able to return to God, and how we should act should be in accordance to the other two questions.

I realize this isn't what you are asking, and the only thing I can say is that religion can't answer the questions. It is a personal decision you have to come to by yourself.

God may not be able to be proven scientifically, but can the same not be said for "feelings?" Love, joy, happiness, forgiveness, friendship, and beauty--are essentially impossible to prove; however, that makes them no less real. I cannot look at a friendship under a microscope or place it on scales to measure its value in my life.

Again, I will pose the same question I did to kmboots. With the informationw we receive about the universe, and if it is discovered that there are more advanced beings than humans, would this not help the supreme being argument? If we find one other sentient race that is more advanced than humans, then it would be safe to say there were others that were even MORE advanced, perhaps even to the point of having a perfect knowledge of science to the point that creating a planet, terraforming it, and placing life here is possible.

If humans were to one day advance to this point and we created a planet and placed life there, what would our creations think about us?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Granted.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Right. Let me ask you the same question. What is a good life from a scientific perspective? What is our purpose? How should we act?

From a scientific perspective, the first would be answered by how much we procreate, the second would BE to procreate to ensure our species continues, and the last would be to do anything to survive.

No! Wrong! Science does not say any of those things. Science, in fact, does not answer any of those questions. My point all along has been that neither does religion; and so, saying "science cannot answer all questions" is not a boost to religion, it is just noise.

quote:
From MY religious perspective, having children and watching them grow and learn is a good life. Our purpose would be to be able to return to God, and how we should act should be in accordance to the other two questions.
Guesswork. Not answers.

quote:
God may not be able to be proven scientifically, but can the same not be said for "feelings?" Love, joy, happiness, forgiveness, friendship, and beauty--are essentially impossible to prove; however, that makes them no less real. I cannot look at a friendship under a microscope or place it on scales to measure its value in my life.
You are quite mistaken, all these things can be studied scientifically. Really, you ought not to make such blithe pronunciamentos about things you clearly know nothing about.

quote:
If we find one other sentient race that is more advanced than humans, then it would be safe to say there were others that were even MORE advanced, perhaps even to the point of having a perfect knowledge of science to the point that creating a planet, terraforming it, and placing life here is possible.
Yes, yes, and so what? You are completely ignoring my post where I responded to this question.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Didn't see this due to bad quoting.

quote:
Which is?
13.7 billion lightyears.

quote:
So in otherwords, they are guessing that there is, but have not yet been able to.
No. Your question was, "Can science do this", and the answer is, yes it can. It hasn't been done yet, but it is quite possible; the method being, send someone in a rocket and check. This has nothing to do with guesswork. You are confusing "Can produce an answer" with "Has an answer right now". A very bad habit, common in theists.

quote:
So again, no.
Perhaps you don't understand what "upper bound" means? You keep trying to discuss science without, apparently, any knowledge of it. Tell me, what sort of education do you have? I ask not to put you down, but because I've been assuming a college-level education, which would give us some shared vocabulary I've been using. If I'm trying to explain to someone with a high-school or, absent gods help us, lib'ral arts education, then I'll start from a much lower base of assumed knowledge. But you should please stop making the assumption that you know anything about what science is, does, or can do, when you demonstrate in your every post that you don't.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
My point is that even if (when?) we map the entire universe and beyond and come to a perfect understanding of the universe - it doesn't make any difference.

So if (when?) we map the entire universe and come across a being that is far more advanced than us, and tells us that using the knowledge He/She has, he was able to form Earth and create life, it wouldn't make a difference?
It wouldn't be God. Though God may have worked through that being.
quote:


I don't think God is a magician. I think he has a perfect knowledge of the laws of the universe, and uses them to accomplish His will.

Let me ask you this from a scientific standpoint. Would it one day be possible to terraform a planet? Create life in a lab? Use the knowledge we have of the human genome to essentially heal blindness or regrow a limb?

Sure. It won't make us gods. Or more divine than we already are.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Didn't see this due to bad quoting.

quote:
Which is?
13.7 billion lightyears.

quote:
So in otherwords, they are guessing that there is, but have not yet been able to.
No. Your question was, "Can science do this", and the answer is, yes it can. It hasn't been done yet, but it is quite possible; the method being, send someone in a rocket and check. This has nothing to do with guesswork. You are confusing "Can produce an answer" with "Has an answer right now". A very bad habit, common in theists.

quote:
So again, no.
Perhaps you don't understand what "upper bound" means? You keep trying to discuss science without, apparently, any knowledge of it. Tell me, what sort of education do you have? I ask not to put you down, but because I've been assuming a college-level education, which would give us some shared vocabulary I've been using. If I'm trying to explain to someone with a high-school or, absent gods help us, lib'ral arts education, then I'll start from a much lower base of assumed knowledge. But you should please stop making the assumption that you know anything about what science is, does, or can do, when you demonstrate in your every post that you don't.

No offense taken. To be completely honest with you I majored in English with a minor in Portuguese. This in itself is interesting since I work for a payroll company. The two required science courses I took were taught by someone that thought it would be better to push an agenda than actually teach science, so we ended up watching nothing but films on climate change.

I see you stated the 13.7 billion light year number. Every scientific article I have read states that while the light has traveled 13.7 billion lightyears, the actual distance the light has traveled is much greater (something like 78 billion lightyears) since the universe is still expanding. That is neither here nor there, just wanted to point that out. I am interested what the general consensus is on what comes after the "edge" of the universe if one were able to travel that far.

I think we are talking about two different versions of God KoM. You are referring to God as something finite, something we can measure. And here is where we differ. I don't believe in a finite being, I believe in an infinite being. Whether that being came into existence naturally or not, I do not know. It comes down to how you view God. Empirical, stable, demonstrable protocols, (again, I am ignorant in these things) are used to measure something that is finite.

When I look at it through this point of view then I completely agree with you. God could not exist as a finite being.

I'll end this with referring to my first question. What comes after we reach the end of the universe? Do we hit an invisble wall? If there is something beyond the edge of the universe, how can we measure it? If space is infinite, does this mean that it does not exist, since we can no longer measure it?

I appreciate the discussion KoM, even though you are more than likely annoyed by my ignorance. I apologize for this, but I do want to say thank you for the knowledge you bring and the civil tone of the discussion. and I do learn from you often.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I see you stated the 13.7 billion light year number. Every scientific article I have read states that while the light has traveled 13.7 billion lightyears, the actual distance the light has traveled is much greater (something like 78 billion lightyears) since the universe is still expanding.
No. The light is redshifted; this is not the same as having traveled.

quote:
That is neither here nor there, just wanted to point that out. I am interested what the general consensus is on what comes after the "edge" of the universe if one were able to travel that far.
What's north of the north pole? You can't get there from here any more than you can go faster than lightspeed by accelerating steadily.

quote:
If space is infinite, does this mean that it does not exist, since we can no longer measure it?
If it never interacts with us, not even to the extent of exchanging photons, then yes, I don't see how you can say that it exists.

quote:
I think we are talking about two different versions of God KoM. You are referring to God as something finite, something we can measure. And here is where we differ. I don't believe in a finite being, I believe in an infinite being. Whether that being came into existence naturally or not, I do not know. It comes down to how you view God. Empirical, stable, demonstrable protocols, (again, I am ignorant in these things) are used to measure something that is finite.
You apparently believed in a finite, measurable being three hours ago, when you posted your stuff about finding an advanced civilisation. When you shift the goalposts like this it's impossible to have a useful conversation. It appears to me that you've given up on evidence again and are now saying it's about having faith. If so, please see this thread, two pages back. If not, please stop waffling about finite versus infinite.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for sharing. I want to start by saying that while I disagree with your conclusion, that this was a supernatural experience, I don't want you to feel that I'm calling you a liar or insulting your beliefs.

I am simply pointing out some options that you might not have thought of, that can provide equally convincing or more convincing interpretations of these events.

quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:

One night my companion and I had an appointment with a family in this neighborhood. The neighborhood was considered the favela (ghetto) and was a poor part of the village.

When we started walking down the road, I got this feeling that we should just turn around. The feeling was in my gut, like when you go down a steep hill in your car or ride a rollercoaster. I ignored it but it kept getting worse and worse, and I just felt like we had to turn around; that something bad would happen if we didn't.

I decided to ask my companion how he felt, so I did. He looked at me and said "I have a really strong feeling that we should turn around." I felt a shiver down my spine, but we turned around and went home.

I think you might be very interested in the book "Blink" by Malcom Gladwell. http://www.wikisummaries.org/Blink:_The_Power_of_Thinking_Without_Thinking

He explains that the human mind is fantastically good at making accurate, subconscious decisions with very minimal details, and we often call these choices feelings or intuition or hunches.

I would suggest that just such a thing happened to you and your companion. You knew you were going into a potentially dangerous area of town. Maybe you noticed that people were behaving strangely. Maybe there weren't any people on the road, when there usually were, who knows what you noticed, but it gave you an uneasy feeling.

No supernatural information is required to explain this, and further, there is no logical reason to conclude that God gave you a message. There is just as much evidence (i.e. none) that an invisible fairy whispered this warning to you and your friend, or that a ghost walked across your grave, or that you midichlorians resonated with the Dark Side of the force that was about to predominate the area.

quote:

The next day we saw the family and apologized for not coming over. They said that it was good that we hadn't. There was a shooting on the street in front of their house, and a man had been sent to the hospital with a bullet wound.

I don't know what could have happened if we continued on to their house. Maybe nothing would have happened. On the other hand, maybe we would have been shot by a stray bullet.

Or maybe you would have scared off the shooter and saved the man from being sent to the hospital. Or maybe your witnessing would have convinced the shooter to join your church and save poor children from their bad situations.

Things that might have happened are not evidence for your conclusion - you are telling yourself a story, and you like the way it sounds, so you are sticking with it, but there isn't any reason to believe that story over any other story.

quote:

Again, I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on my experience, and will treat them with respect. It happened ten years ago, but I still remember it vividly.

This is what is known as selection bias. We remember the things that confirm what we want to believe, and forget things that contradict our beliefs. We find things that we are looking for to be very interesting, so we're more likely to notice and remember them, so we end up with very inaccurate "evidence", because we discount things that could disprove our conclusion.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And they have a verifiable success rate, which is what they give as their probability. Where are the verifiable successes of religion?
You are moving the goalposts now - your argument before did not entail the question of verifiable success rates. It was that religion either can offer only a guess, or can lie about being able to prove what it knows, neither of which is a helpful thing. But weather forecasting, like religion, is an example of one of many areas in which an assertion can reasonably be made that is neither proven nor a complete guess; it is made on partial evidence. Thus, it is definitely possible for a field of knowledge to be unable to prove the answer to certain questions yet be able to give answers to those questions that are more reliable than simply random guesses.

(Also, the probability given by your local news weather forecast is not really a verifiable success rate. It doesn't measure the chance that a given forecast will be accurate or successful. It is the likelihood that a given location within an area will get precipitation according to the atmospheric conditions predicted by a given computer model. And often weather forecasters use their judgement to pick and choose between, or combine, numbers from different computer models.)

[ May 05, 2010, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM: Regarding what you said about the north pole and space...You are of the opinion the Universe is shaped like a hyperplane/hyperspehere/hyperboloid? If it is shaped like a doughnut, what does it loop around? What would lie at the core of a looped three-dimensional cosmos? Is a higher spatial dimension beyond the limits of observation possible?

Another question.. If the Universe is expanding, is there a limit? If the universe is nothing but a loop or plane, how can it expand? If it is expanding, what is it expanding in?

I do not think my thoughts on finite vs. infinite beings are conflicting. While I believe God is an infinite being, I also believe that we are infinite beings, having existed in some form or another for eternity. While our physical bodies are finite, our spiritual bodies are not. Spiritual bodies still having mass, however a different type of mass than we are currently. I guess it could be argued that the mass in our physical bodies are as old as the universe itself when it comes down to it. Since mass is eternal, but takes on different shapes, the mass we are made up of has existed since the beginning of the universe, just in different forms.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
Geraine, I'm not really following this thread but as a suggestion you might want to read Stephan Hawkings A Brief History of Time.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This is what is known as selection bias.
<nit>Confirmation bias, actually.</nit>
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
Good catch. My brain got boggled [Smile]

Geraine: What does it mean that we have spiritual mass that is different from regular mass? No offense, but if you just make up terms like "spiritual mass" and then say that they mean what you are trying to prove, you don't really prove anything.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
MC,

Take light for example. An article I read once explains as follows:

http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/light_mass.html

quote:

Does light have mass?" this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container. The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}. By this definition a beam of light, is massless like the photons it is composed of. However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the boxes frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured - in principle at least - either by an increase in inertia when the box is slowly accelerated or by an increase in its gravitational pull. You might say that the light in the box has mass but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light. You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

I look at the soul, or spirit as like this.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The mass due to motion of light particles (among other things) is entirely measurable. What's more, the mass has exactly the same effect on other objects as the "rest mass" does. There's no problem measuring that effect.

If there were "spiritual mass", it would be a horse of a different color, not really the same as the other things we call mass at all. That is, just metaphorically "mass". We've done really precise mass measurements of lots of things, so we'd have noticed it if that weren't the case.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
KoM: Regarding what you said about the north pole and space...You are of the opinion the Universe is shaped like a hyperplane/hyperspehere/hyperboloid? If it is shaped like a doughnut, what does it loop around? What would lie at the core of a looped three-dimensional cosmos? Is a higher spatial dimension beyond the limits of observation possible?

Not a cosmologist, but I recognize a fundamental misconception when I see one.

There is nothing to "loop around." I mean that no even in the sense of there *being* nothingness. There is no nothingness around which to loop. The idea of a doughut shaped universe is that from all points the universe has no observable end, and while it is helpful in conceiving of a higher dimensional curve to picture a doughnut hanging in space, that is not what is going on. It's rather like asking about what's "behind" a circle drawn on a two dimensional plane. There is no behind.

Keep in mind that even if the universe is curved in a high dimension than the ones we observe, that does not mean that we would be able to observe that other dimension in the same way at all. For one you can't see it from a distance, because from any point in the universe the effect is exactly the same. Second there is no "getting outside" of it, because traveling any distance inside of it puts us at a point somewhere else inside, and as I've said, the effect is the same everywhere.

quote:
If it is expanding, what is it expanding in?
The distance between any two observable points is expanding. Imagine you have a giant bowl of spaghetti, and you're just sitting in it minding your own business, and slowly you start to realize that the noodles all seem to be growing fractionally bigger and less close to each other, from your perspective and the edge of the bowl seems to be further and further away in all directions. Now, remember you have no way of knowing if the bowl is getting bigger, or if you or getting smaller. To ask at that point whether the bowl is going to fill up some larger container is an interesting one... but what if the room the bowl is in is also getting bigger, or what if nothing is getting bigger, and you're just getting smaller? Have you ever been sitting on a train, in a station, and been suddenly disoriented when a train parked next to it moved, causing you to believe you were moving? Similar sort of problem here. Perceived movement based on a change in some key point of reference doesn't equal movement, per se. Just because the universe is expanding does not mean it is "getting bigger." It is not larger in relation to any object, and so the expansion of the universe could as easily be seen as a uniform decrease in size of everything in it. In the analogy, you either changed size or did not change size relative to everything around you. But in the real universe, you would also be part of the phenomenon. You would not be able to observe the difference, which would only express itself, in any way you could observe, in tiny and difficult to observe behaviors of high speed particles.

The size of the universe is endlessly more complex than the analogy, but consider at least that you are mentally powerless to defeat the bias of your own 3d perspective.

[ May 05, 2010, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
I look at the soul, or spirit as like this.

Congratulations. I look at women like objects. [Razz]

quote:
Geraine: What does it mean that we have spiritual mass that is different from regular mass? No offense, but if you just make up terms like "spiritual mass" and then say that they mean what you are trying to prove, you don't really prove anything.
You do if science works like Star Trek the Next Generation- the analogy makes it possible!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You are moving the goalposts now - your argument before did not entail the question of verifiable success rates. It was that religion either can offer only a guess, or can lie about being able to prove what it knows, neither of which is a helpful thing.
I move no posts, I merely clarify what my phrase meant. It is precisely the quality of having no verifiable success rate that makes religious answers mere guesswork; the two are equivalent. To qualify such guesses by adding a probability - whether that probability is said to be 10% or 100% - does not help the underlying problem; it merely compounds it by giving a false veneer of certainty.

quote:
Regarding what you said about the north pole and space...You are of the opinion the Universe is shaped like a hyperplane/hyperspehere/hyperboloid?
No, I'm of the opinion that your question is meaningless. You might as well ask - I put this in a religious framework for ease of communication - how much time passed before Creation. Since time begins at creation, there is no before; you are effectively asking "What would I see if I went back to before God said 'Let there be light'?".

quote:
If the Universe is expanding, is there a limit? If the universe is nothing but a loop or plane, how can it expand? If it is expanding, what is it expanding in?
You are trying to discuss mathematical problems in English. This does not work.

quote:
Spiritual bodies still having mass, however a different type of mass than we are currently. I guess it could be argued that the mass in our physical bodies are as old as the universe itself when it comes down to it. Since mass is eternal, but takes on different shapes, the mass we are made up of has existed since the beginning of the universe, just in different forms.
Yes, yes. What does this have to do with faith versus evidence? Try to stick to the point. Do you have any evidence for your 'spiritual mass'? If not, how dare you come here and assert that it exists?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
Co-opting scientific terms to describe religious ideas just muddies the water. It is an artificial way to lend respectability to supernatural make-believe, but it doesn't actually tell us anything.

If I assert that leprechauns have fifth-dimensional pots of gold, they're no more real, just more confusingly imaginary.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
Not sure if this was already posted. If so, sorry for double post.

KoM, you may already be familiar with this case involving another judge in Britian who recently issued a ruling relating to religious objections. It seems pertinent with the discussion here.

From the article:
quote:
Tossing out the appeal of a relationship counselor who was fired for refusing to counsel gay couples, a top British judge has ruled that Christian beliefs have no standing under secular law because they lack evidence and cannot be proven.
and

quote:
“In the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society,” he said.

“Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

“The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary,” he continued.


Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM and Orinoco, in your most recent posts, you are expressing just a glimmer of what it is like to try to talk about God. Just as we use imperfect and sometimes contradictory analogies to try to imagine the universe, so we do with God. Certain analogies are useful up to a point but unhelpful and wrong when we fail to remember that they are not the reality.

You understand this obstacle to communication, yet too often evangelical atheists use this to try to "disprove" God. Please bear this in mind. Thanks.

Also, I agree with Anthonie's judge.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
Kmbboots: The flaw with that claim, is that religious people claim to know all sorts of specific facts about God, and claim to know them with a high level of certainty.

How can one know about a God in such specific detail, but at the same time be unable to articulate that information?

I assert that if a thing is beyond description, it is also beyond knowing, except as a vague experience.

And again, including this special pleading means we can justify anything. Leprechauns are real, but it's reall difficult to convince people, because their inherent nature is beyond words.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
We know specific facts about the universe, too, yet can't entirely describe it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No, I'm of the opinion that your question is meaningless. You might as well ask - I put this in a religious framework for ease of communication - how much time passed before Creation. Since time begins at creation, there is no before; you are effectively asking "What would I see if I went back to before God said 'Let there be light'?".
KoM: What would you see if you went back to before the big bang happened?

Time begins at creation? Really? When you were "created", your perception of time began. Time passed before you were here, and will pass after you are gone. Time is a man made measurement. Seconds, hours, years, and so on were created by man in order to measure events in the universe.

I am a believer in the Big Bang. I really am. Do I believe that it happened by chance? Absolutely not. If all things that exist must have a cause, can a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe be confirmed observationally? If all beliefs are based upon observational evidence, the universe had to have a naturalistic cause.

Is this true? Since the laws of physics say that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe how are we to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
We know specific facts about the universe, too, yet can't entirely describe it.

We use analogies to describe aspects of the universe in an attempt to clarify complex or unintuitive concepts to people who are unfamiliar with the concepts. You seem
to be saying that many things about God are indescribable, because that's just how God is.

But if something is indescribable, it is also unknowable, because you can't describe it to yourself.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
We can describe by analogy some aspects of God, but cannot describe God completely. God is infinite.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
KoM: What would you see if you went back to before the big bang happened?
How many furious green ideas can sleep in a demented cement screwdriver?

Your question is meaningless.

quote:
Time begins at creation? Really? When you were "created", your perception of time began. Time passed before you were here, and will pass after you are gone. Time is a man made measurement. Seconds, hours, years, and so on were created by man in order to measure events in the universe.
So if there were no men, then things would not happen one after the other? Come now.

Time may be finite or infinite. Our best evidence at the moment indicates it is finite. In a universe with finite time, time has a definite beginning, and there is no 'before' the beginning of time. There is no answer to the question "what happened a year before the beginning?" because you can't go there. There is no 'there' to go to. What's north of the north pole? What's east of moon, west of sun? There's no such animal.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
We can describe by analogy some aspects of God, but cannot describe God completely. God is infinite.

Works just as well for leprechauns.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But if something is indescribable, it is also unknowable, because you can't describe it to yourself.
This doesn't follow. You can experience something indescribable and still know about it.

Haven't you ever been asked what something tastes like by someone who has never tasted that particular food before, and despite remembering what it tastes like you can't think of any way to describe it that perfectly communicates what it tastes like?

quote:
Works just as well for leprechauns.
Sure, but what is that supposed to prove? If you truly witnessed a leprechaun, then by all means believe in leprechauns, even if you can't describe it...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
We can describe by analogy some aspects of God, but cannot describe God completely. God is infinite.

Works just as well for leprechauns.
So? I am not claiming that indescribability is evidence of existence; I am stating that neither is it evidence of non-existence and that the obstacles of language should be taken into account rather than used to score points.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
KoM: What would you see if you went back to before the big bang happened?
How many furious green ideas can sleep in a demented cement screwdriver?

Your question is meaningless.

quote:
Time begins at creation? Really? When you were "created", your perception of time began. Time passed before you were here, and will pass after you are gone. Time is a man made measurement. Seconds, hours, years, and so on were created by man in order to measure events in the universe.
So if there were no men, then things would not happen one after the other? Come now.

Time may be finite or infinite. Our best evidence at the moment indicates it is finite. In a universe with finite time, time has a definite beginning, and there is no 'before' the beginning of time. There is no answer to the question "what happened a year before the beginning?" because you can't go there. There is no 'there' to go to. What's north of the north pole? What's east of moon, west of sun? There's no such animal.

Kom, I love how you ask me a question from a religious standpoint, but as soon as I insert "Big bang" in the place of "creation" you say the question is meaningless.

Likewise, you just confirm what I typed in the second response. Time is a man made measurement. If the Big Bang happened, what caused it? Science says that everything that happens has a cause, I want to know what the cause of the big bang was.

What you have just stated by saying time may or may not be infinite indicates to me that you are not being scientifically honest. Either it is infinite or it is not. If time is finite, it can be experimented upon and tested. If it is infinite, then it is untestable, and by your standards does not exist.

Can you explain why the Universe is the size that it is. Apparently it is a huge accident. The universe could not have been much smaller than it is for nuclear fusion to have happened in the first 3 minutes after the big bang, and if the universe were even one grain of sand greater in mass at the beginning, the universe would have collapsed before life could have started. The size of our universe is the exact size needed to sustain life.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Kom, I love how you ask me a question from a religious standpoint, but as soon as I insert "Big bang" in the place of "creation" you say the question is meaningless.
You misunderstood my intent. The question is equally meaningless whether expressed with creation or Big Bang; by using creation I was attempting to demonstrate the meaninglessness in language familiar to you, not put down religion.

quote:
Likewise, you just confirm what I typed in the second response. Time is a man made measurement. If the Big Bang happened, what caused it? Science says that everything that happens has a cause, I want to know what the cause of the big bang was.
In fact science does not say that. Common sense informs us that either there is a beginning to all things, or there isn't. The best evidence indicates a beginning. If there is a beginning, then that is an uncaused event.

quote:
What you have just stated by saying time may or may not be infinite indicates to me that you are not being scientifically honest. Either it is infinite or it is not. If time is finite, it can be experimented upon and tested. If it is infinite, then it is untestable, and by your standards does not exist.
You fall into the trap laid by the devil that-does-not-follow, aided in this case by the devil use-the-word-without-understanding. "Infinite time" means only that, if you invent a time machine and go backwards, you will never hit a boundary beyond which you cannot go. "Finite time" means the opposite: There does exist such a boundary. (That said, there do exist formulations of modern physics in which time, indeed, is discarded as a variable.) In other words, the question is whether the universe has a beginning or not; testability doesn't come into it. You are apparently confusing these usages with your understanding of 'finite' humans and 'infinite' gods, with which they have nothing to do.

quote:
Can you explain why the Universe is the size that it is. Apparently it is a huge accident. The universe could not have been much smaller than it is for nuclear fusion to have happened in the first 3 minutes after the big bang, and if the universe were even one grain of sand greater in mass at the beginning, the universe would have collapsed before life could have started. The size of our universe is the exact size needed to sustain life.
...said the puddle of the depression in which it sat. You have been mis-informed about the degree of fine-tuning required to produce life, especially the one-grain-of-sand bit. In any case, what of it? Religion doesn't answer this question any more than science does; and religion can't answer it, while science is checking out several promising avenues of research into the question.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
KoM, I don't think Geraine is going to be familiar with the puddle analogy.

Geraine, imagine a puddle lying in a depression in the road that suddenly and inexplicably becomes self-aware and capable of abstract thought. The chances of this happening being astronomically unlikely, but suppose it does happen.

Now, the puddle examines the environment around it and determines a few things. 1, the world it in inhabits appears to have an upper ceiling, and a floor. It appears to have a specific shape. Remarkably, uncannily, the world in which the puddle exists is shaped *exactly* the way the puddle is shaped. "Egads" says the puddle: "this world is one of utter perfection! It is the perfect size and the perfect shape to fit ME!" Based on the available information, and unaware of the nature of the world outside its own peculiar puddlyness, the puddle marvels at the great fortune it had to be granted a universe that so perfectly conforms to its needs. And as the puddle shrinks in the sun, it grasps at this illusion of belonging, of rightness that it cannot abandon- that it appears against reason to abandon.

One of the peculiar quirks of a universe that can support intelligent life is that it can support intelligent life. That means anything capable of observing the universe at the level that we can, or beyond the level that we can, is that it will be at least minimally suited to the existence of those who can observe it. Minimally, the universe has produced one such civilization, and quite possibly it has produced more.

So unfortunately we run up against the ultimate tautology, the thing that proves itself: we think, therefore we are. If the universe hadn't produced us, we would not be able to observe it, and we would not be able to remark upon any universe incapable of making us. While it is surely an awesome and wondrous thing that this has happened, from our perspective anyway, our frame of reference is as the puddle- we know only what we are capable of knowing.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
aka anthropic principle.

Geraine, King of Men is a physicist, so you might want to be cautious about your assertions.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:
Kom, I love how you ask me a question from a religious standpoint, but as soon as I insert "Big bang" in the place of "creation" you say the question is meaningless.
You misunderstood my intent. The question is equally meaningless whether expressed with creation or Big Bang; by using creation I was attempting to demonstrate the meaninglessness in language familiar to you, not put down religion.

quote:
Likewise, you just confirm what I typed in the second response. Time is a man made measurement. If the Big Bang happened, what caused it? Science says that everything that happens has a cause, I want to know what the cause of the big bang was.
In fact science does not say that. Common sense informs us that either there is a beginning to all things, or there isn't. The best evidence indicates a beginning. If there is a beginning, then that is an uncaused event.

quote:
What you have just stated by saying time may or may not be infinite indicates to me that you are not being scientifically honest. Either it is infinite or it is not. If time is finite, it can be experimented upon and tested. If it is infinite, then it is untestable, and by your standards does not exist.
You fall into the trap laid by the devil that-does-not-follow, aided in this case by the devil use-the-word-without-understanding. "Infinite time" means only that, if you invent a time machine and go backwards, you will never hit a boundary beyond which you cannot go. "Finite time" means the opposite: There does exist such a boundary. (That said, there do exist formulations of modern physics in which time, indeed, is discarded as a variable.) In other words, the question is whether the universe has a beginning or not; testability doesn't come into it. You are apparently confusing these usages with your understanding of 'finite' humans and 'infinite' gods, with which they have nothing to do.

quote:
Can you explain why the Universe is the size that it is. Apparently it is a huge accident. The universe could not have been much smaller than it is for nuclear fusion to have happened in the first 3 minutes after the big bang, and if the universe were even one grain of sand greater in mass at the beginning, the universe would have collapsed before life could have started. The size of our universe is the exact size needed to sustain life.
...said the puddle of the depression in which it sat. You have been mis-informed about the degree of fine-tuning required to produce life, especially the one-grain-of-sand bit. In any case, what of it? Religion doesn't answer this question any more than science does; and religion can't answer it, while science is checking out several promising avenues of research into the question.

First, I appreciate the continued discussion.

Regarding the Big Bang, If something does not have a cause, how can it exist? Is there anything in this universe that exists without cause? Or is this a unique characteristic of the universe itself?

From what I understand (I'm not the scientist though) if the universe was smaller, nuclear fusion would have not have been able to take place during the first three minutes of the existance of the universe. If this did not take place the universe would have consisted entirely of helium, rendering the formation of rocky planets impossible.

The universe contains 10 (to the 80) baryons. An addition of just 10 (to the 21 power) baryons (at 1.67×10 (to the −27 power) kg/baryon equals 1.7 mg of matter. If we were to add this now it would not make a difference, but if added at the beginning of the universe, it would have created a deviation in which life could not exist. The universe would consist of black holes, unable to support life.

What do you think of the cosmological constant?

I would argue that while religion does not answer the question regarding the size of the universe in a scientific sense, the sheer impossibility of the universe turning out how it did lends credit to the religious argument that the universe was created by design.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
Kmbboots: do you think of things for which you have no name? How is that done?

If language cannot describe something, in what terms can one know about it?

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
"The universe contains 10 (to the 80) baryons. An addition of just 10 (to the 21 power) baryons (at 1.67×10 (to the −27 power) kg/baryon equals 1.7 mg of matter. If we were to add this now it would not make a difference, but if added at the beginning of the universe, it would have created a deviation in which life could not exist. The universe would consist of black holes, unable to support life. "

Ignoring whether this is the case or not, because it's debatable, you are ignoring the fact that this just didn't happen. Things are the way they are. Things could be different, but they're not. If they were different, you wouldn't be talking about this right now. You would not exist. You realize that if any one in an absolutely enormous number of chance events had occurred differently at any point in history, you would not be here. Yet you are here. If you were not here, someone else would probably be here, and would probably spend time thinking about exactly the same thing. Or all of humanity would be dead. Or we would never have existed. Yet you are here. Such is life- unexpected things happen. In such a large universe, such unexpected things do happen, and they may happen a lot.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
I would argue that while religion does not answer the question regarding the size of the universe in a scientific sense, the sheer impossibility of the universe turning out how it did lends credit to the religious argument that the universe was created by design.

This is a stupid argument, and you know it.

If I play several dozen games of hearts, doesn't the sheer impossibility of the hands that we all draw, the cards, and the order in which we draw them turnign out the way they did, lend credit to the religious argument that the deck was ordered by design?

Why not?

Sure, after only one hand, the odds of each player receiving exactly the cards they did, in the order they did, are only "astronomical", but play enough rounds, and the probability has to drop to "sheerly impossible". What happens at that point? Do the cards self-immolate in a small pillar of fire on the table? Does one of the players reveal themselves to be God? Does the universe end before this can happen? I play a fair amount of Mah-jong with my Chinese grandmother-in-law, at what point should I be worried about our cumulative games becoming dangerously improbable, to the point of imperiling the universe?

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 19 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  17  18  19   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2