Happy Atheist Forum

Quote from: "Achronos"For example the Darwinist, if true to the Darwinian creation narrative that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

  There is no such thing as Darwinism...no one worships Darwin.

Can you point to where in evolution theory it states that life arose from chaos and randomness?  I'll give you a big hint that should help you realize why what you said is a huge facepalm moment....the theory of evolution is about how life changed after it started and has nothing to do with how life started.  In fact, there is nothing about evolution that would prevent one from accepting it and remaining a creationist; they could just assume a god started the ball rolling.

Yeah, Darwinism is definitely a poor term, except when used correctly in historical contrast to the once competing theory of Lamarckism, the idea that environmental effects are passed down by heredity to future generations, the classic example being a giraffe's neck being stretched physically to grasp leaves and this physical change goes on to be inherited.

Definitely an annoying misuse of the term.

Perhaps instead of 'Darwinist', these people should just insert the term 'scientist' since they basically oppose so many different ideas, hypothesis and theories in science such as the Miller/Urey Experiment in chemistry ( a decent link on this one for any interested parties:  http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch ... iller.html (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)), evolutionary theory in biology, the Big Bang theory in physics, and the evidence for the age of the earth in geology.  But the use of the term scientist, while much more correct for these folks, would make their near total rejection of the vast amount of empirical evidence that conflicts with their religious beliefs so much more obvious.

Thanks, Whitney. Great point. This is usually the argument of the uninformed, or willfully ignorant.

So now I'm using the message board search function to see if abiogenesis has been raised as a topic.  I'll be surprised if it hasn't, but if it hasn't I'll raise it, just for giggles.

This thread makes me wonder how Squid's book is coming along.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Achronos"For example the Darwinist, if true to the Darwinian creation narrative that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

  There is no such thing as Darwinism...no one worships Darwin.

Can you point to where in evolution theory it states that life arose from chaos and randomness?  I'll give you a big hint that should help you realize why what you said is a huge facepalm moment....the theory of evolution is about how life changed after it started and has nothing to do with how life started.  In fact, there is nothing about evolution that would prevent one from accepting it and remaining a creationist; they could just assume a god started the ball rolling.

I'd also like for creationists to point out anywhere Darwin, or current evolutionary biology, addresses how the universe came into being.  They are mixing up three different areas of study and demanding that that biology answer a physical cosmology question.  It's like taking your car to your hairdresser or barber and demanding that s/he tell you why it quit running that morning.

Quote from: "Velma"I'd also like for creationists to point out anywhere Darwin, or current evolutionary biology, addresses how the universe came into being.  

My thoughts exactly.

I grew up in a village a few miles from Down House (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/home-of-charles-darwin-down-house/) where Darwin lived while he wrote Origin of Species. It's worth a couple of hours to look around if one is interested in Darwin's life and it is also an interesting insight into Victorian England.

Darwin considered his ideas on daily walks around the perimeter of the grounds, it was insightful to take that walk and try to get into his mind set while he considered his theory. Having been a faithful Christian and creationist he must have had a difficult time coming to terms with what he saw on his travels. He was vexed and troubled by what he had discovered. He knew full well the impact his ideas would have on the establishment at the time. I have a sneaking suspicion that he may never have published OoS if Alfred Russel Wallace (http://wallacefund.info/) had not been there to unintentionally spur him on.

Darwin was first and foremost a pragmatic observer, I would go as far as to say an obsessive compulsive in this respect. He was his own greatest sceptic. The detail of his work and his breadth of correspondence with other naturalists all over the world are both quite breath taking. All his works, including letter, journals, sketches, note books etc. can be found at Darwin Online (http://darwin-online.org.uk/). Now I haven't read all of his works, his style is frankly an excellent cure for insomnia, it's the content that keeps one reading, but I have not seen any speculation about how life came about. His ideas relate to natural selection (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html). This process can be seen to apply to all replicating systems where there is inheritance and variation between individual items and generations of items. But it says nothing about the origins of the replicators in the first place, that is the purview of abiogenesis (http://student.science.uva.nl/~jckastel/html/abiogenesis.pdf).

Darwin had nothing substantive to say about the origin of life. So to conflate Darwin's ideas about natural selection and how this leads to the evolution of distinct 'species' (an erroneous human categorisation failure if there ever was one) with ideas about the origin of life is simply wrong.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Achronos"For example the Darwinist, if true to the Darwinian creation narrative that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

  There is no such thing as Darwinism...no one worships Darwin.

Can you point to where in evolution theory it states that life arose from chaos and randomness?  I'll give you a big hint that should help you realize why what you said is a huge facepalm moment....the theory of evolution is about how life changed after it started and has nothing to do with how life started.  In fact, there is nothing about evolution that would prevent one from accepting it and remaining a creationist; they could just assume a god started the ball rolling.

Maybe it stems from the fact religious people cannot comprehend the non-belief in a deity so as a consequence, have to label atheists as possessing a belief structure overseen by a single figurehead, of which we give praise to.

I love the Darwin story, I don't have a shrine but he's freaken awesome.
His understandable reluctance to publish his work illustrates the chains religion placed on the growth of humanity and science.
But that doesn't happen now of course.
If you haven't seen the movie "Creation," I recommend it.

Anyway as Tim Minchin says

Quote"That defense is always... 'But evolution is only a theory'. ...Which is true. I mean... it is a theory, and it's good that they say that, I think. It gives you hope, doesn't it? That... That maybe they feel the same way about... the... theory of.......... gravity. ....And they might just float the fuck away."

I have often thought that people of religion are shooting themselves in the foot when they suggest that atheism uses evolution to 'prove' there is no god. That simply isn't the case. As someone above has pointed out you can still quite easily believe that a god started they whole ball rolling (as indeed I did before I shed religious beliefs). What you can't do of course is believe the bible literally, which most liberal Christians don't in any case.

I think Darwin's increasing loss of belief was a process brought about by the fact that the bible was believed far more literally then then now by more people and he could not reconcile the two. I think the 'red in tooth and claw' aspect - the sheer brutality of the evolutionary process also perhaps made it pretty clear to him that any god there might be certainly isn't a compassionate one.

If there is a watershed moment in Darwin's life where he seriously and positively changed his world view it was the death of his eldest daughter Anne (http://www.aboutdarwin.com/darwin/Children.html). He never attended church after her death. He would go with the family but would not enter the church.

The theory of evolution is a component of why educated people in our day will see Deism as a superfluous hypothesis, whereas educated people in the 1700's, for example Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry, often saw Deism as perhaps not superfluous.  Absent the theory of evolution, we would have no scientific answer for how the myriad species originated, and absent any scientific answer, a theological answer might not seem superfluous, even to the educated.

As for Darwin himself, he is a hero, one of the greatest heroes, of the attitude described at the bottom of my sig.  In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Quote from: "Tank"If there is a watershed moment in Darwin's life where he seriously and positively changed his world view it was the death of his eldest daughter Anne (http://www.aboutdarwin.com/darwin/Children.html). He never attended church after her death. He would go with the family but would not enter the church.

For those that haven't seen it, the movie Creation gives a pretty good account of his life.  You can rent it from netflix http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Creation/70121931 (http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Creation/70121931)

I think young earthers should watch it too...it shows that he truly did struggle spiritually with the release of Origins and, as tank said, it was the loss of his daughter which knocked him out of belief rather than his research directly.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Achronos"For example the Darwinist, if true to the Darwinian creation narrative that chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

 :hmm:

(Just for the record, now that I know about it I do try and make the distinction clear to other Creationists that abiogenesis and evolution are different things. Thanks to my un-named youtube buddy who helped me understand it better:D )

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"I can accept evolution as a concept but not as a purpose.

That might be because it isn't a purpose. It's a process.

QuoteIt seems to me as a means but with no end

Exactly right. It's a continuum. It does have an end, but not in and of itself. It has no target, no goal, and no end point inherent. It will end, because the universe will end, but that's not actually inherent in biological evolution.

Quoteso even though i get it, I don't know what to make of it

What should you make of it, in your opinion? It just is, that is all!

 ;)

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"who told you the universe will end?  i have not heard this

Only the important people were on the circulation list  

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"who told you the universe will end?  i have not heard this

Read this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe)

MP: thx for suggesting "Creation"

Whitney: thx for the Netflix link - it's on my queue now...

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"I can accept evolution as a concept but not as a purpose.
It seems to me as a means but with no end
so even though i get it, I don't know what to make of it

... so, does this mean you accept that evolution occurs?

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"who told you the universe will end?  i have not heard this

And before that happens or even if it doesn't happen the earth will be destroyed by the Sun when it becomes a Red Giant....so either way evolution on Earth will stop some day.  Might even stop sooner if Earth gets hit by a gigantic meteor that wipes out everything instead of just part of life...lots of things can put an end to life.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"who told you the universe will end?  i have not heard this

And before that happens or even if it doesn't happen the earth will be destroyed by the Sun when it becomes a Red Giant....so either way evolution on Earth will stop some day.  Might even stop sooner if Earth gets hit by a gigantic meteor that wipes out everything instead of just part of life...lots of things can put an end to life.

It would have to be one hell of an impactor to sterilise the Earth now. Extremophile bacteria have been found in rock miles underground living off chemical energy.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"who told you the universe will end?  i have not heard this

And before that happens or even if it doesn't happen the earth will be destroyed by the Sun when it becomes a Red Giant....so either way evolution on Earth will stop some day.  Might even stop sooner if Earth gets hit by a gigantic meteor that wipes out everything instead of just part of life...lots of things can put an end to life.

It would have to be one hell of an impactor to sterilise the Earth now. Extremophile bacteria have been found in rock miles underground living off chemical energy.

Ya, it would basically have to be big enough to literally destroy the planet...but it could happen.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"who told you the universe will end?  i have not heard this

And before that happens or even if it doesn't happen the earth will be destroyed by the Sun when it becomes a Red Giant....so either way evolution on Earth will stop some day.  Might even stop sooner if Earth gets hit by a gigantic meteor that wipes out everything instead of just part of life...lots of things can put an end to life.

It would have to be one hell of an impactor to sterilise the Earth now. Extremophile bacteria have been found in rock miles underground living off chemical energy.

I wrote an article a while back for the sci-writing competition at RDF before it closed down that included some info on this very subject, including a small contribution from Calilasseia in the form of some calculation of the thermodynamic exchanges involved in a bolide impact of a given size. Here's the relevant bit:

Quote from: "hackenslash"Bolide Impact

This is going to feel a little like cheating, but the following is what actually inspired this essay.

Probably the single biggest threat to life on Earth, notwithstanding climate change and the aforementioned pandemic, is that which is widely regarded as having brought the age of the dinosaurs to an end.

In 2005, US Congress mandated NASA to identify 90% of large Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs) by 2020. In a release yesterday, 18th February 2010, Alexis Madrigal, writing on behalf of the UK's Spaceguard Centre, discussed a report, Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies , released by the National Research Council, in which it was suggested that this is not an attainable goal with current technology and funding. In reality, it is not actually known how many such objects are up there, and estimating the risk to humans is problematic. Michael A'Hearn, of the University of Maryland, writes:
Our estimates of the risk could easily be wrong by a factor of two or three, I don’t think they are wrong by a factor of 10, but the boundaries, again, haven’t been explored.” [10]


He also discusses the problems of understanding the physics of an impact, saying:
The first thing we need to do is understand what the hazard is. That’s partly finding them and partly understanding what their effect is. We have to understand in more detail how we’d mitigate against them.


A few days ago on the forum, a discussion arose (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?p=2710380#p2710380) in which a particular poster was discussing what he thought would be the best traits granted by evolution in the event that four (count them) Texas sized bolides were heading for Earth from different directions. He was suggesting that intelligence would grant the best strategies for survival. Given that mathematics is not my strong point, I asked Calilasseia if he would mind doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations with regard to the thermodynamic exchanges involved in such an impact, and he has kindly given permission to use them here.

Quote from: "The Blue Wingéd One"The volume of a bolide the size of Texas is given by:

V = (4/3)Ï€r3 where r = 622,000 m

This gives us a value for the volume of our bolide of 1.008 × 1018 m3.

Now, to make life simpler, let's assume that we're dealing with an iron meteorite. Iron has a density of 7,873 Kg m-3 (Source: the properties of the elements table from Kaye & Laby's Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_1/3_1_2.html)), therefore an iron meteorite will have a mass of 7.936 × 1021 Kg, to a reasonable level of approximation. A more precise calculation would take into account that an iron meteorite actually contains around 6.7% nickel (source: the abundances of the elements table from the same source as above (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_1/3_1_3.html)), and since nickel is denser than iron, leaving it out means that we're underestimating the mass, and erring on the conservative side again. By comparison, the mass of the Earth is 5.9736 × 1024 Kg, so we're dealing with a body that is 0.13% the mass of the Earth, which means that already, it's a significant mass.

Bolides typically move through space at speeds of around 20 Km s-1, and so, we can calculate the kinetic energy of such a bolide once we know its mass, courtesy of E = ½mv2. Feeding m = 7.936 × 1021 Kg and v = 20,000 m s-1 into this formula, we arrive at a value for the kinetic energy of 1.587 × 1030 Joules.

Now, if a bolide of this mass impacted the Earth at that speed, and atmospheric braking wouldn't do much to slow it down, a significant fraction of that energy would be converted to heat upon being brought to a halt in an inelastic collision. Even if we assume conservatively that only 50% of that energy is converted to heat as it impacts the Earth and comes to a halt, that still leaves us with 7.935 × 1029 Joules to play with. By comparison, the Tsar Bomba, the largest thermonuclear weapon ever tested in the atmosphere by humans, was puny - it had a yield of 50 megatons, or 2.1 × 1017 Joules. Therefore, if a bolide the size of Texas impacts the Earth, it will yield as much heat energy as 3.779 trillion Tsar Bomba H-bombs.

That amount of heat energy is going to have some significant effects to put it mildly. Let's assume for the sake of argument, again a radical simplification, that all the heat energy is dumped into the bolide mass itself, prior to transfer to the surroundings. Iron has a specific heat capacity by mass of 442 J Kg-1 K1-, which is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of 1 Kg of iron by 1 Kelvin. So, to derive the temperature change T, given a specific heat capacity C, a mass m and an energy input E, we have:

T = E/Cm

Feeding our data into the formula above, we have that the temperature change of the bolide will be approximately 225,000 kelvins.[11]

Obviously, this is an extreme example, and just a bit of fun here, but the risk is very real. Cali sums up with the following, which seems a good place to leave this topic.

Quote from: "The Blue Wingéd One"I'd say that if just one bolide the size of Texas hits Planet Earth, we are, not to put too fine a point on it, fucked.

The full essay (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?p=2743553#p2743553), which has some pretty good stuff about 2012, including the real meaning of the Mayan interpretation, according to archaeologists.

Edit: Broken links.

There is dissension between the idea of creation and the relative low probability of evolution.

Quote from: "defendor"There is dissension between the idea of creation and the relative low probability of evolution.

It's things like the above which are so frustrating about creationists...you all don't even research outside of the creationist propaganda.

Everyone other than young earth creationists accepts evolution...which pretty much means everyone who is not a fundamentalist christian living in the United States accepts evolution as true because it has mountains of supporting evidence and in absolutely no way does it conflict with belief in a god.  There is no actual dissension.

More than once has evolution been proven to be solid science in the US court system.

Quote2005 - In September, parents in the Dover Area School District legally challenged intelligent design after a statement read to students claimed that there are "gaps" in evolution and that intelligent design is an alternative about which they can learn from Of Pandas and People. In December, the federal court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania issued a sweeping decision asserting that intelligent design is just another name for creationism, that it is not science, and that it cannot be taught as science in public schools.

Quote2005 - On December 20 the court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the "Dover trial," issued its ruling that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy requiring the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life" thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his ruling, the judge wrote that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

Quote# 2007 - Pope Benedict XVI publishes Creation and Evolution, where he writes "This clash (between evolution and Creationism) is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ontroversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_creation-evolution_controversy#Timeline_of_the_controversy)

Evolution happened and is happening...the entire field of modern biology rests on evolution being true.  The reason antibiotics quit working is because evolution is happening.  The reason new flu strains come around every year is because evolution is happening.  You need to educate yourself about topics before making claims, and here 's a great non-biased source (yes, it's a lot to read, but you have a lot to learn):

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)

evolution and creationism are both plausible ideas, but I think this is also the estrangement between theistic and deistic philosophies.  

When you say that a being could have created the universe in the order of a Theistic or Deistic God, you are assuming that time is a creation, for time is at the onset of the universe in motion.  So when you have an all-powerful being existing outside of time 'orchestrating the infinite', you have to make the case that the way evolution works in principles, is the way this deity has created it to be.

QuoteThe reason antibiotics quit working is because evolution is happening. The reason new flu strains come around every year is because evolution is happening.

So looking at these statements, you have orchestrated the arguments for reasons or purpose.  The reason or purpose of... is because of... pointing to the initial cause of evolution.  So if we are going to make a claim that an all-powerful God designed these natural processes to occur, it is not because of evolution, it is because the designer created it that way.  So the reason antibiotics quit working is because that is the way the creator designed it to be.  This changes the understanding of science and how it is to be perceived, thus the principles of evolution and creationism are incompatible in philosophy, but compatible within the premise of God. Evolution states itself as a principle of why outside of God, but only how within the premise of a God.  So it can be compatible but the premise of a God has to be established to further understand the purpose of evolution.

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"yes,

but it still makes no sense

Evolution makes perfect sense.

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"i guess some questions can never be answered:

where life came from?  for what purpose?  always only answer is god... science never will answer it...ever

atheists always say these are not relevant questions, but they are--just as much as any question

Quote from: "Charles Darwin"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

Quoteguys we are not just some piece of shit floating around in outer space

If you say so.

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"

Quote from: "joeactor"

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"I can accept evolution as a concept but not as a purpose.
It seems to me as a means but with no end
so even though i get it, I don't know what to make of it

... so, does this mean you accept that evolution occurs?

yes,

but it still makes no sense

If by this you mean that you can find no transcendental significance in the process of evolution, then you're probably right.  I don't think that there is any.  It's a natural process; it doesn't have to have any particular greater meaning, or any meaning at all, as "meaning" is generally understood by people.  i don't see this as a deficiency, though it seems that you do.

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"i guess some questions can never be answered:

where life came from?  for what purpose?  always only answer is god... science never will answer it...ever

atheists always say these are not relevant questions, but they are--just as much as any question

guys we are not just some piece of shit floating around in outer space

You seem awfully sure of yourself here.  Science may very well eventually discover the process by which life originated.  As for "where," that question doesn't really even make sense.  Life most likely came from right here.  There is a possibility that the "panspermia" idea is valid, in which case life came from "out there."  Why must the only answer be "god?"  Perhaps that's the case for you, if you insist that only a deity can give your life meaning.  That doesn't mean that your favorite answer is actually correct.  If it makes you happier to believe that it is the correct answer, then by all means go ahead.

As for your final sentence, I'd say that you've constructed a particular caricature of the naturalistic  view of reality.  I for one don't view this planet as a "piece of shit."

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"do you know that abstract reasoning developes a lot between 14 and adulthood?

Give me a break.  This has nothing to do with the conversation, and smacks of desperation to score some sort of point.  I will come right out and call this a lame post.

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"i guess some questions can never be answered:

where life came from?  for what purpose?

Well, the problem with those questions is that they are fallacious, because they commit the fallacy of the complex question. The hidden assumptions, almost certainly erroneous, are that life cam from 'somewhere' and actually 'has a purpose'.

Quotealways only answer is god... science never will answer it...ever

Problem is that god doesn't actually answer the questions, he just pushes them back a step. Where did god come from? For what purpose? The problem, of course, is the same, because the question was fallacious in the first place and is still fallacious when applied to a made-up entity. Indeed, some would argue that it's even more fallacious at this point.

Quoteatheists always say these are not relevant questions, but they are--just as much as any question

No, because fallacious questions are never relevant. If you can actually demonstrate the existence of 'purpose', as you put it, then the questions become relevant, because they are no longer fallacious, the hidden assumption having been addressed.

Quoteguys we are not just some piece of shit floating around in outer space

All evidence points to the contrary.

 ;)

You must have me confused with somebody else. I've never been a believer of any kind.

Thanks for that, though. It gave me quite a laugh to be confused with a Muslim.

my username and 'god' and you should find out why. I'm probably the last person who should be confused with a believer.

Quote from: "defendor"evolution and creationism are both plausible ideas, but I think this is also the estrangement between theistic and deistic philosophies.  

When you say that a being could have created the universe in the order of a Theistic or Deistic God, you are assuming that time is a creation, for time is at the onset of the universe in motion.  So when you have an all-powerful being existing outside of time 'orchestrating the infinite', you have to make the case that the way evolution works in principles, is the way this deity has created it to be.

QuoteThe reason antibiotics quit working is because evolution is happening. The reason new flu strains come around every year is because evolution is happening.

So looking at these statements, you have orchestrated the arguments for reasons or purpose.  The reason or purpose of... is because of... pointing to the initial cause of evolution.  So if we are going to make a claim that an all-powerful God designed these natural processes to occur, it is not because of evolution, it is because the designer created it that way.  So the reason antibiotics quit working is because that is the way the creator designed it to be.  This changes the understanding of science and how it is to be perceived, thus the principles of evolution and creationism are incompatible in philosophy, but compatible within the premise of God. Evolution states itself as a principle of why outside of God, but only how within the premise of a God.  So it can be compatible but the premise of a God has to be established to further understand the purpose of evolution.

I frankly don't care if you can shove god in as an explanation (that doesn't make it true)....you didn't even address my comments which was that it is, quite frankly, stupid to claim that there is little evidence for evolution and that there is no battle between creation and evolution except between those who promote Young Earth Creationism (and they lie).

Please let me know when you have decided to approach this topic seriously.

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"I'm too tired to make sense of all this tonight, but weren't you a Muslim earlier???

Between the other posts in this thread from last night and this one....Let me remind you that it is against the forum rules to post while drunk.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"I'm too tired to make sense of all this tonight, but weren't you a Muslim earlier???

Between the other posts in this thread from last night and this one....Let me remind you that it is against the forum rules to post while drunk.

 Subtle!

Science will readily agree that energy is neither created nor destroyed, yet no one seems to ask where it comes from, or at least there's not a whole lot of hubbub about it and most of everybody seems fine not knowing it.  I've used this argument before on another thread and there is a great disdain between what science will give to itself versus what science will allow to theology.

I never disagreed with evolution, I just said that there is conflict in its premise outside the mantle of a designer.  I guess I don't really understand what your trying to say.

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"Anyways, I was thinking

Did it hurt?  

QuoteScience or the english language has no objective way of describing "what life is"

Oh really?

Quote from: "Wikipedia"Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3]

In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organismsâ€"plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteriaâ€"are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

Quote-You can't describe it as you would a rock or something

I think that's been covered above.

Quotesure you can describe parts of a creature...but really no way to say what it actually "is"

Again, covered above.

Quote from: "defendor"I never disagreed with evolution, I just said that there is conflict in its premise outside the mantle of a designer.

Will you please enlighten us all with what the premise of evolution is?  

Quote from: "defendor"Science will readily agree that energy is neither created nor destroyed, yet no one seems to ask where it comes from,

Errrr, no. In fact, we have several models on the table that attempt to deal with that very question. Two apposite papers are these:

Colliding Branes In Heterotic M-Theory by Jean-Luc Jehners, Paul McFadden and Neil Turok, arXiv.org (12 February 2007) [Download from here (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0611/0611259v2.pdf)]

Generating Ekpyrotic Curvature Perturbations Before The Big Bang by Jean-Luc Lehners, Paul McFadden, Neil Turok & Paul J. Steinhardt, arXiv.org, 19th February 2007 [Download from here (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0702/0702153v1.pdf)]

There are other models, not least Alan Guth's famous inflationary model:

Inflationary Cosmology: Exploring the Universe from the Smallest to the Largest Scales by Alan Guth and David Kaiser Science 11 February 2005 [Abstract HERE (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5711/884).

Quoteor at least there's not a whole lot of hubbub about it and most of everybody seems fine not knowing it.

Not at all. It's an open question, and an area of active research.

QuoteI've used this argument before on another thread and there is a great disdain between what science will give to itself versus what science will allow to theology.

That might be because theology has nothing whatsoever of interest to say on such matters. Making shit up about made-up entities is not a rigorous means of finding out how the universe actually works.

QuoteI never disagreed with evolution, I just said that there is conflict in its premise outside the mantle of a designer.

Then perhaps you could elucidate that for us. I know a fair bit about evolution, and I'm unaware of any such conflict. Not only that, positing a designer fails the very first test of choosing between hypotheses, in that it constitutes an unnecessary multipliaction of entities, and rectally extracted entities at that, for which there is no justification or evidence in support.

What I meant by the whole energy debacle of its autonomy, is that science will readily agree upon that it never is created nor destroyed and this same definition can be applied to a God.  

The point about creationism versus evolution was that evolution only explains how.  It does not address why.  Evolution is not a cosmotic force perpetuating life.  But, as life grows and changes, we observe this and pronounce that evolution is taking place.  I have never doubted the principles by which life adapts, only the premise.

This was the idea of this topic.

Quotethat chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

So somehow life is able to adapt, and the chemicals, and molecules, all the way down to the quantum level seemingly govern themselves by order and logistical tangibility.  We see this and call this evolution.  So either the molecules themselves are conscience enough to stay in order, or that there is a governing force requiring them to.  So the explanation of what we see, is tangible evidence of order and solidarity throughout the universe.  The laws of physics are observable but not imposable.  So without god, the only forces that created the universe and seemingly perpetuate it, are the laws that grew out of the creation of the universe, for the laws of physics do not exist without a universe to be applied.  So this topic has to return back to inception.  What started the universe?  If it is the laws of physics, then laws of physics existed before its own existence as the governing body of the universe.  Therefore, this is proclaiming the laws of physics (an inanimate and impersonal entity) omnipotence.

the theory of evolution is not a theory about how life started...so I don't know what you are going on about.

Abiogenesis is a set of hypothesis about the origin of life. Evolution is the slow change in organisms over time due to mutation and natural selection.

Quote from: "defendor"What I meant by the whole energy debacle of its autonomy, is that science will readily agree upon that it never is created nor destroyed and this same definition can be applied to a God.  

Except that when you apply the rest of the definition of god, i.e. extracted wholesale from the rectum of ignorant bronze-age goatherders, the distinction between the one, which is an evidentially supported postulate arising from paying attention to what reality is telling us about the real world, and the other, which is a vacuous blind assertion with no evidential support whatsoever, becomes readily apparent, as does the reason that science pays such drivel no attention.

QuoteThe point about creationism versus evolution was that evolution only explains how.  It does not address why.

Nor will it, until such time as it is demonstrated that there is a 'why', or indeed that 'why' is even an valid question to ask.

QuoteEvolution is not a cosmotic force perpetuating life.  But, as life grows and changes, we observe this and pronounce that evolution is taking place.  I have never doubted the principles by which life adapts, only the premise.

yes, yes. You already said that. What you didn't say, despite the direct question put politely to you by Whitney, is precisely what this premise is that you object to.

QuoteThis was the idea of this topic.

Quotethat chaos/randomness (no preexisting logic) was the state of the beginning of the universe, has to conclude that the laws that govern the operations of matter actually arose from the matter itself.

Several things wrong with that. Firstly, random doesn't mean 'no prexisting logic' in any robust definition that I've ever come across. As for the laws that govern matter, they don't arise from the matter itself, they arise from the geometry of spacetime, as beautifully elucidated by more than 300 years of diligent scientific enquiry. Of course, you might think that they arise from the matter itself if you don't actually have any understanding whatsoever of the underlying science. Perhaps if you educated yourself with regard to what the valid science actually says...

QuoteSo somehow life is able to adapt, and the chemicals, and molecules, all the way down to the quantum level seemingly govern themselves by order and logistical tangibility.

What the holy heck is 'logistical tangibility' when it's at home? I wonder if you actually know what any of those words mean? Deepity Chopra would be proud to have come up with such meaningless word-salad.

In any event, they don't govern themselves, they are governed by those principles elucidated by science.

QuoteWe see this and call this evolution.  

No, we see heritability among biotic organisms, and the mechanisms which govern said heritability, and we call this evolution. We see changes in allele frequencies over the course of generations, and we call this evolution, because that's what evolution is.

QuoteSo either the molecules themselves are conscience [sic] enough to stay in order, or that there is a governing force requiring them to.

There are several governing forces, and they are all conversant with the principles of organic chemistry and, ultimately, physics. Those forces are the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force. These along with gravity, govern all interactions in the universe, whether involved in biological evolution or the wider operating parameters of the cosmos.

QuoteSo the explanation of what we see, is tangible evidence of order and solidarity throughout the universe.  The laws of physics are observable but not imposable.

Close. The laws of physics are observations. In other words, they are mathematical descriptions of what we have observed.

QuoteSo without god, the only forces that created the universe and seemingly perpetuate it, are the laws that grew out of the creation of the universe, for the laws of physics do not exist without a universe to be applied.

The problem being that it can't be demonstrated that the universe was created, or had a beginning. In reality, the universe is literally 'all that exists'. This includes any entity we might label with the appellation 'deity', which makes the idea of a creator of the universe an oxymoron. Any creator requires existence, making it a subset of the universe, meaning that it cannot be a creator of the universe.

More importantly, the inception of our cosmic expansion weren't the beginning of the physical principles that govern the universe, our cosmic expansion arose from those very principles.

QuoteSo this topic has to return back to inception.  What started the universe?

Except that it hasn't been demonstrated that the universe had a start. And before you decide to cite the Big Bang theory as evidence for the beginning of the universe, that simply won't wash. Indeed, the Big Bang theory only deals with what happened after a finite time in the aftermath of the beginning of our local cosmic expansion, and has nothing to say about the beginning of that, let alone what state of the universe at large might have preceded it. If it can be demonstrated that the universe had a beginning, this will actually rule out a creator. As for the broader question, I already dealt with that in my last post, in which I presented two models for cosmic instantiation, neither of which requires a magic man.

QuoteIf it is the laws of physics, then laws of physics existed before its own existence as the governing body of the universe.  Therefore, this is proclaiming the laws of physics (an inanimate and impersonal entity) omnipotence.

You still haven't demonstrated a beginning, and I don't think there are many cosmologists who think that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. Indeed, Alan Guth said as much not that long ago:

Quote from: "Alan Guth"So far, it's been made to sound, I think for the purposes of simplifying things, that until the cyclic model, all scientists had believed that the big bang was the origin of time itself. That idea is certainly part of the classic theory of the big bang, but it's an idea which I think most cosmologists have not taken seriously in quite a while. That is, the idea that there's something that happened before what we call the big bang has been around for quite a number of years... In what I would regard as the conventional version of the inflationary theory, the Big Bang was also not in that theory the origin of everything but rather one had a very long period of this exponential expansion of the universe, which is what inflation means, and, at different points, different pieces of this inflating universe had stopped inflating and become what I sometimes call pocket universes.

He goes on to say:

QuoteWhat we call the Big Bang was almost certainly not the actual origin of time in either of the theories that we’re talking about. … The main difference I think [between the inflationary theory and Neil and Paul's theory] is the answer to the question of what is it that made the universe large and smooth everything out. … The inflationary version of cosmology is not cyclic. … It goes on literally forever with new universes being created in other places. The inflationary prediction is that our region of the universe would become ultimately empty and void but meanwhile other universes would sprout out in other places in this multiverse.

I understand, but evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence.  I agree, we look at observable biology and notice an inclination for life to grow, adapt, to develop more complex structures, but the thought of evolution has no being with random probability.  If you are to simply take a finite look at evolution as a biological mechanism, then sure, it is a fine sounding argument.  But if you are trying to explain the origin of species by evolution, you are making a misnomer about the identity of evolution.  I don't disagree with evolution as a study, but to my understanding the study of evolution has turned into a philosophy, which it was never meant to be.

Quote from: "defendor"I understand, but evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence.  I agree, we look at observable biology and notice an inclination for life to grow, adapt, to develop more complex structures, but the thought of evolution has no being with random probability.  If you are to simply take a finite look at evolution as a biological mechanism, then sure, it is a fine sounding argument.  But if you are trying to explain the origin of species by evolution, you are making a misnomer about the identity of evolution.  I don't disagree with evolution as a study, but to my understanding the study of evolution has turned into a philosophy, which it was never meant to be.

...I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Defendor,  I can usually never understand your posts. They're written in a very confusing way, and don't seem to make much sense. I can kind of grasp at what you're trying to say here, I think, but seriously, I don't get it.

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"

Quote from: "defendor"I understand, but evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence.  I agree, we look at observable biology and notice an inclination for life to grow, adapt, to develop more complex structures, but the thought of evolution has no being with random probability.  If you are to simply take a finite look at evolution as a biological mechanism, then sure, it is a fine sounding argument.  But if you are trying to explain the origin of species by evolution, you are making a misnomer about the identity of evolution.  I don't disagree with evolution as a study, but to my understanding the study of evolution has turned into a philosophy, which it was never meant to be.

dead on

nice post

I think you both don't know what you are talking about

Quoteevolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence

Evolution isn't 'trying' to do anything...it's just a means to describe what already happened and what continues to happen in nature...

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "defendor"I understand, but evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence.  I agree, we look at observable biology and notice an inclination for life to grow, adapt, to develop more complex structures, but the thought of evolution has no being with random probability.  If you are to simply take a finite look at evolution as a biological mechanism, then sure, it is a fine sounding argument.  But if you are trying to explain the origin of species by evolution, you are making a misnomer about the identity of evolution.  I don't disagree with evolution as a study, but to my understanding the study of evolution has turned into a philosophy, which it was never meant to be.

...I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Defendor,  I can usually never understand your posts. They're written in a very confusing way, and don't seem to make much sense. I can kind of grasp at what you're trying to say here, I think, but seriously, I don't get it.

What's wrong with ya Sandwich,

Quote"I understand, but evolution as a mechanism, doesn't fully describe what it is trying to without a premise of intelligence."

That is pure poetry.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"That is pure poetry.

Ha I apologize about the confusion, thank you for asking and feel free to ask no matter the problem

Evolution is only meant to answer "how life forms" not "why life forms".  So when you have something that is used to explain how, and make it answer why, you have no validity to it as a philosophy.

I think the question why? is a very valid question.  for example, Why are you arguing your point?

For example, lets say you want to go to the mall to buy a pair of shoes.  You would then drive to the mall.  When you are at the mall, someone you know says to you, "hey, why are you here?" You would not answer with "I drove here."  That simply does not make sense, although it is true you did in fact drive to the mall, it doesn't answer the question. You would answer with response to the intent, "to buy a pair of shoes."  Evolution is saying the processes by which we have life is 'by driving', but the intent remains unanswered.  So unless you are going to assume that the intent of evolution has been answered, evolution has no meaning as a philosophy.  Also, for something to have intent, it would have to have been preceded by a nonphysical entity such as a mind, or something that could conceive of logic or forethought i.e. Intelligent design. So to base the existence of life on a question that does not address the reason why seems illogical to me.

The reason that the question of intent would have to be answered, is the observable evidence of order and information.  When you have order, and you have information present in our DNA, and information of observable mathematics, etc.  you have to make the assumption that when there is information, this did not happen due to sheer probability, but by intelligence.  Nobody assumes that the Webster's dictionary came together by an explosion in a printing press.  Or that a tornado swooped over a junkyard to create the first jumbo jet.  Not saying these couldn't happen, but the statistical improbability would far outweigh the sources in which it could happen.  To take the jumbo jet example, the improbability of a jumbo jet coming together during a tornado in junk yard, is greater than the quantity of parts in the junk yard.  The statistical improbability of the enzyme coming together at random is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Even atheist Richard Dawkins was forced to admit: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer” (1982, p. 130, emp. added)

I am not debating whether or not evolution is valid or whether or not creationism is valid.  As one hinted at earlier, they both can be very valid at the same time for they address different questions.  They would not contradict each other.  The only point I am trying to make, to try and clarify the perception of what evolution is meant to be and the questions it was meant to answer and gain understanding as to what the other various view points are.

Quoteyou guys know how when you put a couple mirrors together you get an infinite series of reflections...that to me is why the god  argument doesn't work so much

But life forming just out of some "win the lottery" type situation makes no sense either.  None of it explains what consciousness is.  You can't end the argument with "god" either b/c that to me is an infinite loop.  I'm kinda resigned to the fact that there's really no explanation to be found.  But I think most of us have an intrinsic sense of evil...and i don't like it explained with some souless science mumbo b/c that makes no sense either...I will just say:  we're here, we exist, we'll probably never no why or for what purpose...maybe we'll know when we're dead...IDFK

You're right, what sense does it make that a positive nucleus plus a negative electron cloud, times a few billion equals consciousness..? The sum of its parts does not add up.  Our consciousness, is derived by being created, in being, in resemblance to God.  How does this work? I have no idea haha maybe energy it its being is conscious to start off with.  Maybe a bunch of neurons are goin crazy, but either way you have assumed that intelligence is a plausible explanation for the universe.  IF that is a plausible theory, then  you can make a few cases as to what this intelligence could be.  The God of the bible, is not some god that "bridges the gaps" of things we don't understand.  "how did the universe come together?"..."God"  thats irrationality.  But what can make sense, and you have to believe to understand it, not understand it to believe it, is that everything is held together by God and that everything exists because God exists.  

With the definition of God as infinite, we cannot suppose to wrap our heads around it, for we are finite, and cannot possible conceptualize things that are not beneath our realm of comprehension.  Even our consciousness seems far too ethereal for our own consciousness to grasp, but "we know that we know"  

Here's my question to you, if someone gave you a reason to why? that answered the questions of eternity that are written on your heart, and explains your morality, would you really risk everything because you simply don't want to accept it?

Quote from: "defendor"Evolution is only meant to answer "how life forms"

Stop...NO.

Evolution has nothing to do with life forming...it explains what life does after the first life formed.

Quote from: "defendor"Ha I apologize about the confusion, thank you for asking and feel free to ask no matter the problem

Evolution is only meant to answer "how life forms" not "why life forms".  So when you have something that is used to explain how, and make it answer why, you have no validity to it as a philosophy.

What you have written demonstrates that you obviously do not understand evolution at all. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) says nothing whatsoever about "how life forms". The study of the origin of life is called Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). ToE explains how the variety of different types of organisms came about, not how life originated. Natural selection works on 'anything' that can reproduce, exhibits variability during that reproduction and is subject to variable reproductive selection pressures. Note that the 'anything' does not have to exhibit all the traits that we would consider necessary for it to be considered alive. Thus natural selection will work before the 'anything' is fully alive. It's a process called pre-adaption.

There is no "why" in either abiogenesis or evolution as they are natural processes that poses no intelligence and thus no purpose or direction. They are not philosophical arguments simply observations of reality, no different from astronomy or geology. No god required.

Quote from: "Rev. Steve Swanson, pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church in Villa Park"creationism is not science and is bad religion

Churches strive to bridge the perceived gap between faith and reason
http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/countrysi ... ason?img=2 (http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/countryside/features/x167309461/Churches-strive-to-bridge-the-perceived-gap-between-faith-and-reason?img=2)

I think the phrase was an over simplication so I'll use "how life develops", I think that gives better coherence

Quote from: "defendor"I think the phrase was an over simplication so I'll use "how life develops", I think that gives better coherence

You could say it was just an over simplification except that your entire post hinged on you having an understanding that evolution is used to describe the start of life and why it happened.

So, wouldn't it be more honest to just admit you don't understand what evolution is and ask questions so that you can learn?

Quote from: "defendor"You're right, what sense does it make that a positive nucleus plus a negative electron cloud, times a few billion equals consciousness..?

Perhaps you should look into the fact of emergent propoerties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).

QuoteThe sum of its parts does not add up.  Our consciousness, is derived by being created, in being, in resemblance to God.  How does this work? I have no idea haha maybe energy it its being is conscious to start off with.

If you have no idea, you'd ought not speculate.

QuoteMaybe a bunch of neurons are goin crazy, but either way you have assumed that intelligence is a plausible explanation for the universe.  IF that is a plausible theory, then  you can make a few cases as to what this intelligence could be.

IF that is a plausible theory, then perhaps God will equip worms with tail-gunners, to save them from robins.  Or, maybe God doesn't like worms.  However, this crap you're espousing never provided an inoculation.  It never invented a computer.  On the contrary, it murdered millions of Indians, Africans, and Asians.  It also doomed many Europeans to death during times of disease, famine, and ruin.

Science?  It fucking works.  If you wish to argue the point, unplug your computer and pray that your thoughts get posted here.  Put your money where your mouth is.

QuoteThe God of the bible, is not some god that "bridges the gaps" of things we don't understand.  "how did the universe come together?"..."God"  thats irrationality.  But what can make sense, and you have to believe to understand it, not understand it to believe it, is that everything is held together by God and that everything exists because God exists.

God of the Gaps.  Been there, done that, saw the floor fall out.

QuoteWith the definition of God as infinite, we cannot suppose to wrap our heads around it, for we are finite, and cannot possible conceptualize things that are not beneath our realm of comprehension.  Even our consciousness seems far too ethereal for our own consciousness to grasp, but "we know that we know"  

The most you can draw from this line of reasoning is agnosticism.  To use this argument in support of any god, much less the Christian god, is to argue that you ought not go hunting to stave off starvation, because you might find a supermarket tomorrow.

As far as consciousness goes, you should read some Nick Humphrey or Daniel Dennett.  

Just because you cannot explain it doesn't mean it cannot be explained.  I just means you've not troubled yourself to learn the possible explanations.  That says more about you than it does about the explanations.

QuoteHere's my question to you, if someone gave you a reason to why? that answered the questions of eternity that are written on your heart, and explains your morality, would you really risk everything because you simply don't want to accept it?

Firstly, I don't have anything written on my heart.  It is a blood-pump, and not a scroll-sheet.

Secondly, aren't you a little presumptuous in assuming you know the questions in my heart?  Who the hell are you to tell me what I wonder?  Pardon me, but your arrogance is showing.  Ask your own questions, and leave me the fuck alone.

Finally, assuming they guessed the right questions in my heart, if my answers might be wrong, isn't the brain you allege he gave me shown to be faulty?  And doesn't a perfect Carpenter build a perfect cabinet?  You allege your god loves men, and is perfect.  Whence Hell?  Whence sin?

You've obviously not thought through your faith.  Go ponder these things and come back with deeper questions.  This shit is only up to the ankles.

Quote from: "defendor"I think the phrase was an over simplication so I'll use "how life develops", I think that gives better coherence

Why use an analogy? The Theory of Evolution does one thing and one thing only, it explains how life evolves, nothing more and nothing less. The language is already in place and is accurate, there is no need to use alternative terms, except possibly on the road to understanding what evolves means. Your alternative phrase "how life develops" is better but to my mind it still contains a small element of intent, which is simply just not there.

Reproduction is the destination, evolution is the journey, natural selection is the engine of evolution, variability is the fuel of the engine and the navigators are the selection pressures on the gene pool of the affected organisms. As variations and selection pressures interact without intent there is no direction to the process of evolution.

All the life on Earth has been evolving for the best part of 4,000,000,000 years. A baker's yeast has a bigger and more complex genome than a human. It is no more or less advanced than a human because our existance and evolution has been in parallel since we shared a common ancestor way back in the 'boring billions' when all the life on Earth was single celled.

There was no plan to why life stayed single celled for the best part of 3,200,000,000 years. The Earth was the realm of a soup of slime. A fascinating situation that until recently we had no grasp of at all. Given life appeared within a couple of hundred million years of suitable conditions arising but then took 3.2 billion years to get more complex than a single cell implies that becoming multi-cellular was way more problematic than its origin. If you have not seen the series 'First Life' by David Attenborough I strongly recommend it. It's a really approachable insight into the transition of life from simple to complex.

EDIT: fixed a couple of typos.

Quote from: "defendor"You're right, what sense does it make that a positive nucleus plus a negative electron cloud, times a few billion equals consciousness..? The sum of its parts does not add up.

You''re right, what sense does it make that two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, times a few billion equals wetness? The sum of its parts does not add up.

The question of 'Why?' is a great question to understanding the theorems of life.  In science, if we do not know, how do we learn? How do we find?  according to the scientific method, we try and make educated guesses (speculate) then test such.

Also, in the words of the atheistic skeptic David Hume, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."

Quote from: "defendor"The question of 'Why?' is a great question to understanding the theorems of life.  In science, if we do not know, how do we learn? How do we find?  according to the scientific method, we try and make educated guesses (speculate) then test such.

um....what?

Quote from: "defendor"The question of 'Why?' is a great question to understanding the theorems of life.  In science, if we do not know, how do we learn? How do we find?  according to the scientific method, we try and make educated guesses (speculate) then test such.

The question 'Why?' is of no importance when divining the operation on the physical world, it simply adds an unhelpful layer of human desire and emotional need to questions that require no such obfuscation. If you are using 'Why?' in a sense of ultimate causality you are using it in a philosophical sense that bears no relationship to the understanding and application of the scientific method as an investigative tool.

Quote from: "defendor"Also, in the words of the atheistic skeptic David Hume, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."

This is what Hume actually wrote.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg816.imageshack.us%2Fimg816%2F7407%2Fhume.jpg&hash=2af37a9ef21c7b4e97cf91ac1b8f1fe34fbfd3c2)

You will notice that you 'quote mined' Hume and what you typed as a sentence was in fact only part of the sentence written by Hume.

Every time I hear someone use the term "Darwinism" I instantly question how... credible, they'll be.

It tends to be said by fundamentalists who can't understand that some people don't worship something or don't have a god. My mother, for example, believes quite strongly that the god of every Atheist is themselves, or Darwin, and that they worship either one or both.

God, I need a funny picture after that.


(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs277%2FRequiem_Eternum%2FLol%2520Posters%2F1233907828264.jpg&hash=3e5349d67889a4062e28f5c6f7aa09e9292c27c8)
Much better.

Quote from: "ForTheLoveOfAll"Every time I hear someone use the term "Darwinism" I instantly question how... credible, they'll be.

It tends to be said by fundamentalists who can't understand that some people don't worship something or don't have a god. My mother, for example, believes quite strongly that the god of every Atheist is themselves, or Darwin, and that they worship either one or both.

God, I need a funny picture after that.


(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi154.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs277%2FRequiem_Eternum%2FLol%2520Posters%2F1233907828264.jpg&hash=3e5349d67889a4062e28f5c6f7aa09e9292c27c8)
Much better.

I always find it so...strange when Christians say that atheists/humanists worship themselves. I guess you're right here -- they can't imagine anyone not worshiping something, so, in their minds, they make up that we worship ourselves and consider ourselves gods.

What does it mean to worship yourself anyways?

And saying that we worship Darwin is just plain stupid.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "defendor"The question of 'Why?' is a great question to understanding the theorems of life.  In science, if we do not know, how do we learn? How do we find?  according to the scientific method, we try and make educated guesses (speculate) then test such.

The question 'Why?' is of no importance when divining the operation on the physical world, it simply adds an unhelpful layer of human desire and emotional need to questions that require no such obfuscation. If you are using 'Why?' in a sense of ultimate causality you are using it in a philosophical sense that bears no relationship to the understanding and application of the scientific method as an investigative tool.

Quote from: "defendor"Also, in the words of the atheistic skeptic David Hume, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."

This is what Hume actually wrote.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg816.imageshack.us%2Fimg816%2F7407%2Fhume.jpg&hash=2af37a9ef21c7b4e97cf91ac1b8f1fe34fbfd3c2)

You will notice that you 'quote mined' Hume and what you typed as a sentence was in fact only part of the sentence written by Hume.

You'd think people would stop quote mining on the internet. As though a search engine can't check in less than a second. I guess I could understand if they we're given a quote mine as fact and are mistaken, but then it would become their responsability to check it as fact or not. Good call.

Defendor: I'm going to assume it was an honest mistake rather then malicious, however that was a silly thing to do really. First you should really check your own sources before you post them as fact and second you should assume that any source you post but especialy a quote from a skeptic or scientist will be fact checked by someone here. Thirdly when your quote mine collapses, weather intentionaly mined or not, it takes away ALOT of your credability so even if the rest of your points are good they may not be taken as serriously because you have proven yourself to use dishonest sources.

Quote from: "Tanker"You'd think people would stop quote mining on the internet. As though a search engine can't check in less than a second. I guess I could understand if they we're given a quote mine as fact and are mistaken, but then it would become their responsability to check it as fact or not. Good call.

To be fair, I suspect that a lot of them don't know they're doing it. Thing is, they rattle off the work of Dumbski, Kalamity Kraig, Bananaman an other such professional fuckwits and liars for doctrine, who present a lot of their work in book form. The average member of the credulous flock merely parrots what they've read (it's in a book, so it must be true, oh my!) without once checking to see if it accurately reflects what the author actually said.

QuoteDefendor: I'm going to assume it was an honest mistake rather then malicious, however that was a silly thing to do really. First you should really check your own sources before you post them as fact and second you should assume that any source you post but especialy a quote from a skeptic or scientist will be fact checked by someone here. Thirdly when your quote mine collapses, weather intentionaly mined or not, it takes away ALOT of your credability so even if the rest of your points are good they may not be taken as serriously because you have proven yourself to use dishonest sources.

On at least one forum I visit, quote-mining is a sanctionable offence, as are most other forms of discoursive malfeasance.

I'm not sure how the rest of that quote disqualifies what the main statement says?

Could someone explain to me the true meaning of what Hume is trying to say?

Quote from: "defendor"I'm not sure how the rest of that quote disqualifies what the main statement says?

Could someone explain to me the true meaning of what Hume is trying to say?

Why? You brought Hume up to support your case, he was a well known atheist thinker and your original quote mine (intentionally or not) misrepresented that position. Hume's body of work is what matters, not the odd sentence here or there.

The question I was asking, is if I somehow misrepresented what he was saying, I would prefer someone tell me how and where I was wrong.  But if I did not misrepresent what Hume was hinting at, I'm not sure why I'm being accused of quote mining.  For all intensive purposes, I do not know how that quote was a misconstrued understanding of what particular message David Hume was trying to convey.  

I'm also a little unsure of quote mining.  It seems to be a misconstruing of the intent of an idea by taking out a small phrase and twisting it.  So when people take one or two verses out of its context to try and disprove the Bible, that would then be considered quote mining, right?

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "defendor"You're right, what sense does it make that a positive nucleus plus a negative electron cloud, times a few billion equals consciousness..? The sum of its parts does not add up.

You''re right, what sense does it make that two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, times a few billion equals wetness? The sum of its parts does not add up.

The property of wetness is not in the molecular or atomic structure of water.  It is not evidence by mathematical formula.  Sure, we can still say, at this temperature, these particles behave as such.  But the observation of wetness is mechanical in our perception.  Just as we see the color blue. For the wave (photon) has peculiar characteristics including frequency, wavelength, the depth and height of the trough and crests, but the observation of blue is purely intangible to our perception.  The light hits the eye, then we begin to associate what properties of light are recognize with particular words, such that we see blue. The color blue is not a property or part of the light wave in itself.

So how (unless energy and particles and the laws of mathematics are essentially conscious) can we have such inordinate characteristics add up to define consciousness?

If by out of context you mean blatently twisted and willfully quoted in a manner not the authors intent then yes.

Here would be examples of Me intentionaly quote mining Jesus (just for examples sake).These are all delibratly taken out of context and parts of the entire quote were left out to change thier meaning (aka quote mining). This is what you did to Hume's original quote.

"cast the first stone" -Jesus- Gee what a mean guy Jesus was to egg others to violence

"Verily say unto you, none will be saved" -Jesus- See even Jesus say noone can't get into heaven.

"good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world -Jesus- Look Jesus wants you to be a materalist.

"compassion is empty" -Jesus- Wow look how amoral Jesus is.


If I had gone to a Christian forum and posted one of these quote mines how serriously do you think they would take me? Do you think I would hurt my credability if I did? Would I look silly to them? Do you think they might have difficulty listening to anything else I had to say regardless of how poinient if I had used one of these? Do you understand now why quote mining is wrong?

I agree, also seems like you have some biblical background  

So was my quote taken out of context then?

Quote from: "defendor"I agree, also seems like you have some biblical background  ;)

Do you accept gravity?  You Einsteinist.  You're obviously replacing the Judeo-Christian god with a mortal scientist.

Do you accept QM?  You Bohrist!  Off with your head, but not until you type goodbye on the computer you're on (which uses QM to work).

Perhaps You think the continents move?  Wegenerian heresy.  Off with you.

Do you now see how silly the label "Darwinist" is?  Natural selection has easily as much evidence as any of these other disciplines.  The only reason believers get their panties bundled by evolutionary theory is because it means that their god(s) aren't needed to create humans.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Natural selection has easily as much evidence as any of these other disciplines.  The only reason believers get their panties bundled by evolutionary theory is because it means that their god(s) aren't needed to create humans.

maybe you're right, but evolution can't explain anything else.

Quote from: "defendor"I agree, also seems like you have some biblical background  

So was my quote taken out of context then?

Yes. That would be the problem. You left out more then half the original quote to dilibratly use his words in a manner the author never intended. This is dishonest, this was lying, this was bearing false witness. The fact that you seem to totaly not care about your dishonesty is frustrating to say the least. What exactly was your justification? Were you "lying for Jesus" or do you simply think that we don't deserve honesty as you do? Do you still somehow think this behavior is OK? I'm at a loss to understand your position on this. Please explain it to me.

Answer me this, if you prove yourself to be a lier why should I or anyone trust, believe, or listen to anything you have to say? Would you continue to listen to a lier?

Quote from: "defendor"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Natural selection has easily as much evidence as any of these other disciplines.  The only reason believers get their panties bundled by evolutionary theory is because it means that their god(s) aren't needed to create humans.

maybe you're right, but evolution can't explain anything else.

Evolution doesn't claim to. It is ONLY regarding how species change over time.

What about the last part of his quote makes it misinterpreted?

"I never asserted such an absurd proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.  I only maintained that our Certainty of the Falsehood of that Proposition preceded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration, but from another Source."

About the statement of evolution- It doesn't pretend to do anything more, but the Naturalist world view that insinuates evolution does say that the universe came into being is by some random happening of chance or by the omnipotent law of gravity.  

Also, in scientific community, people are fine not knowing all the answers, same as with people in the faith, so why is there is so much criticism to the Faith from the scientific community about saying God could be an answer?

Quote from: "defendor"What about the last part of his quote makes it misinterpreted?

"I never asserted such an absurd proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.  I only maintained that our Certainty of the Falsehood of that Proposition preceded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration, but from another Source."

About the statement of evolution- It doesn't pretend to do anything more, but the Naturalist world view that insinuates evolution does say that the universe came into being is by some random happening of chance or by the omnipotent law of gravity.  

Also, in scientific community, people are fine not knowing all the answers, same as with people in the faith, so why is there is so much criticism to the Faith from the scientific community about saying God could be an answer?

Because there is no evidence for the existance of the supernatural, or that part of the supernatural is sentient, or that the sentient part of the supernatural in any way cares about how we behave, or that based on our behaviour that sentient part of the supernatural will send people who do what it considers bad to hell (itself another unproven fantasy), or that the unproven sentient part of the supernatural has an ego that needs to be worshipped etc.etc.etc.

However there is overwhelming evidence that when faced with knowledge but a lack of understanding people fantasise about a 'big sky daddy' that will make everything right if you're a good little child.

If god exists nothing makes sense at all, if god does not exist everything fits into place like a huge jigsaw puzzle. Science is an infinity better tool to discover reality than superstition is. That's why science beats theology hands down every time, and the better we get at science the more irrelevant theology, theism and superstition become.

Your beliefs are based in the cold dark fear of the night when animals howled in the forest and people got ill and died for no reason. It's an historical comfort blanket, no more and no less.

Isn't the bible supposed to be proof God exists?  Assuming that was true, right?

I'm not sure things of science make more sense without a God, if anything, they make more sense with one.

For example, what philosophically created the universe? you don't have to go into quantum theory or mechanisms, I'm just curious how you know the universe was created..?

don't you agree?

Abiogenisis lectures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObuQhCozCo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObuQhCozCo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seIZSkpT ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seIZSkpTLEo&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX3N1Ots ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX3N1Ots6Hw&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-wi4JSr ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-wi4JSrGTw&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqfbUG66 ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqfbUG66yS4&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhE1-21x ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhE1-21xNI0&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-YpwsZQ ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-YpwsZQwdY&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7L-lnbH ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7L-lnbHwmw&feature=related)

OR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin)

This had some info on Amino acids, Oil seeps, and how life could have began:
Genesis VS Science Part 2: Early Earth's Atmosphere (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4624)

Abstract:

QuoteThe Low molecular weight liquid hydrocarbons from various sources, would have formed an oil layer covering the primeval ocean (present already 4.0â€"4.4 × 109 yr ago), preventing water from evaporating into the atmosphere. Water from other sources, precipitated by cold traps at higher altitude in the atmosphere, becomes trapped in the ocean. In a thereby more dry and presumably reducing atmosphere (before 3.9 × 109 yr ago) even more hydrocarbons, as well as reactive molecules will form. An oil layer can possibly act as a dry solvent for reactions, where the reactive molecules can produce monomers and condensing agents. Monomers and eventual polymers formed could become strongly concentrated at the oil-water interface, favoring molecular interactions at high mobility and low dilution, without exposure to the destructive action of UV-light. Increased water leakiness of the oil layer due to accumulation of polar molecules within, would lead to photo-oxidation of liquid hydrocarbons, and subsequent emulsification at the oil-water interface, forming cellular structures. The atmosphere would then have lost its reducing character. Not only this, volcano's make up the majority of the amino acids required for life on early Earth.

Also found to be true here:

* NASA - Oil-Seeps: (http://geology.com/nasa/oil-seeps/)
* Mud Volcano oil Discharge: (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/28/10/907.abstract)
* Volcanoes produced much of the world's oil: (http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/prehistoric-volcanoes-created-much-worlds-oil)
* Amino acids, oil / water: (http://www.concord.org/~btinker/workbench_web/unitV/pdf/mol_water_bg.pdf)
* NASA: Life origins - Volcanic amino acids: (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/volcanic_life_origin.html)

Further insights:

Synthetic Life 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo)
Video: Synthetic Life 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHIocNOHd7A)
Self Orgainization and Complexity (http://www.cmcrossroads.com/blogs-menu/featured-blogs/brad-appletons-acme-blog/12927-self-organization-and-complexity)
Self organizing algorithms through the study of RNA (http://www.springerlink.com/content/7n647v7412165jn7/)
Gene self-organizing maps (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15603788)
Self-Organizing Biochemical cycles (http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12503.full)
Physical Role in Biochemical Self Organization (http://organprint.missouri.edu/www/fibr-pub/neagu05-178104.pdf)
Protein: Thermodynamics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKpXlbeHwh4)
Photon Energy and Life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPj4bUH-6C8&NR=1)
Photon is the energy evolution of everything (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U28YWjTAw_g&feature=related)

Further synthetic life links:

* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... gists.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1208047/Life-order-Man-organisms-months-say-biologists.html)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life)
* http://gizmodo.com/307958/craig-venter- ... en-created (http://gizmodo.com/307958/craig-venter-claims-artificial-life-has-been-created)
* http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... rentPage=2 (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/synthetic_genome?currentPage=2)
* http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003908.html (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003908.html)

DNA Robots:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33483705/ns/...nnovation/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33483705/ns/...nnovation/)

DNA robots that can reproduce themselves:

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8412.php (http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8412.php)
http://2020science.org/2008/01/26/synthe...echnology/ (http://2020science.org/2008/01/26/synthe...echnology/)

The Self-organized gene:
http://blog.peltarion.com/2007/04/10/th ... ne-part-1/ (http://blog.peltarion.com/2007/04/10/the-self-organized-gene-part-1/)

RNA:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162009.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm) (no human intervention)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/)

And just this for fun : )

Qbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit)

To this:
The Engineering of Conscious Quantum Computing. (http://www.noeticadvancedstudies.us/Amoroso19.pdf)

QuoteFor example, what philosophically created the universe? you don't have to go into quantum theory or mechanisms, I'm just curious how you know the universe was created..?

I might shed some light on this subject to :) Referenced about our existence and the Universe:

QuoteIf you find one, count me in. Some choose to belief in faith and the others choose to belief in science, fine as long as we don't go beyond "debate". After all, we don't know "jack @!$%#" for sure or unless someone can come up with absolute proof answer.

My Reply was:

We have, it's rooted in information theory and physics. However, the lack of the 100% answer is reference only to the gray areas of reality. Hence what lies between zero (ground state - lowest possible level without actually being literally zero), and the infinity. We already know you can't create Ground state, or even be conscious at Ground state. However, we do not know everything to which is above it.. And this is the crux to all arguments, anything above ground state is irrelevant to existence.

It's the application of infinite regress until we reach a point to where regression can go no further in order to solve the problem. It can only be solved by an impossible, or a point to which is impossible to regress any further.. So lets explore that here:

What we already know by fact and by example:

Spatial capacity to which is the capacity to exist, and have a place to exist in. This can not ever have zero literal capacity, exist as zero capacity, or exist in the form of a negative capacity. Hence, literal 0 dimensional objects, places, or things do not exist because they can not have the capacity to do so. And that is especially true for someone that would try and imply -1 dimensional capacity or something to be a-spatial..

And what is Spatial Capacity made of?

ENERGY! (Yep, that everyday stuff that even heats our homes). It's also why we know that spatial capacity is infinite.

And that also means no literal negative or zero energy can exist. This is also stated in the laws of Thermodynamics because literal zero temperature, or thermal property is impossible for this very same reason. This is from ground state to every day objects like the chair you sit in here on Planet Earth.. So we do know quite a bit, we just don't know the entire sum total there is to know between zero (ground state) and above. Chaotic systems are nearly impossible to predict, or fully understand at every level that might emerge.

So you can feel free to reference:

1) Scale:
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/ (http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/)

2) You, me, and everything else on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale..as also demonstrated above under (scale):

http://talklikeaphysicist.com/2009/ener ... magnitude/ (http://talklikeaphysicist.com/2009/energy-scale-of-over-100-orders-of-magnitude/)

Gravity is considered a negative energy (not literally, just opposite force in the opposite direction/attraction)This is also where expansion is considered positive energy. The total net energy is zero (not literal). This is where Zero point energy, as energy, is in a state of Equilibrium vs actually being nothing or literally zero. This is why we refer to zero-point energy or ground state. So at rest there is zero-point energy. This is where zero also = 1 or (0,1) in qbits

Zero point energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy)

Ground State:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state)

Vacuum Energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy)

Zero Energy Calculator:
http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm (http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm)

The Four stages of Matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88tK5c0wgH4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88tK5c0wgH4)
--
Quantum Electrodynamics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8R4Tz_vKEE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8R4Tz_vKEE)
--
Chaos Theory and Emerging order from the coupling of positive and negative feedback:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVRniR3GrQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVRniR3GrQ)
--
Butterfly effect: Secret life of Chaos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ)

--

So yes, there are gaps in our "Knowledge" of the universe, but they are actually only Gray Area Gaps in terms of physics, complexity of chaotic systems, and how exactly to infinite detail did the Big Bang happen from Quantum fluctuations of energy.

This can best be understood by the following example:

We know we are human and what we are made of, and where we relatively reside. However, we do not infinitely know everything there is to know about ourselves, or our species.. In fact we know more about the Chicken than we do about ourselves on a scientific level. So are we human? Do we need to know the entire 100% of all the infinite information we could ever gain about ourselves to understand what we are? Do we need to know everything in order to make correct assumptions of what we are based on the available and already known knowledge of what we are?

Same principle applies to Earth.. We don't need to infinitely know everything about Earth to know it's a habitable planet in a solar system labeled "sol" to which resides in the Milky-way Galaxy amongst the billions of other Galaxies...And this is why the GOD of the Gaps argument is erroneous..

You can also note these references:

Our own Universe has been measured to be flat with less than a 2 percent margin of error.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html (http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html)

For clarity, like a disc floating in space similar to our own Galaxy but at a much grander scale. Thus the net Energy = zero (no lower than ground state).

Some Good source videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqb1lSdqRZY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqb1lSdqRZY)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV33t8U6 ... ure=relmfu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV33t8U6w28&feature=relmfu)

Other resources:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2848 (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2848)

http://icecube.wisc.edu/~halzen/notes/week1-3.pdf (http://icecube.wisc.edu/~halzen/notes/week1-3.pdf)

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/early_univ.html (http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/lectures/early_univ.html)

http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Cosmology.html (http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Cosmology.html)

---

The basic laymen description when it comes to Zero Point energy / ground state:

Key:

* 0 = zero = Qbit = (0,1) = energy (base to potential self-oscillating energy)
* (0,1) = ground state
* 0 = no other objects or complexities higher than zero (ground state)
* 1= the only object even if there are an infinite number of other zero's (0,1)'s or points in space.. Because it's only relative to it's own point in space. Thus is zero point energy. However this could interact or interfere with other 0 points of energy and generate fluctuations and eventually the possibility of expansion (the Big Bang) and the rise to complexity. This being of course the Universe as we know it.

So in Quantum Electrodynamics, the particle and anti-particles are generated by borrowing energy from other zeros (0,1)'s (the future) to create a fluctuation that spawns them. So adding (0,1) to (0,1) gives you a possibility of getting (0,2). So these particles comeback together and destroy each other, leaving of course a byproduct that makes up the stuff of Stars and ourselves (matter).

non-existence / non-material / impossible:
(0,0)
- 0 literal energy
- 0 Dimensional or Spatial Capacity
- Can not be a person place or thing (noun), or can not have or gain mass. Nor can it be or have matter, energy, or informational value in the literal sense. It can not even be or contain itself.




I hope I have helped provide some known answers to help the debate here :)

Quote from: "defendor"Isn't the bible supposed to be proof God exists?  Assuming that was true, right?

The bible is supposed to be proof of god, but it fails on the basis of inductive circular reasoning. It would also be the case that all Muslims would disagree with you and that the Koran is the true word of God. As Islam is growing faster than Christianity at some point it will have more followers than Christianity. At what point will you convert to Islam? If you gather all the holy books together they all disagree with each other to a greater or lesser extent. Thus indicating that there is really no evidence of God as a consistent entity.

Quote from: "defendor"I'm not sure things of science make more sense without a God, if anything, they make more sense with one.

Obviously I would disagree with you completely on this point. One example would be the book of Genesis. The world was not created in six days, all the evidence refutes this claim. If you believe the bible to be an accurate reflection of reality you have to ask why some people interpret it in complete variance to reality. Are you a Young Earth Creationist? If you are then you deny reality, if you are not then you deny the accuracy of the bible and thus make a choice that you know better than the people who wrote the bible, thus you place yourself above them.

Quote from: "defendor"For example, what philosophically created the universe? you don't have to go into quantum theory or mechanisms, I'm just curious how you know the universe was created..?

I know I exist, if you have existential issues then that's your problem not mine  :D

EDIT: Topys

Quote from: "Tank"The bible is supposed to be proof of god, but it fails on the basis of inductive circular reasoning.

I know that Jesus loves me I know
because the bible tells me so
I know that Jesus loves me I know
because the bible tells me so

Quote from: "defendor"The property of wetness is not in the molecular or atomic structure of water.  It is not evidence by mathematical formula.  Sure, we can still say, at this temperature, these particles behave as such.  But the observation of wetness is mechanical in our perception.  Just as we see the color blue. For the wave (photon) has peculiar characteristics including frequency, wavelength, the depth and height of the trough and crests, but the observation of blue is purely intangible to our perception.  The light hits the eye, then we begin to associate what properties of light are recognize with particular words, such that we see blue. The color blue is not a property or part of the light wave in itself.

So how (unless energy and particles and the laws of mathematics are essentially conscious) can we have such inordinate characteristics add up to define consciousness?

Whooooooosh!

That was the sound of the point flying past your head. The entire point is that the property of wetness is emergent, and rooted in the aggregation of a significant number of water molecules, in precisely the same way that consciousness is an emergent property of the aggregation of a significant number of neurons and a significant number of synaptic connections. This emergence has nothing to do with perception.

Quote from: "defendor"Isn't the bible supposed to be proof God exists?  Assuming that was true, right?

That would be the fallacy of circular reasoning.

QuoteI'm not sure things of science make more sense without a God, if anything, they make more sense with one.

Why?

QuoteFor example, what philosophically created the universe?

And this fallacy is the complex question.

Quoteyou don't have to go into quantum theory or mechanisms, I'm just curious how you know the universe was created..?

What makes you think the universe was created? Complex question again.

Funny thing about the Koran, it actually testifies that the first revelation of Moses was true.  i.e. the first 5 books of the bible
Islam is not the fastest growing religion, more people convert to christianity than islam, except islam is smaller so its a higher percentage of people according to its population

If the universe wasn't created then it was eternal right? ...not being created?  
1. if the universe was always here, this is the same logic that God is just always there
2.  The universe is made of finite parts. the universe is decreasing in the amount of usable energy. For instance, the hydrogen in stars is used up, it does not make more hydrogen.  The parts of the universe are finite and we add it all up. How can a bunch of finite things make infinite?
3. If the universe is infinitely existing, then how could you say you exist now? There would be an infinite past of moments that must be traversed for you to say you can exist now.  You of course exist now, so you must say that  you have traversed the temporal limits of a finite time frame so an infinite series of past moments can't exist.

So logically, it has to have a beginning.  Scientifically, particle physicists claim it has a beginning, but just don't quite know what started it.

As for the Jackel- I have a quick question, what is energy?

Quote from: "defendor"If the universe wasn't created then it was eternal right? ...not being created?  

Yes.

Quote1. if the universe was always here, this is the same logic that God is just always there

It would be the same logic, if you could actually point to something and say 'that's god there', as we can do with the universe. Good luck with that.

Quote2.  The universe is made of finite parts. the universe is decreasing in the amount of usable energy.

That depends on what you mean by 'usable energy', and it depends on what you mean by 'decreasing'. Perhaps a crash course in thermodynamics would be illuminating. There's a discussion on that HERE (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6031).

QuoteFor instance, the hydrogen in stars is used up, it does not make more hydrogen.

You do realise, do you not, that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and that it isn't all bound in stars? You are also aware, are you not, that hydrogen is made of smaller parts, parts which are present in every other element and indeed on their own without being bounded in elements?

QuoteThe parts of the universe are finite and we add it all up. How can a bunch of finite things make infinite?

They can't. The problem here is that a) you're only considering our local cosmic expansion, which quite probably is not infinite, although that's unclear, at least until the details of inflation are better understood, and b) you don't have any understanding of what's meant by infinite. You're treating it as if it's a number. It isn't.

Non of this has much to do with energy, of course. Indeed, one of the fundamental laws of physics, the first law of thermodynamics, tells us that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. That puts a bit of a hole in your thesis here.

Quote3. If the universe is infinitely existing, then how could you say you exist now? There would be an infinite past of moments that must be traversed for you to say you can exist now.

This is straight out of the Kalamity Kraig playbook (as is the rest of the guff you're presenting here as 'logic', and it's utter idiocy. It's like saying that an infinite line has no points on it, which is about as nonsensical as it's possible to get, not least because all lines are, in essence, infinite.

 

QuoteYou of course exist now, so you must say that  you have traversed the temporal limits of a finite time frame so an infinite series of past moments can't exist.

Complete non-sequitur. Please demonstrate that a line has no points on it.

QuoteSo logically, it has to have a beginning.

Logic works fine as long as you start from true premises. You don't actually have any true premises, only blind assertions, and some of them are categorically wrong, as demonstrated above.

QuoteScientifically, particle physicists claim it has a beginning, but just don't quite know what started it.

Well, firstly, particle physicists say no such thing, because the remit of particle physics consists of the fundamental constituents of matter and energy, while the instantiation of the cosmos and the physics of the universe is the remit of cosmology, a different area of study. This is much akin to the cretinous conflation of evolution and abiogenesis so beloved of the terminally credulous. Secondly, even cosmologists don't say it has a beginning, although they do say that our local cosmic expansion had a beginning, but they have no theories yet to describe it. Indeed, our best theory of cosmogeny only goes back to a finite time after the beginning of expansion, and has absolutely nothing to say on the actual beginning, but that's only our cosmic expansion, not the universe. The universe is literally 'all that exists' and includes whatever preceded our cosmic expansion. More importantly, though, there's still that niggling problem of the first law of thermodynamics.

Quotewhat is energy?

The ability to do work.

The logic I was imposing about the God, is that science is readily and willing to give the characteristics of omnipotence to everything other than God.  For instance, the law of Gravity.   The law of Gravity is an observable force, not imposable.  So if the law of gravity existed before it had existed, it could have created the universe.  

Scientists speculate as to what caused the universe, but really, don't know.  I don't want to seem pretentious, but I would like to state some knowledge in the field for my physics instructor is a theoretical particle physicist who works on the math of the string theory as well as the math behind the large hadron collider.  

Most who say the universe is eternal or just there appeals to the first law of thermodynamics.  According to the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.  First, this way of stating the first law is not scientific; rather, it is a philosophical assertion.  Science is based on observation, and there is no observational evidence that can support the dogmatic "can" and "cannot" implicit in this statement.  It should read, "as far as we have observed" the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.  That is, no one had observed any actual new energy in either coming into existence of going out of existence.  Once the first law is understood properly, it says nothing about the universe being eternal or having no beginning.  As far as the first law is concerned, energy may or may not have been created.  It simply asserts that if energy was created, then as far as we can tell, the actual amount of energy that was created has remained constant since.  

According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of usable energy.  But if the universe is running out of energy it cannot be eternal.  Otherwise it would have run down completely by now.  While you can never run out of an unlimited amount of energy, it does not take forever to run out of a limited amount of energy.  Hence, the universe must have had a beginning.  If you state that the universe is self-winding or self-rebounding, this position is pure speculation and is in complete violation of the second law of thermodynamics.  If the overall amount of actual energy stays the same but the universe is running out of usable energy, it has never had an infinite amount, for an infinite amount of energy can never run down.  This would mean that universe could not have existed forever in the past.

Regardless of points on a line, there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwise today would never would have come (which it has).  This is because, by definition, an infinite can never be traversed, it has no end or beginning.  But since moments before today have been traversed, that is we have arrived at today, it follows that there must only have been a finite number of moments before today.  That is, time had a beginning.

energy is defined as the ability to do work, but all that tells me is you know what it does or can do, but do you really know what energy is?

Quote from: "defendor"The logic I was imposing about the God, is that science is readily and willing to give the characteristics of omnipotence to everything other than God.  For instance, the law of Gravity.   The law of Gravity is an observable force, not imposable.  So if the law of gravity existed before it had existed, it could have created the universe.  

Actually, science isn't willing to grant omnipotence to anything, because it constitutes a paradox. As for gravity, it is a consequence of the geometry of spacetime. It certainly isn't granted omnipotence, not least because it's the weakest of the fouor fundamental forces of the cosmos. It's unclear at the moment whether or not gravity could have existed without extended spatial dimensions, and indeed there are models for gravity that suggest that the reason that it's so weak is that it spills into other, unseen dimensions. Have a shufty at the details of the Turok/Steinhardt 'brane-worlds' model for more information on this.

QuoteScientists speculate as to what caused the universe, but really, don't know.  I don't want to seem pretentious, but I would like to state some knowledge in the field for my physics instructor is a theoretical particle physicist who works on the math of the string theory as well as the math behind the large hadron collider.  

Well, cosmologists certainly speculate on the origin of our local cosmic expansion, which is to be differentiated from the universe, but they don't do so using wibble, but hard evidence and well-established physical principles, along with what is often some very esoteric mathematics. In any event, citing some unknown particle physicist constitutes an empty argument from authority, unless you can actually cite his research in this area. I can present original research by some of the world's most well-respected cosmologists.

QuoteMost who say the universe is eternal or just there appeals to the first law of thermodynamics.  According to the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.  First, this way of stating the first law is not scientific; rather, it is a philosophical assertion.  Science is based on observation, and there is no observational evidence that can support the dogmatic "can" and "cannot" implicit in this statement.  It should read, "as far as we have observed" the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.  That is, no one had observed any actual new energy in either coming into existence of going out of existence.  Once the first law is understood properly, it says nothing about the universe being eternal or having no beginning.  As far as the first law is concerned, energy may or may not have been created.  It simply asserts that if energy was created, then as far as we can tell, the actual amount of energy that was created has remained constant since.

ACtually, unlike the second law of thermodynamics, the first law is not merely an experimental law, but is well-supported, not least by Noether's theorem, in which certain quantities, such as energy, are conserved. This isn't merely conjecture, but well-established science.

QuoteAccording to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of usable energy.  But if the universe is running out of energy it cannot be eternal.  Otherwise it would have run down completely by now.  While you can never run out of an unlimited amount of energy, it does not take forever to run out of a limited amount of energy.  Hence, the universe must have had a beginning.  If you state that the universe is self-winding or self-rebounding, this position is pure speculation and is in complete violation of the second law of thermodynamics.  If the overall amount of actual energy stays the same but the universe is running out of usable energy, it has never had an infinite amount, for an infinite amount of energy can never run down.  This would mean that universe could not have existed forever in the past.

I see you didn't actually bother to read the discussion on the 2LT that I linked to. I actually do understand entropy, as demonstrated in that thread, but your understanding is woefully inadequate. What the law of entropy actually states is that entropy will not, on average, increase. It doesn't say that the energyof the universe is running down. More importantly, expansion changes the game completely, and is actually the source of entropy, because it changes what the maximum value for entropy can be all the time. Finally, the third law of thermodynamics tells us that the maximum value for entropy can never actually be attained, because it is an asymptote. Oh, and it's entirely probable that the law of entropy (which is an experimental law, and comes under the rubric of the problem of induction) is merely a feature of the coarse-graining of the universe.

I could teach you a lot about thermodynamics, if you didn't think you already knew.

QuoteRegardless of points on a line, there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwise today would never would have come (which it has).  This is because, by definition, an infinite can never be traversed, it has no end or beginning.  But since moments before today have been traversed, that is we have arrived at today, it follows that there must only have been a finite number of moments before today.  That is, time had a beginning.

Merely re-asserting your point after it has been debunked will not win you any traction here. The question you must answer is why there cannot be points on a line, because any event on an infinite timeline is precisely analogous to a point on a line. What you are saying is that, given infinite time, there can be no events. In other words, nothing can ever happen because there is too much time for it to have happened. This was pathetic and stupid when Kalamity Kraig erected it, and it's even more so when you re-assert it.

Quoteenergy is defined as the ability to do work, but all that tells me is you know what it does or can do, but do you really know what energy is?

That is it's definition, as employed by physicists in rigorous settings. Beyond that, it doesn't have a singular definition, because work comes in many forms. That is all the definition I need, and I have already demonstrated that I understand energy rigorously, while you only demonstrate that you have absorbed the retarded ididocy of Kalamity Kraig. That will not aid you here.

edit:

combined to the below post.

QuoteRegardless of points on a line, there could not have been an infinite number of moments before today; otherwise today would never would have come (which it has)

Incorrect. Moments are as relative as points on a line and there can be equally infinite in number over an infinite period of time.

QuoteThat is it's definition, as employed by physicists in rigorous settings. Beyond that, it doesn't have a singular definition, because work comes in many forms. That is all the definition I need, and I have already demonstrated that I understand energy rigorously, while you only demonstrate that you have absorbed the retarded ididocy of Kalamity Kraig. That will not aid you here.
Beliefs are the eyelids of the mind - David Zindell

Incorrect.. There are 3 laws that govern everything and they are the 3 laws of energy to which can lead to complex... It's also the only 3 laws that can "do work".

Positive
Negative
Neutral

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral:

Action
Reaction
Process
choice
decision
phenomenon
emerging property
environment
Feedback
motion
moral
ethic
thought
Idea
emotion
Selection
Natural Selection
Adaptation
response
Stimuli
Piece of information
existence (negative not existing)
Capacity (negative capacity impossible to exist)
time
mathematical equation, or solution
Answer
image
perception
ability
function
sate of being (negative state means no being is existent)
place (negative place doesn't exist)
Oscillation
inertia
work
belief
ect...

QuoteEinstein - You can talk about the ethical foundation of science, but you can't talk about the scientific foundation of ethics

Good thing Einstein didn't study evolution of ethics.. However I can prove that statement wrong.

Energy has 3 properties:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

Ethics has 3 properties:

Positive
Negative
Neutral


Do the math.. energy =/= information and thus ='s all information to which ethical principles are based on..

QuoteIf the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. If there were no light in the universe, thus no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark

And the whole universe has meaning.. It's called existence! It's all the meaning it requires!

Can you feel emotion without physically feeling it? NOPE!

Quote from: "defendor"Funny thing about the Koran, it actually testifies that the first revelation of Moses was true.  i.e. the first 5 books of the bible
Islam is not the fastest growing religion, more people convert to christianity than islam, except islam is smaller so its a higher percentage of people according to its population

If the universe wasn't created then it was eternal right? ...not being created?  
1. if the universe was always here, this is the same logic that God is just always there
2.  The universe is made of finite parts. the universe is decreasing in the amount of usable energy. For instance, the hydrogen in stars is used up, it does not make more hydrogen.  The parts of the universe are finite and we add it all up. How can a bunch of finite things make infinite?
3. If the universe is infinitely existing, then how could you say you exist now? There would be an infinite past of moments that must be traversed for you to say you can exist now.  You of course exist now, so you must say that  you have traversed the temporal limits of a finite time frame so an infinite series of past moments can't exist.

So logically, it has to have a beginning.  Scientifically, particle physicists claim it has a beginning, but just don't quite know what started it.

Nice chisel, ill used.

QuoteIf the universe wasn't created then it was eternal right? ...not being created?

Begging the question, falling foul of the capability of human language to adequately reflect reality. The word 'created' implies a creator so you're using a disingenuous semantic technique that attempts to shape the argument in your favour, Wittgensttein would have been proud of you   . We can estimate the length of time from which time appears to have started, the event referred to by Fred Hoyle as 'The Big Bang'. We can see the 'heat death' of the universe going on around us and the fact that it has been going on from the Big Bang. These conditions, placed in a human 'common sense' frame work imply a beginning and an end. But the closer we examine reality the more we find that human 'common sense' is a very poor perspective from which to judge reality. Einstein knew this when he took his imaginary ride on a photon to illustrate relativity. Quantum mechanics flies in the face of 'common sense'.

We are having to come to terms with the apparent contradiction that the photons captured by the Hubble space telescope when it looks at the furthest (oldest) galaxies existed throughout the universe as a probability until we built the Hubble and put it into orbit and pointed it at said galaxy and collapsed that probability. And if we had not built the Hubble that probability may never have collapsed. To common sense what I have just written is absurd, but it appears to be the way the universe works. Faced with our growing understanding that the conceptual tools by which we judge reality by, the passing of time and cause leading to effect are flawed making any claim of a 'start' to the universe is fraught with danger. We have evidence that things were not as they are now. That evidence has come from scrupulous examination of what we can and have observed. It has never come from a holy book or the wishful thinking of a philosopher.

When there was no understanding of the way the universe works philosophers had no choice but to 'make shit up'. It's part of human nature to want to understand the relationship between cause and effect. But it would appear that in the quantum world human concepts of cause and effect break down as useful terms. I don't think we know what happened at the Big Bang, and that is ALL we can say about that. One can't simply invoke superstition to replace a lack of knowledge as our ancestors did because we do know that superstition (AKA Making shit up) has an appealing track record in terms of actually explaining what is going on. By way of illustration see 'Witches' burnt to death in Kenya' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7413268.stm). The people who carried out these atrocities did it because they were convinced their superstitions (AKA Making shit up) were correct.

I'm sorry to say it but I see your assertions about God as no different, in essence, from the same attitude that allowed, nay demanded, those Kenyans kill those 'Witches'. The only thing that stops you from burning a Witch is that your particular type/style/level of superstitious belief shaped by your culture/societal values prevents it as an option.

Your abuse of logic, semantic arguments and superstitious assertions cut no ice with me. If you want me to take your world view seriously the first thing you'll have to do is get all theists to sing from the same song sheet. Until that happens don't expect me to take you or any theist seriously. Your views are extensions of the mythology that our ancestors created to fill in the cognitive dissonance between knowledge (the Sun rises) and understanding (the Earth orbits the Sun and spins while it does so). Your views are redundant now, the trouble is as humans we have great difficulty 'un-learning' what we have been told by authority figures is true.

Regards
Chris

I think there is a misunderstanding of infinity.

If I am standing on a point on an infinite line, I look behind me, what do I see?  Infinity.  There is no beginning, it would take infinitely long to walk backwards.  So is the case of time.  If we say that time is infinite, then there is infinite time behind us.  SO if there is infinite time behind us, then it would take infinity for us to reach the point of time we have.  But since we have reached the point of time we have (Now), there cannot be infinitely much more time behind us.  So time is not infinitely long.

Yes, we can break down a finite line into infinite many points, but that does not make the finite line grow any longer.  All that does is distinguish between to specific points on the finite line.  But as the line is concerned there is a beginning and there is an end.  Such is with time.

When you do calculus, if you have an improper integral, it means it cannot be evaluated.  An integral is considered improper when it cannot be evaluated at a specific point.  Such points are that of infinity.  You cannot evaluate a specific point at infinity.  It is mathematically impossible.  Such is with time.  We cannot say time grows to infinity and then evaluate the points at which it exists at infinity.

For energy to be correlated to ethics, you would have to know what energy is.  But telling me what energy can do, is not telling me what it is.  What is energy?
You can tell me everything energy does, but you still haven't told me what energy is.  If you have a great understanding of energy, it should be easy to tell me what energy really is, shouldn't it?  

I'm just curious, it sounds like theres a bunch of science majors on here. Outside of reading about quantum mechanics online, who has actually studied quantum physics at a university?

Quote from: "defendor"I think there is a misunderstanding of infinity.

There certainly is, and it's you that doesn't understand it, as demonstrated by the following nonsense.

QuoteIf I am standing on a point on an infinite line, I look behind me, what do I see?  Infinity.  There is no beginning, it would take infinitely long to walk backwards.  So is the case of time.  If we say that time is infinite, then there is infinite time behind us.  SO if there is infinite time behind us, then it would take infinity for us to reach the point of time we have.  But since we have reached the point of time we have (Now), there cannot be infinitely much more time behind us.  So time is not infinitely long.

What you are saying here is that there can be no points on a line. SImply reasserting this ignorant guff will not make it true.

QuoteYes, we can break down a finite line into infinite many points, but that does not make the finite line grow any longer.  All that does is distinguish between to specific points on the finite line.  But as the line is concerned there is a beginning and there is an end.  Such is with time.

Now you can tell us what time is, since you think you know what you're talking about. I look forward to your dissertation on the subject.

QuoteWhen you do calculus, if you have an improper integral, it means it cannot be evaluated.  An integral is considered improper when it cannot be evaluated at a specific point.  Such points are that of infinity.  You cannot evaluate a specific point at infinity.  It is mathematically impossible.  Such is with time.  We cannot say time grows to infinity and then evaluate the points at which it exists at infinity.

Which demonstrates that you have no clue of what you're talking about, as if we actually needed further demonstration. Certainly, infinity cannot be reached by the addition of integers, because that defeats the definition of what infinity actually is, namely beyond calculability. The successive addition of integers will never give you infinity, because you will never arrive at a figure that is incalculable. Yet infinities can be shown to exist, mathematically, at least. There is no barrier to infinities existing in nature, either, despite the wild assertions of Kalamity Kraig and other idiotic liars for doctrine.

QuoteFor energy to be correlated to ethics, you would have to know what energy is.  But telling me what energy can do, is not telling me what it is.  What is energy?

I already told you. It is the ability to perform work.

QuoteYou can tell me everything energy does, but you still haven't told me what energy is.  If you have a great understanding of energy, it should be easy to tell me what energy really is, shouldn't it?  

I already did, three times.

The infinity thing is going nowhere, you haven't made any valid points refuting it, you just disagree with it and call it nonsense.

QuoteCertainly, infinity cannot be reached by the addition of integers, because that defeats the definition of what infinity actually is, namely beyond calculability. The successive addition of integers will never give you infinity, because you will never arrive at a figure that is incalculable

So how is adding up a bunch of finite moments ever going to give you eternity? Time progresses at 60 minutes an hour, so it obviously is finite and measurable.  Time cannot be infinite.  If there is an infinite amount of moments behind you, it would've taken infinitely long to progress to this moment.  So it would've taken eternity to reach the present, and by the standards of infinity, it cannot be reached. So how could the present exist if it took eternity to get to this moment?

The ability to do work only tells me what energy does not what it is.  If someone asked me "who am I?"  I wouldn't say "I eat, I sleep, and I do activities"  that doesn't tell you who I am.  I am asking for what energy is in being.

QuoteSo how is adding up a bunch of finite moments ever going to give you eternity?

Purpose:

Quotethe concept of having purpose, or attaining purpose. But the interesting thing about this is that we will always have a purpose even after we die, or even if we are no-longer conscious entities. This is referring to where all that which we are made of will always exist, and will always serve a purpose. What we are made of will become that of something else to where this could include perhaps becoming the fuel that ignites a new star to which gives rise to new life!

 Example:

    Does a tree still exist if it is cut down and burned as firewood? Technically everything that made the tree will always exist. All the matter and energy that made the tree will continue on, and become emergent or bound to other things. Purpose is never lost, and is always self-attained, and self-attaining. So the purpose of existence is simply to exist because the opposite is impossible.

QuoteThe ability to do work only tells me what energy does not what it is

Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with mass, and itself possible. "A universal set of all sets". Energy is the substance of existence itself.

I'm not sure how you related purpose and infinite number of moments.

Could God not also qualify as the definition of "the substance of existence itself"?

Ah, the idiotic attempt to attach the label 'god' to that for which we already have a name.

Really, as apologists go, you're very poor at it.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Ah, the idiotic attempt to attach the label 'god' to that for which we already have a name.

Really, as apologists go, you're very poor at it.

Please don't continue to push with the personal insults. Keep it civil.

Which personal insults? I directed at the comments only.

This seems to be a common theme, the misunderstanding of 'being'.  So you obviously disagree, but you have not said how or why you disagree.  Only because I brought up God?  So the disagreement is not the in principle of ideas but in the idea of a creator, or else you would be able to explain how or why that is a fallacy.  

So basically, you don't want there to be a God as opposed that God tangibly can't exist.

Why is it so freakin hard to stay on topic???  

This thread was originally about why Darwinism is not an accurate description of someone who accepts evolution as true...now it's about "being" or some other nonsense.

Will someone who has been keeping up please point out where the split(s) needs to occur?

I apologize, but I think this still holds a bit of truth.  The exclusion from God in science is not based on scientific facts but on personal bias.  

So as it pertains to Darwinism, the idea of a evolutionary theory (general term) is designed to outcast the notion of God, and give the same autonomous power to science.

Quote from: "defendor"I apologize, but I think this still holds a bit of truth.  The exclusion from God in science is not based on scientific facts but on personal bias.  

So as it pertains to Darwinism, the idea of a evolutionary theory (general term) is designed to outcast the notion of God, and give the same autonomous power to science.

Science is the study of the natural world, the study of material things that can be experienced through our senses and collected as data.  Just because god can't be studied in this manner doesn't mean science is purposely set up to be biased against god....we can actually thank many religious people for their contributions to science throughout history.

So, no...there is no truth to science being biased against god.  There seems to be some truth to you being biased against science.

Again, "Darwinism" isn't a real word...it makes you sound stupid when you use it.  

I think it invokes a proper idea of naturalism or even determinism as proposed.  

But as the scientific community, generally, there is a bias against Intelligent design.  There was a movie titled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"  Its a bit of a satirical depiction but it is kind of interesting.  It proposes the idea that anyone who claims intelligent design is a 'black sheep' among the scientific community.  I personally have done no research on this, but I would have to conclude with scientific minds such as Dawkins, and Hawking, that there is a strong communal bias against the existence of God.

Quote from: "defendor"I think it invokes a proper idea of naturalism or even determinism as proposed.  

But as the scientific community, generally, there is a bias against Intelligent design.  There was a movie titled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"  Its a bit of a satirical depiction but it is kind of interesting.  It proposes the idea that anyone who claims intelligent design is a 'black sheep' among the scientific community.  I personally have done no research on this, but I would have to conclude with scientific minds such as Dawkins, and Hawking, that there is a strong communal bias against the existence of God.

There is a strong bias against Intelligent Design, as for all types of pseudoscience.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? Really? You're citing that movie as a serious source?

Quote from: "defendor"I think it invokes a proper idea of naturalism or even determinism as proposed.  

But as the scientific community, generally, there is a bias against Intelligent design.  There was a movie titled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"  Its a bit of a satirical depiction but it is kind of interesting.  It proposes the idea that anyone who claims intelligent design is a 'black sheep' among the scientific community.  I personally have done no research on this, but I would have to conclude with scientific minds such as Dawkins, and Hawking, that there is a strong communal bias against the existence of God.

Of course scientists would be biased against allowing non-science to be claimed as science...

Perhaps you should do research on it...I think you'll find the bias is against willful ignorance (and that's a good type of bias).

Quote from: "hackenslash"Which personal insults? I directed at the comments only.

You should really know better than to do this with me by now. I already quoted your personal insults. Don't push it. You got a friendly, unofficial reminder. By saying "the idiotic attempt", the word "idiotic" is referring to the attempt made by the person. The person. Followed by just another insult. Come on, you usually do much better than this.

Quote from: "defendor"I think it invokes a proper idea of naturalism or even determinism as proposed.  

But as the scientific community, generally, there is a bias against Intelligent design.  There was a movie titled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"  Its a bit of a satirical depiction but it is kind of interesting.  It proposes the idea that anyone who claims intelligent design is a 'black sheep' among the scientific community.  I personally have done no research on this, but I would have to conclude with scientific minds such as Dawkins, and Hawking, that there is a strong communal bias against the existence of God.

Ehhh.....*rubs nose*

There is no bias against intelligent design defendor, the thing is that there is no evidence for intelligent design.
The entire case for intelligent design is based on attempting to discredit evolution, that's not how science works. Scientists do not take intelligent design seriously because there's nothing to back it, only it's proponents pointing to holes in evolutionary understanding, which there are, but do not indicate that therefore a God did everything.

Intelligent design, is simply disguised creationism, which of course links back to the proponents creation story of choice derived from their religion. So the funny thing actually is that the proponents of intelligent design are biased.

With information, the assumption is a prior mind.  No one assumes there is information, but it happened by accident.  If you went to a distant planet, and you saw a hamburger wrapper, you would assume with the alphabet that there is intelligence to encode information.  Such is the case with DNA.  Over 3 billion bases of information.

Quote from: "defendor"With information, the assumption is a prior mind.  No one assumes there is information, but it happened by accident.  If you went to a distant planet, and you saw a hamburger wrapper, you would assume with the alphabet that there is intelligence to encode information.  Such is the case with DNA.  Over 3 billion bases of information.

Oh goodness...are we talking about the "There's a building, implying a builder. There are people, implying a creator." argument now?

Quote from: "defendor"With information, the assumption is a prior mind.  No one assumes there is information, but it happened by accident.  If you went to a distant planet, and you saw a hamburger wrapper, you would assume with the alphabet that there is intelligence to encode information.  Such is the case with DNA.  Over 3 billion bases of information.

The watchmaker argument (yes, we all know where you got the above from) fails because inorganic matter can't be compared to organic matter when discussing evolution.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "defendor"With information, the assumption is a prior mind.  No one assumes there is information, but it happened by accident.  If you went to a distant planet, and you saw a hamburger wrapper, you would assume with the alphabet that there is intelligence to encode information.  Such is the case with DNA.  Over 3 billion bases of information.

The watchmaker argument (yes, we all know where you got the above from) fails because inorganic matter can't be compared to organic matter when discussing evolution.

I don't understand why Theists continue to use this as if no one's ever heard it before? I mean these kinds of things have to be refuted over and over, and the person posing the argument just kind of pretends like it never happened. I just don't get it.

I've never heard a refutation but if I do, I won't ever use it again.

As for the inorganic matter can't be compared to organic matter, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Quote from: "defendor"With information, the assumption is a prior mind.  No one assumes there is information, but it happened by accident.  If you went to a distant planet, and you saw a hamburger wrapper, you would assume with the alphabet that there is intelligence to encode information.  Such is the case with DNA.  Over 3 billion bases of information.

In the case of a hamburger wrapper, we have reasonable evidence to conclude that it was made by a sentient being because we know that we as sentient beings make hamburger wrappers. Perhaps the wrapper came from a plant on the alien world, there would be evidence by finding the plant that produces the wrapper. So I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that it was made by sentient beings, however if a plant was found that grows them as leaves, it would be irrational to continue to assert that it must have been made by a sentient being.

In the case of DNA, we have no evidence that anything created DNA, but we do have evidence that it came about through natural processes. If we just happened upon DNA without any evidence at all about where it came from, asserting that something made it is just a baseless speculation.

Quote from: "defendor"I've never heard a refutation but if I do, I won't ever use it again.

[youtube:2his3iid]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdn0UPDjmk[/youtube:2his3iid]
Note that Dawkins confirms that many of his colleges think they can separate their scientific views from their religious views...meaning it is not common for scientists to think science disproves god (as you previously stated it was)

[youtube:2his3iid]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-cp_0kcaD4[/youtube:2his3iid]

[youtube:2his3iid]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S4F1czs2tk[/youtube:2his3iid]

and since Matt didn't mention it...Snowflakes and crystals are complex yet we don't think they were designed.

My comment about inorganic vs organic related to how complexity can evolve...yet is only a minor refutation of the watchmaker argument.

and if you want to read further wiki is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker ... #Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism)

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "hackenslash"Which personal insults? I directed at the comments only.

You should really know better than to do this with me by now. I already quoted your personal insults. Don't push it. You got a friendly, unofficial reminder. By saying "the idiotic attempt", the word "idiotic" is referring to the attempt made by the person. The person. Followed by just another insult. Come on, you usually do much better than this.

Sertiously, dude. It was the attempt that was idiotic, not the person. I'm not trying anything. I'm actually holding back a great deal, and all my comments were focused on the content of the posts. The poster is not addressed, and in fact is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with your assessment, and think you should look at it again.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "hackenslash"Which personal insults? I directed at the comments only.

You should really know better than to do this with me by now. I already quoted your personal insults. Don't push it. You got a friendly, unofficial reminder. By saying "the idiotic attempt", the word "idiotic" is referring to the attempt made by the person. The person. Followed by just another insult. Come on, you usually do much better than this.

Sertiously, dude. It was the attempt that was idiotic, not the person. I'm not trying anything. I'm actually holding back a great deal, and all my comments were focused on the content of the posts. The poster is not addressed, and in fact is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with your assessment, and think you should look at it again.

Looked at it already. My assessment is what it is, and you disagreeing with it doesn't change it. As I said, don't push it. I've overlooked a number of your posts already. That was apparently a mistake. It won't happen again.

Creationist arguments sound like a broken record.

I'll leave you to your amusements then. I really can't be bothered.

I had a large dissertation written out and last night the website was down or just my internet but I don't want to fully type it out.

The argument of creationism is not 'from design' but 'to design'.  The 'watchmaker analogy' is not fully applicable. The watchmaker analogy is not associated with a theistic God but rather a Deistic.  I suppose that God has his hand in the order and maintaining of creation as simply just setting it in motion.  This is a fine line, but a difference.

Quote from: "defendor"The argument of creationism is not 'from design' but 'to design'.  The 'watchmaker analogy' is not fully applicable. The watchmaker analogy is not associated with a theistic God but rather a Deistic.  I suppose that God has his hand in the order and maintaining of creation as simply just setting it in motion.  This is a fine line, but a difference.

This still doesn't address that there is no evidence of design; only assumptions based on tunnel vision.

Well the argument "to design" has to do with the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  That essentially, the universe proceeds to disorder.  So at the inception of the universe, our world and life in general did not exist and the universe by its own laws, proceeds to disorder.  But yet somehow, systems were able to develop that traversed the increase in disorder to make the most complex systems that extend beyond the natural laws of physics, i.e. Life.  

In our DNA, we have over 3 billion bases of information that can be decoded.  So when you have information that is complex and continues to develop against the normal laws of thermodynamics, you have to assume a cause beyond the laws of physics, which is supernatural. i.e. God.

 Romans 1:19-21 of the New Testament states:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 3, Question 2).

In Part II of his famous Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume formulates the argument as follows:

Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.

This is a lazy response but please read about why thermodynamics has nothing to do with discrediting evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html)

I think there needs to be a fine tuning

 

QuoteIf order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

An outside force acted upon it.  "All energy" needs instigating.  So energy is only applicable if force is being done on energy.  If nothing instigates energy, it remains inert and acts according to newton's 1st law. The universe is a closed system, which includes Earth and anything on it.  How did the sun develop?  How did inert matter and energy abruptly explode when it is inert?  

The information in the creative order such as snowflakes, etc. do in fact posit unnatural characteristics to the laws of the universe.  This is the Theistic view, that God is holding, planning, moving all things.  Not somethings but all things.  So all things are in design of God even nature.  We see how some of these 'natural' things develop now, but also, you can't explain how they developed before.  Such as, the atomic and molecular structures that combine on one another.  As the above quote indicates, we observe the world that violates the laws of Physics, and simply asserting that nature has order still begs the question, how?

The answer is that it doesn't violate the laws of physics for a snowflake to form complex patterns or for life to evolve....it just means that if the universe truly is a closed system (I believe the string theorists would consider it open) it will continue spreading out and eventually end in a heat death where everything has reached equilibrium once all the energy is converted to heat and entropy is maximized.

Perhaps reading this link will help: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae261.cfm (http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae261.cfm)

specifically

Quote4) The entropy of an isolated system will always increase in a spontaneous process.

The last definition is essentially the one you are recalling.

The idea that entropy is disorder is not quite right and its unfortunate that this concept has been held onto so long.

Consider the case where a liquid freezes into an ordered crystal; according to the definition you give this should never happen but we know that it does -- Why?

A better definition of entropy would be the definition that is common to statistical mechanics and was proposed by Boltzmann.

Entropy can be thought of as being directly related to the number of ways a system has to `arrange' itself. Each arrangement constitutes a `microstate' of the system.

Therefore, a system seeks to maximize the number of different arrangements or microstates.

To make this clear think of a container full of a gas. The gas is occupying a constant volume and is also at constant temperature. Within the container the molecules of gas will explore different positions. If you could stop the system at some time you would find the molecules at some fixed positions. Collectively, their positions represent one possible microstate. Now start the system back up again and stop it some later time. Once again you will (probably) find the system in a different microstate. Given enough time the system will explore all possible microstates as well as ending up in the same ones. The more microsates the system has available the higher the entropy.

So you see entropy has little to do with disorder -- it's about microstates.

Entropy will always increase because a system is the most stable when it has the most microstates -- disorder is not the factor.

Quote from: "defendor"I'm not sure how you related purpose and infinite number of moments.

Could God not also qualify as the definition of "the substance of existence itself"?

There are fundamental problems with this argument.

1) If you want to metaphorically call the substance to all existence GOD, sure!
2) Stating so would be calling all things GOD
3) Under Omniscience, you would be arguing for pure solipsism with a multiple personality disorder.

Not really going to work out especially if you want to maintain separation of individuals.. However if you maintain that the substance is that which everything is made from, there would be no actual GOD. There would only be those things to which are made from the substance itself. We are thus two unique glasses made from the same pile of sand.

The argument I have made is that all things that exist and continue to exist are by the authority of a Creator God.  That things compound themselves onto each other into more complex ways by the sovereign nature of God.  Not that all things are God, but that without a God, nothing could perpetually exist.  I think this is a little more in depth than just the "watchmaker" idea.

So if a system has many possible randomizations, how is that not disorder?

Let me know when you want to actually address all the previous points that were put up to show why what you said was wrong...otherwise I'm done as this is a waste of my time.

here's a point,

science has changed drastically over the past century.  So we believe everything that we know now as complete truth, when it could change drastically in a few years.  How do you know what you know now isn't going to be proven wrong in a few years?

Quote from: "defendor"here's a point,

science has changed drastically over the past century.  So we believe everything that we know now as complete truth, when it could change drastically in a few years.  How do you know what you know now isn't going to be proven wrong in a few years?

That's the beauty of science. It is constantly evolving ( ), so we know that we are becoming closer and closer to the truth.

Anyways, most of the time, we don't figure out something new and disregard everything we learned in the past. We add to our understanding.

Quote from: "defendor"here's a point,

science has changed drastically over the past century.  So we believe everything that we know now as complete truth, when it could change drastically in a few years.  How do you know what you know now isn't going to be proven wrong in a few years?

There has been a lot of development in science during my lifetime, I can't say it's changed my world view that much.  I suppose I know some things, but mostly I accept the most probable explanation until another comes along.  Half an aspirin is good for me, then it's not, then it is again, I can cope with change.

Quote from: "defendor"here's a point,

science has changed drastically over the past century.  So we believe everything that we know now as complete truth, when it could change drastically in a few years.  How do you know what you know now isn't going to be proven wrong in a few years?

Quote from: "Whitney"Let me know when you want to actually address all the previous points that were put up to show why what you said was wrong...otherwise I'm done as this is a waste of my time.

QuoteThere has been a lot of development in science during my lifetime, I can't say it's changed my world view that much. I suppose I know some things, but mostly I accept the most probable explanation until another comes along. Half an aspirin is good for me, then it's not, then it is again, I can cope with change.

So the facts change and your world view doesn't, does that mean your world view is not based on facts? or do you bias the facts to fit your world view?

Quote from: "defendor"The argument I have made is that all things that exist and continue to exist are by the authority of a Creator God.  That things compound themselves onto each other into more complex ways by the sovereign nature of God.  Not that all things are God, but that without a God, nothing could perpetually exist.  I think this is a little more in depth than just the "watchmaker" idea.

So if a system has many possible randomizations, how is that not disorder?

QuoteNot that all things are God, but that without a God, nothing could perpetually exist

Oh but one intentionally ignores that consciousness requires cause to exist? I don't think you have properly addressed how to use infinite regress.

QuoteSo if a system has many possible randomizations, how is that not disorder?

There is not perpetual "order" and everything is perpetually chaotic like to where order comes from chaos, or a system with positive, negative, and neutral feedback. Order in this sense is never static, but ever changing order.

Example:

The shapes you find in sand dunes is order from a system with feedback, or known as a system of chaos. All that means in laymens terms is the constant change of order to where more complex things of order can emerge.. Such as sand dunes, snow flakes, waves in the ocean, how your hair blows in the wind, or how smelly your farts can be.. And giving the nature of energy and chaos, nothing is ever 100% random chance. Everything is probability of order from a chaotic system.

QuoteThere is not perpetual "order" and everything is perpetually chaotic like to where order comes from chaos, or a system with positive, negative, and neutral feedback. Order in this sense is never static, but ever changing order.

So if everything is perpetually chaotic, how has there been observable laws of physics or anything in the universe developing to any extent that it has?

If Gibbs free energy holds true, then how is there established order?

btw just curious to know what your background in this field is, do you have a degree or formal education in applied sciences?

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteThere has been a lot of development in science during my lifetime, I can't say it's changed my world view that much. I suppose I know some things, but mostly I accept the most probable explanation until another comes along. Half an aspirin is good for me, then it's not, then it is again, I can cope with change.

So the facts change and your world view doesn't, does that mean your world view is not based on facts? or do you bias the facts to fit your world view?

Oh jeeze.. When a fact changes the body of facts that supported the fact that changed don't just get tossed in the toilet..  The evidence may have pointed to something to be a fact, but missing evidence to which is later discovered might change that fact into something more factual.. Such as the concept of the Earth being flat was based on facts that didn't have all the facts to realize the Earth wasn't flat.. This doesn't magically make all the evidence that supported a flat Earth concept wrong, or even not to be included into supporting that the Earth is an oblate sphere!.. So yes, our beliefs in facts are based on the evidence that supports them. If new evidence arises that changes something to be no-longer a fact, we will gladly change our views to reflect what the further evidence tells us, or shows us. And it will always show why the previously thought to be fact was wrong and why we thought it was right. If science didn't function properly, you wouldn't have Nuclear Power plants, your computer, or even a car to some of our butts to work everyday.

You let us know when you can provide a body of facts that can actually validate the existence of a GOD. Especially when many of you theists claim it's not made of anything.

So if the facts become more factual, then were they ever facts to begin with?  The earth being flat is not a fact, so it was never a fact.  So when facts came out supporting a spherical earth, the old 'facts' were not regarded as facts.

Could a 'conscious energy' be a definition of a god

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteThere is not perpetual "order" and everything is perpetually chaotic like to where order comes from chaos, or a system with positive, negative, and neutral feedback. Order in this sense is never static, but ever changing order.

So if everything is perpetually chaotic, how has there been observable laws of physics or anything in the universe developing to any extent that it has?

If Gibbs free energy holds true, then how is there established order?

btw just curious to know what your background in this field is, do you have a degree or formal education in applied sciences?

Firstly, you don't seem to comprehend GIbbs free energy.

QuoteGibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system;

Good thing we don't exist in a "closed system".. And secondly, no closed system can remain permanently a closed system simple because of atomic decay. The second law of thermodynamics only pertains to isolated closed systems. In an open system (aka applying the other laws of thermodynamics), your argument is entirely useless. However, even in a closed system there remains a chaotic system with feedback.

Now go find do some experiments and let me know what the constant pressure and temperature is of our universe. ;)

Also:

QuoteGibbs energy (also referred to as ∆G) is also the chemical potential that is minimized when a system reaches equilibrium at constant pressure and temperature. As such, it is a convenient criterion of spontaneity for processes with constant pressure and temperature.

Well, even empty space doesn't maintain a constant pressure and temperature..I wonder why    Can anyone here state the OTHER laws of thermodynamics ?

There was one question I'm most curious about.  To know what your background in this field is, do you have a degree or formal education in applied sciences?

Quote from: "defendor"So if the facts become more factual, then were they ever facts to begin with?  The earth being flat is not a fact, so it was never a fact.  So when facts came out supporting a spherical earth, the old 'facts' were not regarded as facts.

Could a 'conscious energy' be a definition of a god

This went over your head like a high flying airplane..

The body of facts that supported the idea that the Earth was flat also support the realization that the Earth is an oblate sphere!. When people don't have all the facts or misunderstand the data they have, it's obvious that new data and facts can prove that the Earth wasn't flat and still retain all the data that supported the flat Earth without any problems. It's how the evolution of knowledge works. Your idea of knowledge is pure assumption to which makes no effort to correct itself, investigate, or even attempt to validate itself. Pure assumptions are generally disingenuous, and can lead to the ignoring of information and data that proves them wrong.. Kinda like what religions do.. Facts don't matter, and anything that contradicts them is simply ignored because they don't care. It's where belief becomes more important than reality. And thus the denial of reality ensues.. Kinda like what you see in Flat Earthers.

Quote from: "defendor"There was one question I'm most curious about.  To know what your background in this field is, do you have a degree or formal education in applied sciences?

My field deals with the study of chaotic systems.. And I am a first year student thanks And this would be completely irrelevant because people don't need a deep education into the sciences to grasp the basics. Thus I am plenty capable of understanding many areas of science, just like anyone else here is. It seems like you are looking for a credibility plea.. And it's not hard to actually take the time to open up a science book, or go to the library.. Gibbs free energy is rather well explained, and it seems like theist like to snuggle the 2nd law of thermodynamics because they magically believe the Universe is a "closed system" when it's not...

This might help you understand why we are in an open system and not a closed system

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=124151 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=124151)

Quote from: "defendor"So the facts change and your world view doesn't, does that mean your world view is not based on facts? or do you bias the facts to fit your world view?

It would have to be a pretty big fact to change my world view, maybe finding the creators four billion year old lab on Europa, complete with documentation of how the first single cell organisms would evolve into me, that might do it. But I would still be suspicious and a technological explanation would still be more likely than some magic man.

My world view is partly based on these facts:
*people lie
*they don't want to die
*they have created many different stories to deny death
*being gods representative is a lucrative job

Quote from: "defendor"So if the facts become more factual, then were they ever facts to begin with?  The earth being flat is not a fact, so it was never a fact.  So when facts came out supporting a spherical earth, the old 'facts' were not regarded as facts.

Could a 'conscious energy' be a definition of a god

If you want to get technical, there are no such things as "facts". We don't know anything to be one-hundred percent true -- there's always a chance that it may be wrong.

Quote from: "Friedrich Nietzsche"There are no facts, only interpretations.

Ya a formal education would be far more credible.  Anyone can get online and spout out anything they want to and because you find someone who says something that agrees with you does not mean it's truth.  Going to a library or cracking open a physics book might help in understanding the basics.

If there are no facts or facts aren't a part of your world view, what are you arguing?

I can just easily say you're wrong and I dont have to prove it.

Btw, is the statement "there are no facts" factual?

Quote from: "defendor"Ya a formal education would be far more credible.  Anyone can get online and spout out anything they want to and because you find someone who says something that agrees with you does not mean it's truth.  Going to a library or cracking open a physics book might help in understanding the basics.

Anyone can sit through class and manage to pass yet not know anything about how to practically apply the knowledge.

If people are providing you with information and with supporting links that is enough...to deny what they say by questioning their credibility is not acceptable and would fall under ad hom.  

What is non credible is someone making random wild claims then not having a bit of care to address anyone's comments in a thoughtful and serious manner.  It's ridiculous, if you want to continue to post here you need to start participating in discussions rather than just shifting the goal posts every time you are caught making incorrect statements.  And, yes, this is your final warning.

The problem with quoting links to wikipedia and other blog websites are that it's not reliable.  So who am I going to trust as an expert in this matter? I'll quote schrodinger

How would we express in terms of the statistical theory the marvelous faculty of a living organism, by which it delays the decay into thermodynamical equilibrium (death)?... the device by which an organism maintains itself stationary at a fairly high level of orderliness... really consists in continually sucking orderliness from its environment.

The observing mind is not a physical system, it cannot interact with any physical system. And it might be better to reserve the term "subject" for the observing mind. ... For the subject, if anything, is the thing that senses and thinks. Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the "world of energy."

The scientific world-picture vouchsafes a very complete understanding of all that happens â€" it makes it just a little too understandable. It allows you to imagine the total display as that of a mechanical clockwork which, for all that science knows, could go on just the same as it does, without there being consciousness, will, endeavor, pain and delight and responsibility connected with it â€" though they actually are. And the reason for this disconcerting situation is just this: that for the purpose of constructing the picture of the external world, we have used the greatly simplifying device of cutting our own personality out, removing it; hence it is gone, it has evaporated, it is ostensibly not needed.
In particular, and most importantly, this is the reason why the scientific worldview contains of itself no ethical values, no esthetical values, not a word about our own ultimate scope or destination, and no God, if you please. Whence came I and whither go I?


"God knows I am no friend of probability theory, I have hated it from the first moment when our dear friend Max Born gave it birth. For it could be seen how easy and simple it made everything, in principle, everything ironed and the true problems concealed. Everybody must jump on the bandwagon [Ausweg]. And actually not a year passed before it became an official credo, and it still is."
13th of June, 1946, in a letter to Albert Einstein, as quoted by Walter Moore in Schrödinger: Life and Thought (1989) ISBN

that's schrodinger writing to Einstein.

"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously."

as well as "Nature has no reverence towards life. Nature treats life as though it were the most valueless thing in the world.... Nature does not act by purposes."

Quote from: "defendor"The problem with quoting links to wikipedia and other blog websites are that it's not reliable.  

So don't use them then, use something better.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "defendor"The problem with quoting links to wikipedia and other blog websites are that it's not reliable.  

So don't use them then, use something better.

He's just making up excuses...I linked him to Talk Origins a couple pages ago to explain the 2nd law issue wasn't really an issue and he completely ignored it in favor of babbling on; and talk origins is written by scientists and lists references.

Defendor...I'm going to stick you into the Restricted Area...if you can play nice in there:  (meaning you'll have to figure out how to interact with people here without preaching or attempting to discuss god) then I'll let you out.  The only other way out of that is for a lot of members to request to continue trying to reason with you.

QuoteThe observing mind is not a physical system, it cannot interact with any physical system. And it might be better to reserve the term "subject" for the observing mind. ... For the subject, if anything, is the thing that senses and thinks. Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the "world of energy."

Try feeling something without physically feeling something And under your argument, we should not be affected by physical forces for our state of consciousness.. Such as G-forces, or the dependency of Oxygen ect. Nor do you understand that computers display the primitive attributes of cognitive dynamics.

http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scienti ... rom-brain/ (http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12037941/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12037941/)

[youtube:znukkwfr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0eZytv6Qk[/youtube:znukkwfr]
[youtube:znukkwfr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Ci3QCgPxg[/youtube:znukkwfr]

or we can explore G-lock:

[youtube:znukkwfr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUBrH1ER7K0[/youtube:znukkwfr]
[youtube:znukkwfr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK8U8RZyzsM[/youtube:znukkwfr]

Emergent property in essence is the emerging end product, or result. For example, information being processed through your computers CPU and Graphics card is an emerging property to which results as the displayed image before you on your computer screen. It is like that, a material physical process to where our thoughts, feelings, emotions, ideas, or images in our heads are all material physical end products, patterns, or behaviors.. This deals with emergence of pattern, and behaviors according to chaos theory, or sublime order from a chaotic abstract system.

What many people don't realize is that we are not aware of the emerging property until it has become the observable end product, or phenomenon we can call pain, emotion, feelings, morality, action, reaction, or behavioral pattern. So we are not aware of which neuron fired first to create a 2D image in our head, nor are we consciously aware of the entire process. We can only be consciously aware of the end result.. Only when we study the human brain do we begin to understand the material physical processes at play, and that can be incredibly complicated.

Quote from: "defendor"

QuoteNature does not act by purposes.

Yes, agree to some degree. Humankind is part of nature, and we don't have an overarching purpose.
In Nature, with regards to living creatures, sometimes the purpose is to get food, or to protect the family. You could say the overall purpose is to survive. Which of course overtime is futile as we all must die.
But, whilst we are here, we try to survive.

Quote from: "Stevil"You could say the overall purpose is to survive...

Survive in order to procreate so the end goal is the survival of the genes.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"If you want to get technical, there are no such things as "facts". We don't know anything to be one-hundred percent true -- there's always a chance that it may be wrong.

Quote from: "Friedrich Nietzsche"There are no facts, only interpretations.

I've seen this Nietzsche quote used by many a creationist as support for teaching both evolution and creationism in schools because "only the heart knows what is true, there is no right or wrong in the the creation of life". Since then, the quote annoys me. It is interesting to see it used a different way.