Happy Atheist Forum

I have an innocent... ;D...question: Do the laws of physics represent order or chaos? (I'm assuming we all agree that if something is not chaotic, then it is orderly).

I think the laws as they are currently understood indicate that out of chaos came order.

I don't think they represent either, what they represent are clearly defined in the law, like the "law" of gravity represents gravity. I have not yet seen any law of order or law of chaos.

I don't understand the question.

"Laws" are our attempt to codify and explain natural phenomena,  so I would say that our "laws" by definition are an attempt to illustrate order.  (Any natural law, not just physics.)  But I'm not sure if that is what you're asking.

Quote from: Whitney on February 13, 2012, 08:35:51 PM
I think the laws as they are currently understood indicate that out of chaos came order.

I'm not even sure I can imagine true chaos, but certainly a chaotic system would remain chaotic. How could order emerge from chaos? I mean lets take a song, and from a billion possible frequencies, we put together notes, beats, timing, chords, that comes from our conscious ability. But the consciousness preceeds the order. Wouldn't we have to say the same for the laws of physics?

Quote from: Ali on February 13, 2012, 08:53:36 PM
I don't understand the question.

"Laws" are our attempt to codify and explain natural phenomena,  so I would say that our "laws" by definition are an attempt to illustrate order.  (Any natural law, not just physics.)  But I'm not sure if that is what you're asking.

I see what you're saying. You're saying that there reall isn't any laws of nature, we just ascribe laws in order to describe what happens in nature. Except you have the entire scientific community that would disagree with you. For instance, gravity seems to behave the same everywhere all the time, that's how the laws are "discovered."

Quote from: Egor on February 13, 2012, 10:30:07 PM

Quote from: Ali on February 13, 2012, 08:53:36 PM
I don't understand the question.

"Laws" are our attempt to codify and explain natural phenomena,  so I would say that our "laws" by definition are an attempt to illustrate order.  (Any natural law, not just physics.)  But I'm not sure if that is what you're asking.

I see what you're saying. You're saying that there reall isn't any laws of nature, we just ascribe laws in order to describe what happens in nature. Except you have the entire scientific community that would disagree with you. For instance, gravity seems to behave the same everywhere all the time, that's how the laws are "discovered."

That's not really what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is by definition, "law" implies order, not chaos.  If it were "chaos" we would not be able to write a law to predict it and explain it.  For example, if sometimes the earth rotates around the sun and randomly sometimes it rotates around the moon, and sometimes randomly it rotates around one of the other planets, and sometimes it just stands still (randomly) and there was no pattern to it, we wouldn't really be able to write a law about it.  Hence, the fact that the laws exist imply that the world is orderly, and not chaotic.  But I don't know if that is actually what you were getting at or asking.

Quote from: Egor on February 13, 2012, 10:27:15 PM

Quote from: Whitney on February 13, 2012, 08:35:51 PM
I think the laws as they are currently understood indicate that out of chaos came order.

I'm not even sure I can imagine true chaos, but certainly a chaotic system would remain chaotic. How could order emerge from chaos? I mean lets take a song, and from a billion possible frequencies, we put together notes, beats, timing, chords, that comes from our conscious ability. But the consciousness preceeds the order. Wouldn't we have to say the same for the laws of physics?

I think the forming of a star system would be a rather good example of order arising from chaos.

This link seems to explain it rather well:
http://novan.com/solar.htm

Edit:

Also, another example might be the birth of our moon. Originally it was a smaller planet, that early in the history of our solar system collided with the early earth, that was not completely solid, and in fact part of the Earths core was merged with the Moon. Eventually the gravitational pull of the two objects balanced somewhat, and what once was a planet became the Moon. But it doesn't stop there. The length of days has been measured to have changed over the history. At one point Earth had a day cycle of about 22 or so hours. That was because the Moon was closer to us then it is today. It is slowly moving away from Earth, and within the next few million years it will have escaped the gravity all together.

Man, if only had the brains to be an astronomer or a cosmologist...

Quote from: Egor on February 13, 2012, 10:27:15 PM
How could order emerge from chaos?

Take a chaotic system where the elements making it up have their own ways of attracting to other objects and eventually you end up with an ordered system.  I think Hawking did an illustration of this in his Into the Universe series http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Into-the-Universe-with-Stephen-Hawking/70211618  If you have Netflix you can watch it.

Quote from: Ali on February 13, 2012, 10:40:20 PM

That's not really what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is by definition, "law" implies order, not chaos.  If it were "chaos" we would not be able to write a law to predict it and explain it.  For example, if sometimes the earth rotates around the sun and randomly sometimes it rotates around the moon, and sometimes randomly it rotates around one of the other planets, and sometimes it just stands still (randomly) and there was no pattern to it, we wouldn't really be able to write a law about it.  Hence, the fact that the laws exist imply that the world is orderly, and not chaotic.  But I don't know if that is actually what you were getting at or asking.

Oh no; that's exactly what I'm getting at.

Quote from: history_geek on February 13, 2012, 11:56:33 PM

I think the forming of a star system would be a rather good example of order arising from chaos.

This link seems to explain it rather well:
http://novan.com/solar.htm

Edit:

Also, another example might be the birth of our moon. Originally it was a smaller planet, that early in the history of our solar system collided with the early earth, that was not completely solid, and in fact part of the Earths core was merged with the Moon. Eventually the gravitational pull of the two objects balanced somewhat, and what once was a planet became the Moon. But it doesn't stop there. The length of days has been measured to have changed over the history. At one point Earth had a day cycle of about 22 or so hours. That was because the Moon was closer to us then it is today. It is slowly moving away from Earth, and within the next few million years it will have escaped the gravity all together.

Man, if only had the brains to be an astronomer or a cosmologist...

Yeah, but I'm wondering how they could possibly know that? See italics. But that's not really important. What is important is that you think the forming of a star system is an example of order emerging from chaos. Let's say that's true. How could it happen? Chaos is chaos; or did it just magically happen?

Quote from: Whitney on February 14, 2012, 12:49:32 AM

Quote from: Egor on February 13, 2012, 10:27:15 PM
How could order emerge from chaos?

Take a chaotic system where the elements making it up have their own ways of attracting to other objects and eventually you end up with an ordered system.  I think Hawking did an illustration of this in his Into the Universe series http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Into-the-Universe-with-Stephen-Hawking/70211618  If you have Netflix you can watch it.

I don't have Netflix. But I think I see what you mean. My only thing is that gravity (or at least the way it acts) is part of the laws of physics. I'll tell you, it's not that chaos bothers me--it's that order or a dynamic that causes order could emerge from chaos.

Take a Jackson Pollock painting, for instance. Is it chaos or order? He said that he denied the accident. He said he was part of nature. Of course he's referring to his consciousness.

I mean, it's got to freak you out a little: The very science you rely on to sanctify yourself from the religious is utterly dependent on order. If chaos is at the root of things. Science has no validity. In other words, science can't study chaos. It can't really even study the cause of order. Wouldn't you agree?

Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

I am not bothered at all by the idea of order from chaos...  If the universe emerged from pure chaos that then became orderly because of how objects tend to attract to each other then that would mean we simply couldn't study how the universe works past a certain point.  Not having knowledge of something doesn't bother me and shouldn't bother anyone...lots of things we can't know now and lots of things we likely can never know.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 05:44:19 AM
he very science you rely on to sanctify yourself from the religious is utterly dependent on order.

I have NEVER claimed that I an somehow sanctified over religious people...any religious person could accept reality just as well as I can without giving up their core belief).  Stop applying blanket ideas to me, and others, just because you believe we all think a certain way.  Stuff like this is why you don't get along well with anyone.

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AM
Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

Yup...been expecting it since the OP. (Or perhaps the first cause argument)

Considering that some of us said it's all ordered and some of us went with chaos I guess we suck at setting the groundwork for the argument....

Fractal nature of Pollock's paintings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXMRN2IZq4)

I posted this a while ago in another thread you may find it interesting. It is from the TV documentary The Code, its worth watching and would highly recommend it to everyone. Here are the links to the episodes if you want to check it out Episode One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD-eUDHArUA), Episode Two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-ZX7KYbYPc), Episode Three (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTtlKly4Gk8).

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 05:36:59 AM

Quote from: history_geek on February 13, 2012, 11:56:33 PM

I think the forming of a star system would be a rather good example of order arising from chaos.

This link seems to explain it rather well:
http://novan.com/solar.htm

Edit:

Also, another example might be the birth of our moon. Originally it was a smaller planet, that early in the history of our solar system collided with the early earth, that was not completely solid, and in fact part of the Earths core was merged with the Moon. Eventually the gravitational pull of the two objects balanced somewhat, and what once was a planet became the Moon. But it doesn't stop there. The length of days has been measured to have changed over the history. At one point Earth had a day cycle of about 22 or so hours. That was because the Moon was closer to us then it is today. It is slowly moving away from Earth, and within the next few million years it will have escaped the gravity all together.

Man, if only had the brains to be an astronomer or a cosmologist...

Yeah, but I'm wondering how they could possibly know that? See italics. But that's not really important. What is important is that you think the forming of a star system is an example of order emerging from chaos. Let's say that's true. How could it happen? Chaos is chaos; or did it just magically happen?

...did you read the article I linked?

QuoteTHE SOLAR SYSTEM EMERGES OUT OF THE CHAOS - Eventually out of all this chaos and turmoil our orderly solar system began to emerge. The Sun had slowly settled down from its tremendous expansions and contractions of earlier times. Most of its matter had fallen back into the Sun, some had been lost and a small percentage had begun oscillating back and forth across the Sun's path.

The sun began to emit a constant amount of radiant energy that did not fluctuate too much. (This made the existence of life on Earth possible). Its solar flares became less energetic. At that time they still occasionally spit out globs of molten matter and gases into space, some of which also became comets and other solar bodies. These prominences still occur today but now they do not have enough velocity to overcome the gravity of the mature Sun.

The matter, hurling out in these present prominences does not have enough energy to escape from the vicinity of the Sun, into space and so, it falls back into the Sun. The solar flares that we observe today are very tame in comparison with the tremendously powerful solar prominences that occurred in the past ages when significant amounts of matter were hurled free of the Sun's vicinity, into possible orbit.

And how could somebody know this? Science and calculations that have been done by some of the most brilliant minds throughout history. They didn't come to these conclusions over night with a scientist going "Heureka, the Earth is a sphere and the other planets circle the sun!" It took centuries and innovations in technology and mathematics before anyone realized that the Earth is not the center of the universe or even our solar system (as one could logically claim on the basis of everyday observation without further knowledge), that the stars are not on a fixed canvass and that their distance is such that to reach them would take millions of years, that the galaxy we inhabit is but one among many, many more and even longer to realize that they are moving!

Also, for the Moon:

QuoteOf the rival theories, the one that many scientists consider the most likely is that the moon is a result of a planetary collision that took place during the early stages of the formation of the solar system.
Birth of The Moon: Where Did It Come From?
By Mr Ghaz, February 20, 2011

The Mystery of Earth's Companion in Space

Image Credit
The six missions to the moon between 1969 and 1972 did much to increase knowledge of its structure and its history. But the origin of the moon remains a mystery.

One theory suggests that the earth and moon were formed close together in space from smaller particles of gas dust that swirled around a young sun. Analysis of lunar rock samples brought back by the Apollo astronauts reveals that, in some cases, they date back more than 4.6 billion years-as old as the earth itself.

Both bodies may have been formed at the same time. But if true, why then are earth and moon rocks of different composition? They contain the same elements and minerals, but in slightly different proportions. And why does the earth have a large molten iron core, while the moon has none at all, or only a very small one?

Descendant of Earth

An alternative supposition is that the moon was originally part of the earth. While in a molten state, the young earth was spinning so fast that it bulged at the equator. The bulge grew larger and larger until the earth was shaped like a dumbbell: eventually part of it broke away to form the moon.

Image Credit

There are some problems with this theory. The earth would have had to be spinning implausibly fast for the moon to attain enough speed to escape the earth's gravity. And, if this had happened, the movements of the earth-moon system would be very different from those we observe today.

More dramatic is the idea that the moon was born in a different part of the solar system but for some reason was deflected into an orbit that brought it close to earth; eventually, it was captured by earth's gravity. This theory would explain the difference in the composition of the rocks. However, astronomers have difficulty explaining how the capture would have happened.

Worlds in Collision

Of the rival theories, the one that many scientists consider the most likely is that the moon is a result of a planetary collision that took place during the early stages of the formation of the solar system.

Known as the giant impact theory, it suggests that a planet the size of Mars collided with the earth. Both the planet and the earth were still in a molten state; each had core of dense rock with a layer of lighter rock on top. At the moment of impact, jets of molten rock were flung into space; in the course of times they coalesced to form the moon. Easily vaporized substances, including water, were driven out of the new moon by the fiery heat of its creation. The core of the colliding planet melted into the core of the earth.

Image Credit
At first, many astronomers resisted the giant impact theory because it depended on a highly improbable event. Some still refuse to accept it. But the advent of supercomputers has made it possible to work out what the composition of the moon should be if such an event had taken place. The facts fit the theory well.

Why are lunar rocks different from those of the earth? Because those on the moon contain a greater proportion of the colliding planet. The theory also explains why there is no water in lunar rock.

Further, the concept may provide a reason for why veins of heavy metals, such as gold and platinum, are found near the earth's surface. Had they been present in the earth from the beginning, they should have sunk deeper. But perhaps these precious metals arrived more recently-in the rogue body that sired the moon.

http://scienceray.com/astronomy/birth-of-the-moon-where-did-it-come-from/#ixzz1mMkva1oU

I seem to have made a small blunder when I didn't mention these other hypothesis...sorry about that :P

In any case, this is where we are, thanks to generations of astronomers, like Copernicus and Galileo (both were religious), who worked with the best and most accurate information available, and made result that have been refined and made more accurate by new generations. With more kickass gadgets ;D

That is how we know anything about anything. Not by taking in what an absolution pushing authority says, but by examining the world around us and following the evidence and data. We don't and never will have absolute answers, but we will have the most accurate and functioning ones possible. And we are getting better at this game with every new generation. :)

PS: sorry guys, rant mode kicked in ;D

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AMHere comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

And a confusion between a scientific law which is based on observations of something happening, with a law that was created to control what is happening.

Quote from: Davin on February 14, 2012, 03:02:22 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AMHere comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

And a confusion between a scientific law which is based on observations of something happening, with a law that was created to control what is happening.

Yep! and that too.

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AM
Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

I don't think so. I just want an answer to one simple question, are the laws of physics (or what they describe) an example of order or are they not.

Now, logically, if they represent order, then the order existed before the universe began—had to have. But I see below that atheists have another logic at hand

Quote from: Whitney on February 14, 2012, 01:41:46 PM
I am not bothered at all by the idea of order from chaos...  If the universe emerged from pure chaos that then became orderly because of how objects tend to attract to each other then that would mean we simply couldn't study how the universe works past a certain point.  Not having knowledge of something doesn't bother me and shouldn't bother anyone...lots of things we can't know now and lots of things we likely can never know.

That's all I wanted to know with this thread. You just admitted you subscribe to magical thinking. You believe order came from chaos, which is absurd. You go on to say that order resulted from the way things attract one another, and are comfortable not knowing how such a thing could ever come to be.

I think that's an honest atheistic opinion. And honestly, I don't have much more to discuss here. As far as I'm concerned the OP has been answered. I mean, no one has disagreed with you.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 05:44:19 AM
I have NEVER claimed that I an somehow sanctified over religious people...any religious person could accept reality just as well as I can without giving up their core belief).  Stop applying blanket ideas to me, and others, just because you believe we all think a certain way.  Stuff like this is why you don't get along well with anyone.

Sanctified means set apart—with a religious connotation. And what's with this weak "and others" comment as if you need support from your friends to confront me? And if you haven't guessed it yet, my mission in life is not to "get along well with others."

Quote from: Whitney on February 14, 2012, 01:43:56 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AM
Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

Yup...been expecting it since the OP. (Or perhaps the first cause argument)

Considering that some of us said it's all ordered and some of us went with chaos I guess we suck at setting the groundwork for the argument....

No, you all did very well at setting up the argument. Thanks.

See ya 'round.

lol

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 05:23:46 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AM
Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

I don't think so. I just want an answer to one simple question, are the laws of physics (or what they describe) an example of order or are they not.

Now, logically, if they represent order, then the order existed before the universe began—had to have. But I see below that atheists have another logic at hand

Quote from: Whitney on February 14, 2012, 01:41:46 PM
I am not bothered at all by the idea of order from chaos...  If the universe emerged from pure chaos that then became orderly because of how objects tend to attract to each other then that would mean we simply couldn't study how the universe works past a certain point.  Not having knowledge of something doesn't bother me and shouldn't bother anyone...lots of things we can't know now and lots of things we likely can never know.

That's all I wanted to know with this thread. You just admitted you subscribe to magical thinking. You believe order came from chaos, which is absurd. You go on to say that order resulted from the way things attract one another, and are comfortable not knowing how such a thing could ever come to be.

I think that's an honest atheistic opinion. And honestly, I don't have much more to discuss here. As far as I'm concerned the OP has been answered. I mean, no one has disagreed with you.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 05:44:19 AM
I have NEVER claimed that I an somehow sanctified over religious people...any religious person could accept reality just as well as I can without giving up their core belief).  Stop applying blanket ideas to me, and others, just because you believe we all think a certain way.  Stuff like this is why you don't get along well with anyone.

Sanctified means set apart—with a religious connotation. And what's with this weak "and others" comment as if you need support from your friends to confront me? And if you haven't guessed it yet, my mission in life is not to "get along well with others."

Quote from: Whitney on February 14, 2012, 01:43:56 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AM
Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

Yup...been expecting it since the OP. (Or perhaps the first cause argument)

Considering that some of us said it's all ordered and some of us went with chaos I guess we suck at setting the groundwork for the argument....

No, you all did very well at setting up the argument. Thanks.

See ya 'round.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.ning.com%2Ffiles%2F8fP-yfvv-HULwYXx5wjfP2K-dDsb5uBthzGrHYTdmLrZW9k6GG2HwGVk6TFB1K0BV3L4siZSFFYFkm55G1JYX5C6FguMKTlH%2Ffacepalm4cr.jpg%3Fwidth%3D500%26amp%3Bheight%3D432&hash=ee9832aa290bcdd6756ed23c97da29743c654b8f)

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 05:23:46 PM
You believe order came from chaos, which is absurd.

It's only absurd if you don't understand the theory on how it would work....

For anyone that actually cares about learning, I think this is the you tube copy of the netflix link I posted earlier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg  if the clip i was describing is not in that episode then check for other parts of the curiosity series on you tube.

At least the chaos in my apartment is intelligently designed (lol)

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 05:23:46 PM
You believe order came from chaos, which is absurd.

I take it your understanding of the quantum physics is less than basic then?

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 05:23:46 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AM
Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

I don't think so. I just want an answer to one simple question, are the laws of physics (or what they describe) an example of order or are they not.

Now, logically, if they represent order, then the order existed before the universe began—had to have. But I see below that atheists have another logic at hand

Rubbish. You now presume to know the state of the universe before it existed. Why don't you go to a astrophysics forum and ask the question there. Get the answer then come back here and post a link to the discussion.

Said what I had to say, selectively heard what I wanted to hear an now I'm going to cover my ears and go ner ner ner really loud.

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 07:26:10 PM

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 05:23:46 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AM
Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

I don't think so. I just want an answer to one simple question, are the laws of physics (or what they describe) an example of order or are they not.

Now, logically, if they represent order, then the order existed before the universe began—had to have. But I see below that atheists have another logic at hand

Rubbish. You now presume to know the state of the universe before it existed. Why don't you go to a astrophysics forum and ask the question there. Get the answer then come back here and post a link to the discussion.

In fairness, I'd be willing to believe that the natural laws "existed" before there was a universe for them to be applied to.  Not that there is some cosmic being that set the rules and then set up the universe to follow those rules (which I imagine is what Egor thinks) but that the law of gravity (for example) is always true, and was always whether there is anything there to experience gravity or not.  I guess my difference is that I don't think that the universe was ever truly "chaotic" if by "chaotic" you mean that it was not subject to natural laws (although we, as humans, may not know or fully understand all of the laws at play.).  Let's take the Big Bang for a moment.  I assume that there is some natural law that says when matter is compressed into a small enough space, eventually it's going to explode.  Happened.  From there, it's easy enough to understand the rest of the formation of the universe using natual laws.  I went to the Science museum with my 3 year old year old on Sunday, and we spent a good deal of time watching computer simulations of stars forming, and galaxies forming, and what not.  It's definitely not chaotic, again, if you take chaotic to mean that it doesn't follow natural laws.  So there never really was a chaotic which is why the argument about chaos to order is invalid.  No magical thinking needed.  And by the way, how hysterical that a theist is accusing other people of "magical thinking."  *Snerk*

The part of the formation that I was referring to as being chaotic was the state things were in just before they all started to attract to each other due to the natural attractions of how various chemicals bond and then gravitational pulls.  Even though the big bang wasn't an "explosion" as commonly thought; everything was spread out quite randomly before it began to organize.  The part of the video I was trying to refer to (I guess I'll have to watch the series again to find it because I think I linked to the wrong part; listened do it while working and didn't hear the part come up; though I could have been not paying enough attention) illustrates that if the universe had started out orderly (like if everything were evenly spaced on a grid) that nothing could have formed as it takes a few irregularities in order for the attractive forces to effect change; otherwise they remain in a neutral state as everything is pulling on each other in the same way.

Or am I wrong in using the word chaos to mean not orderly?

Then you get down to the quantum level where it gets weird and implies a certain degree of chaos:  http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html  http://www.whatismetaphysics.com/basicsofquantumphysics.html

Whitney, I don't think you're wrong in your use of the word "chaos" I just think that Egor is using it in a different way.  I believe he is trying to show that everything was "random" (for lack of a better word) so it had to become orderly through god's will.  My argument is that everything has always been subject to natural laws (whether we understand those laws or not), so there never was that kind of random where divine intervention would have been necessary to create order.  Natural law always applied.

This one? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHfY-Y8lb8)

Quote from: Davin on February 14, 2012, 09:46:03 PM
This one? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHfY-Y8lb8)

YES!

Thanks.

Very interesting clip.

On the other hand, way for Egor to come in for a hit and run strike, and my hat off to his usual tremendous capacity for missing the mark!  8)

Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection. What the narrator is calling "cosmic luck" doesn't even make sense. He removes matter in order to cause the clumping of the universe without any explanation of how the matter would ever get removed in the first place. It was there. It came from the big bang; it expands into nothingness. The matter is going to be evenly dispersed and it's going to stay that way.

To say "luck" and "imperfection" is silly. Those just become synonyms for "design."

This is why I've never liked Stephen Hawking. He speculates; he popularizes; and he has that Yoda thing going on with the computer that speaks for him. Which means he might not be thinking those words at all. For all we know he's a mere puppet that others use to voice their opinion through a wannabe Einstein.  I don't think he's all that brilliant. I think it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and popular reading books. Those seem to be in place of what older-school scientists did with patens.

And this theory, I'm sorry, but it's as ridiculous as this Christian video I watched that showed how the basic protein of all cell walls comes out looking like a cross- and that was supposed to be evidence that Christianity is the real religion. I swear, I was working in ICU and a bunch of the nurses were all goo-goo over it (I live in a very Christian area of the U.S.).

Well this video is exactly the same thing, but for atheists. It's magical thinking. It doesn't pass basic logic, and even though the narrator states it as a fact, it is a theory that doesn't really work out. But that won't stop a lot of people believing it. Oh, and of course, when atheists are screaming for PROOF. Verifiable evidence for God's existence. Peer-reviewed papers on the efficacy of prayer. They will ignore the fact that this theory cannot be disproved, and there is no experiment to show it ever happened in the early universe. It is atheistic faith.

And let's not forget the theory starts with gravity, this magical ability for mass to attract itself together over distance. No explanation given for that.

Look. I think the guy is probably correct in how matter clumped together in the early universe, but it didn't happen by luck or imperfection, and gravity really isn't magical. It happened by design and design in this case implies a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness, which is the Veridican definition of God.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.diylol.com%2Fhfs%2Fe06%2Fa73%2F679%2Fresized%2Fbusiness-cat-meme-generator-alright-let-s-just-paws-and-think-about-this-e0e171.jpg&hash=9be60b4f3065fd08cbe60a1bfa120c446c4b216c)

Egor, for the record, when do you believe that nature and it's assorted laws took over?  Sometime between the Big Bang and now, presumably.

I'll assume you are referring to the most recent video link which we confirmed was the one I was trying to post from the beginning.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PMHe removes matter in order to cause the clumping of the universe without any explanation of how the matter would ever get removed in the first place. It was there. It came from the big bang; it expands into nothingness. The matter is going to be evenly dispersed and it's going to stay that way.

He explained it.  He was illustrating how the universe would have never changed past the state of it just being a bunch of particles spread out all over the place if there hadn't been an element of disorder.  He showed us that an well organized perfect system could never naturally change.  Then to continue the illustration the removed just a few of the balls to show only just a few imperfections then allowed for attractive forces to take over and the balls reorganize into new shapes...or in the case of the universe, stars.  His illustration was not intended to imply that something removed matter, he was saying that it was not organized perfectly.

Quote
To say "luck" and "imperfection" is silly. Those just become synonyms for "design."

He was saying that is was "luck" that imperfection existed....and that's only luck for us.  If imperfection had not existed we wouldn't be around to talk about it.   No need to bring in the idea of design unless you are just trying to shoehorn it....which we all know you are trying to do so, whatever.

QuoteThis is why I've never liked Stephen Hawking. He speculates; he popularizes; and he has that Yoda thing going on with the computer that speaks for him. Which means he might not be thinking those words at all. For all we know he's a mere puppet that others use to voice their opinion through a wannabe Einstein.  I don't think he's all that brilliant. I think it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and popular reading books. Those seem to be in place of what older-school scientists did with patens.

Or you just aren't able to follow him.  You know he does actually support these ideas with math if you look into it further.

Quote
And let's not forget the theory starts with gravity, this magical ability for mass to attract itself together over distance. No explanation given for that.

Are you denying that gravity exists?

Quote
Look. I think the guy is probably correct in how matter clumped together in the early universe, but it didn't happen by luck or imperfection, and gravity really isn't magical. .

No one is claiming it is magical.  

QuoteIt happened by design and design in this case implies a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness, which is the Veridican definition of God.

this is what you call god of gaps...and especially horrible case of it since no only are you shoving in a deity into the gap but automatically jumping to the conlusion that it's God with a capital G.

I see that Whitney has made an excellent reply while I took too long to write my own, so I'm going to be repeating at least some of what she said. Oh well. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

So, you have evidence that the early universe "wouldn't have imperfection"? Surely you must, otherwise you're merely making a bald assertion here. Cosmologists aren't just talking out of their asses. These people have devoted their lives to trying to understand their subject, and they have evidence which supports what they say. On the other hand, they are completely up front about the things that they really don't understand.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
What the narrator is calling "cosmic luck" doesn't even make sense.

The video is a popularization; when Hawking talks about luck, he's describing the fact that it's extremely unlikely (essentially impossible) that the initial distribution of matter was perfectly uniform. This goes back to the nature of chaotic systems. What you apparently don't understand is that chaos ≠ randomness. All through this thread you've displayed a profound ignorance of the topic of chaos, and how it relates to modern science. Your critique has no credibility at all because of this.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
He removes matter in order to cause the clumping of the universe without any explanation of how the matter would ever get removed in the first place. It was there. It came from the big bang; it expands into nothingness. The matter is going to be evenly dispersed and it's going to stay that way.

Again with the assertions; where did you learn about cosmology, Egor? All of the evidence that we have from the early universe points to imperfection in the distribution of matter. The ball bearing illustration is not meant to be taken literally, Egor, and I have trouble believing you're stupid enough to think otherwise. Matter was not removed in the way that the ball bearings were removed. Rather, it was never distributed uniformly in the first place.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
To say "luck" and "imperfection" is silly. Those just become synonyms for "design."

Your fanatical devotion to your mythology is showing here. That's fine, you're welcome to believe whatever drivel you like, and I'm sure you don't expect to be taken seriously when you say things like this.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
This is why I've never liked Stephen Hawking. He speculates; he popularizes; and he has that Yoda thing going on with the computer that speaks for him. Which means he might not be thinking those words at all. For all we know he's a mere puppet that others use to voice their opinion through a wannabe Einstein.  I don't think he's all that brilliant. I think it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and popular reading books. Those seem to be in place of what older-school scientists did with patens.

And this theory, I'm sorry, but it's as ridiculous as this Christian video I watched that showed how the basic protein of all cell walls comes out looking like a cross- and that was supposed to be evidence that Christianity is the real religion. I swear, I was working in ICU and a bunch of the nurses were all goo-goo over it (I live in a very Christian area of the U.S.).

Well this video is exactly the same thing, but for atheists. It's magical thinking. It doesn't pass basic logic, and even though the narrator states it as a fact, it is a theory that doesn't really work out. But that won't stop a lot of people believing it. Oh, and of course, when atheists are screaming for PROOF. Verifiable evidence for God's existence. Peer-reviewed papers on the efficacy of prayer. They will ignore the fact that this theory cannot be disproved, and there is no experiment to show it ever happened in the early universe. It is atheistic faith.

An attempt at "nuclear fire," Egor?  This is just silliness, but then again I really don't expect better from you. Modern cosmology is based on observations; these observations are verifiable evidence. If the ideas of cosmologists are not supported by what is observed, they are revised.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
And let's not forget the theory starts with gravity, this magical ability for mass to attract itself together over distance. No explanation given for that.

Look. I think the guy is probably correct in how matter clumped together in the early universe, but it didn't happen by luck or imperfection, and gravity really isn't magical. It happened by design and design in this case implies a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness, which is the Veridican definition of God.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2)  Nice reference to Bill O'Reilly there. Keep 'em coming, Egor.

Quote from: Recusant on February 15, 2012, 02:50:23 AM
Nice reference to Bill O'Reilly there. Keep 'em coming, Egor.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic02.mediaite.com%2Fgeekosystem%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Fscience-is-desperate.jpeg&hash=91a7e76bdc240dad19572a69e1dfa16d5c4605fc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5Xn9X6xtU&feature=player_embedded

Quote from: Recusant on February 15, 2012, 02:50:23 AM

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
He removes matter in order to cause the clumping of the universe without any explanation of how the matter would ever get removed in the first place. It was there. It came from the big bang; it expands into nothingness. The matter is going to be evenly dispersed and it's going to stay that way.

Again with the assertions; where did you learn about cosmology, Egor? All of the evidence that we have from the early universe points to imperfection in the distribution of matter. The ball bearing illustration is not meant to be taken literally, Egor, and I have trouble believing you're stupid enough to think otherwise. Matter was not removed in the way that the ball bearings were removed. Rather, it was never distributed uniformly in the first place.

If you would like a better metaphor then the ball bearing analogy, concider a stick of dynamite in a pile of gravel and sand. When detonated, would you expect the sand and gravel to fly out from the point of detonation and disperse itself uniformly with perfect symetry down to the last nanometer?

Of course not. It would disperse with a certail level of ramdomness, as we all well expect that it should. And it is this level of expected ramdomness that allows gravity to take the sort of effect that we would predict it to have based on gravitational theory. And gravity is not something magical thinking, as you of all people state (sweet,sweet irony), since it is something that we can actually measure and confirm the existence of.

Quote from: Recusant on February 15, 2012, 02:50:23 AM
So, you have evidence that the early universe "wouldn't have imperfection"? Surely you must, otherwise you're merely making a bald assertion here. Cosmologists aren't just talking out of their asses. These people have devoted their lives to trying to understand their subject, and they have evidence which supports what they say. On the other hand, they are completely up front about the things that they really don't understand.

What on earth are you talking about? They can't have any evidence to support what is purported in that video. That would be impossible. Second, do you care at all about logic? Think about the expansion of a singularity into nothingness. It necessarily must distribute uniformly and that uniform distribution could never be disturbed naturally. Just think about it.

Quote
The video is a popularization; when Hawking talks about luck, he's describing the fact that it's extremely unlikely (essentially impossible) that the initial distribution of matter was perfectly uniform. This goes back to the nature of chaotic systems. What you apparently don't understand is that chaos ≠ randomness. All through this thread you've displayed a profound ignorance of the topic of chaos, and how it relates to modern science. Your critique has no credibility at all because of this.

Excuse me, but maybe you can school me on this: how is it that chaos does not equal randomness? Or are you just changing the definition of chaos now?

Quote
Again with the assertions; where did you learn about cosmology, Egor?

From the video you all think is so fantastic.

QuoteAll of the evidence that we have from the early universe points to imperfection in the distribution of matter. The ball bearing illustration is not meant to be taken literally, Egor, and I have trouble believing you're stupid enough to think otherwise. Matter was not removed in the way that the ball bearings were removed. Rather, it was never distributed uniformly in the first place.

You assume that because there are clumps of matter, but you aren't thinking logically about how that would be impossible given a singularity expanding into nothingness. Unless there was some design to it.

QuoteYour fanatical devotion to your mythology is showing here. That's fine, you're welcome to believe whatever drivel you like, and I'm sure you don't expect to be taken seriously when you say things like this.

I think we need a ref. Cuz it looks like 1 point theist.

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 15, 2012, 07:03:09 AM
If you would like a better metaphor then the ball bearing analogy, concider a stick of dynamite in a pile of gravel and sand. When detonated, would you expect the sand and gravel to fly out from the point of detonation and disperse itself uniformly with perfect symetry down to the last nanometer?

Of course not. It would disperse with a certail level of ramdomness, as we all well expect that it should. And it is this level of expected ramdomness that allows gravity to take the sort of effect that we would predict it to have based on gravitational theory. And gravity is not something magical thinking, as you of all people state (sweet,sweet irony), since it is something that we can actually measure and confirm the existence of.

Where do I start? You're comparing apples and oranges. The dispersment of gravel would be in utter accordance with the laws of physics on a macro level. Completely predictable if enough effort were applied. We're talking about the expansion of pure energy into nothingness--which is barely even conceivable. As for gravity, since it is measurable and exists, why are you still an atheist?

Quote from: Ali on February 15, 2012, 01:27:01 AM
Egor, for the record, when do you believe that nature and it's assorted laws took over?  Sometime between the Big Bang and now, presumably.

How nature was going to evolve from the expansion of the singularity, had to have been in place prior to the Big Bang. I think this is what is at the heart of the teleological argument.

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 07:18:35 AM

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 15, 2012, 07:03:09 AM
If you would like a better metaphor then the ball bearing analogy, concider a stick of dynamite in a pile of gravel and sand. When detonated, would you expect the sand and gravel to fly out from the point of detonation and disperse itself uniformly with perfect symetry down to the last nanometer?

Of course not. It would disperse with a certail level of ramdomness, as we all well expect that it should. And it is this level of expected ramdomness that allows gravity to take the sort of effect that we would predict it to have based on gravitational theory. And gravity is not something magical thinking, as you of all people state (sweet,sweet irony), since it is something that we can actually measure and confirm the existence of.

Where do I start? You're comparing apples and oranges. The dispersment of gravel would be in utter accordance with the laws of physics on a macro level. Completely predictable if enough effort were applied. We're talking about the expansion of pure energy into nothingness--which is barely even conceivable. As for gravity, since it is measurable and exists, why are you still an atheist?

The spreading of debris from an energetic detonation will follow the rules of ballistics, no matter which scale you are operating on.
The expasion of matter from the big bang is also in accordance with the laws of physics and would also be quite predictable if we had the tremendous quantity of data and calculatory capacity to work it out. As it stands, a supercomputer would have to work around the clock for the duration of all our lifetimes combined to make those calculations. The fact that you cannot concieve of it, does not mean it can not be so. That is called an argument from ignorance.

And when did the physical force of gravity become a deiety? The very fact that it is mesurable places it outside the realm of faith.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

Another bald assertion. Failure at this point.

Quantum theory posites imperfection. The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals this imperfection. If there were no imperfection then there would be no structure in the universe.

Quote from: Egor on February 13, 2012, 08:24:10 PM
I have an innocent... ;D...question: Do the laws of physics represent order or chaos? (I'm assuming we all agree that if something is not chaotic, then it is orderly).

The laws of physics represent ou understanding of the universe and its workings.

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 07:12:47 AMWhat on earth are you talking about? They can't have any evidence to support what is purported in that video. That would be impossible. Second, do you care at all about logic? Think about the expansion of a singularity into nothingness. It necessarily must distribute uniformly and that uniform distribution could never be disturbed naturally. Just think about it.

I guess when you say later in your post that you learned about cosmology from the short video which seems to have become the focus of discussion in this thread, you weren't kidding. Again, I have trouble believing that a person who seems intelligent and inquisitive about science is as ignorant regarding these topics as you present yourself as being, but I'll play along for now.

There is a phenomenon known as "cosmic background radiation" (also known as cosmic microwave background, or CMB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation)) which was discovered by two scientists at Bell Labs in 1965 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/penwil.html). They received the Nobel Prize, because their discovery opened up a window into the early universe. There have been satellite studies done which have given us an idea of the variations in temperature of the cosmic microwave background. The data gathered by the satellites shows that the CMB is not uniform, which is evidence that distribution of matter in the early universe was not uniform.

QuoteFrom nasa.gov Universe 101 | "Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background" (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html):

These cosmic microwave temperature fluctuations are believed to trace fluctuations in the density of matter in the early universe, as they were imprinted shortly after the Big Bang. This being the case, they reveal a great deal about the early universe and the origin of galaxies and large scale structure (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/rel_firstobjs.html) in the universe.

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 07:12:47 AMExcuse me, but maybe you can school me on this: how is it that chaos does not equal randomness? Or are you just changing the definition of chaos now?

QuoteFrom Santa Fe Institute | "What is Chaos?" (http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~gmk/MFGB/node2.html#chaos):

There is frequent confusion between chaos and randomness. There are some similarities in the nature of chaotic and random systems, but there are also some fundamental differences. Some of them are listed in fig. 2:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg585.imageshack.us%2Fimg585%2F5441%2Fchaos.gif&hash=8bd4f03f8e93640518ced7d548197752051fdf4d)

Fig. 2: Discrimination table between Order, Chaos, and Randomness. Planets used to be representations of a divine order. Chaotic signals can show spectra in the full range from pure tones to very noisy. The dimension of a dynamical system indicates the number of independent variables. An attractor determines the geometrical structure, towards which a system will evolve.

I think that you're trying on some ham-handed version of the Socratic method, Egor. Instead of asking us to believe that you're as abysmally ignorant of modern cosmology and chaos theory as your questions imply, why not come right out and state the issues you have with them?

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 07:12:47 AM

Quote from: Recusant on February 15, 2012, 02:50:23 AMAgain with the assertions; where did you learn about cosmology, Egor?

From the video you all think is so fantastic.

Since I refer to this exchange earlier in this post, I thought I should include it.

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 07:12:47 AM

Quote from: Recusant on February 15, 2012, 02:50:23 AMAll of the evidence that we have from the early universe points to imperfection in the distribution of matter. The ball bearing illustration is not meant to be taken literally, Egor, and I have trouble believing you're stupid enough to think otherwise. Matter was not removed in the way that the ball bearings were removed. Rather, it was never distributed uniformly in the first place.

You assume that because there are clumps of matter, but you aren't thinking logically about how that would be impossible given a singularity expanding into nothingness. Unless there was some design to it.

You have not shown why it would be impossible, Egor. I invite you to proceed to do so at your earliest convenience.

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 07:12:47 AMI think we need a ref. Cuz it looks like 1 point theist.

I couldn't help imagining the sound of smug cackling when I read that. If it helps you to stroke your ego by keeping an imaginary score, Egor, have at it.

Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 08:55:29 AM

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

Another bald assertion. Failure at this point.

Quantum theory posites imperfection. The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals this imperfection. If there were no imperfection then there would be no structure in the universe.

You could almost say its "beautifully imperfect".

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
Look. I think the guy is probably correct in how matter clumped together in the early universe, but it didn't happen by luck or imperfection, and gravity really isn't magical. It happened by design and design in this case implies a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness, which is the Veridican definition of God.

I'd never heard of the word 'Veridican' before, so I googled it, and oh dear, it's a word Egor made up to describe his new religion (http://www.veridican.com/about.html) based on Christianity.

Apparently the New Testament is just 'a necessary forerunner' of Egor's Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a 'revision and correction' of the biblical gospels as they lacked 'the Divine inspiration afforded its [VGJC's] authorship.'

Honestly Egor, do you seriously believe that the creator of the universe has singled you out to create a new religion (even if it is based on one already a few thousand years old). The question I am dying to ask is how many 'Veridicans' are there in the world? I get the feeling the answer is probably 'one'...

I have seen references to this new consept of his, and have tried to work out the etymology of the word "Veridician".
"Veri-" Latin Veritas=truth.
"-dican" unknown.

What the hell is it supposed to mean?

I'm pretty curious about this "truth unknown" religion as well.

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 15, 2012, 02:51:38 PM
I hsve seen references to this new consept of his, and have tried to work out the etymology of the word "Veridician".
"Veri-" Latin Veritas=truth.
"-dican" unknown.

What the hell is it supposed to mean?

Rather amusingly, Egor's named his new religion after the English word veridical (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/veridical)

I love it when Christians describe modern cosmology as 'ridiculous' or 'magical thinking', because the idea that the universe was created by a 3000 year old minor western Semitic deity makes much more sense (http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/creation/00_gn01_01-02.html)  ::)

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PMOkay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 07:12:47 AMWhat on earth are you talking about? They can't have any evidence to support what is purported in that video. That would be impossible.

In spite of the glaring contradiction in your thinking, Egor (where you make a knowledge claim, then claim that it would be impossible to have such knowledge), there is actually evidence and theory to support what Stephen Hawking explained. If you listened to the explanation. Also remember that the explanation is a demonstration, not the actual concept, to dispute the actual concept, you're going to have to learn the concept in greater detail.

So which is it, Egor? Is it impossible to have such knowledge, or do you drop your knowledge claim that the expanding early universe wouldn't have imperfection?

Quote from: Crow on February 15, 2012, 12:50:51 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 08:55:29 AM

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

Another bald assertion. Failure at this point.

Quantum theory posites imperfection. The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals this imperfection. If there were no imperfection then there would be no structure in the universe.

You could almost say its "beautifully imperfect".

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg710.imageshack.us%2Fimg710%2F9922%2Frimshot.gif&hash=77d5ac078a921ed7ff6be629eed7a4f2ac98bb10)

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 15, 2012, 03:18:04 PM

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 15, 2012, 02:51:38 PM
I hsve seen references to this new consept of his, and have tried to work out the etymology of the word "Veridician".
"Veri-" Latin Veritas=truth.
"-dican" unknown.

What the hell is it supposed to mean?

Rather amusingly, Egor's named his new religion after the English word veridical (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/veridical)

Right, so that's wat it means.  ::)

Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 08:55:29 AM

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

Another bald assertion. Failure at this point.

Quantum theory posites imperfection. The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals this imperfection. If there were no imperfection then there would be no structure in the universe.

That's the point, Tank.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 15, 2012, 02:00:23 PM

Honestly Egor, do you seriously believe that the creator of the universe has singled you out to create a new religion (even if it is based on one already a few thousand years old).

Yes I do. In fact, I'm certain of it.

QuoteThe question I am dying to ask is how many 'Veridicans' are there in the world? I get the feeling the answer is probably 'one'...

Well, let me ask you this, how many Christians and Muslims are there in the world?

Now, the question I'm dying to ask is this: Do you think they're right?

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 15, 2012, 03:18:04 PM

Rather amusingly, Egor's named his new religion after the English word veridical (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/veridical)

I love it when Christians describe modern cosmology as 'ridiculous' or 'magical thinking', because the idea that the universe was created by a 3000 year old minor western Semitic deity makes much more sense (http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/creation/00_gn01_01-02.html)  ::)

Veridical = true
-an = a suffix meaning a follower
-ism = a suffix meaning a doctrine

Veridicanism= The doctrine of those who follow that which is true

Quote from: Davin on February 15, 2012, 03:24:29 PM

So which is it, Egor? Is it impossible to have such knowledge, or do you drop your knowledge claim that the expanding early universe wouldn't have imperfection?

So, now the video isn't accurate? But you all held it up as evidence.

Besides the burden is on you. The last I knew, in Cosmology, one of the greatest mysteries was how the matter in the universe clumped together following the Big Bang. No one really knew.
Along comes a theory that says, "Hey! Nothing in the universe is perfect!" Oh great, problem solved. But that really doesn't solve anything does it? Of course, nothing in the universe is perfect now. But we're talking about the expansion of the singularity into nothingness. If parts go missing to allow gravitational effects to unbalance, then those missing parts have to be explained. And that puts us right back to the heart of the teleological argument. In other words, Stephen Hawking's theory for the atheistic masses or not, nothing has been achieved. No new knowledge is gained.

And again, we haven't even talked about gravity. Because at the start of all this was the fact that matter attracts itself based on its massiveness over distance.

What we know is that in the beginning there was gravity. In fact, before the beginning there had to be the idea of gravity and it had to be set in place. Then even before there was a singularity, there had to be the idea of mass and matter and the characteristics it would have. And even before the Big Bang, there had to be an expansion rate set in stone, and of course, there had to be missing matter and the way in which that would go missing had to have been in place before the Big Bang.

All of this makes it more rational to suppose a being that conforms to the Veridican definition of God:
The monistic entity of fundamental consciousness

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I, for one, welcome our new veridican overload and merely ask that in his infinite wisdom grants mercy upon myself and my fellow heathens.

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 06:02:22 PM

QuoteThe question I am dying to ask is how many 'Veridicans' are there in the world? I get the feeling the answer is probably 'one'...

Well, let me ask you this, how many Christians and Muslims are there in the world?

Now, the question I'm dying to ask is this: Do you think they're right?

In the UK, we call that a politician's answer! I'll take it that the answer probably is in the singular

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 06:19:49 PM
If parts go missing to allow gravitational effects to unbalance, then those missing parts have to be explained.

Nothing went missing...you are just taking the illustration of the explanation too literally.   

I hope you aren't actually imagining everything was no a grid either....

Egor you are fucking mental.

-I know that breaks the civility rules but it just has to be said.

Folks, I think we have found another follower of the "Win by default"-doctrine. Because as soon as you disagree with him or try to argue with his "absolutely true holy visage of truth", you lose.

Oh well. I just wonder if he got that from shockofgod's book or did he he come up with it all on his own....

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 06:19:49 PM

Quote from: Davin on February 15, 2012, 03:24:29 PM

So which is it, Egor? Is it impossible to have such knowledge, or do you drop your knowledge claim that the expanding early universe wouldn't have imperfection?

[Bunch of unrelated stuff that had nothing to do with what I said.]

You claimed that it is impossible to have knowledge of the beginning of the universe and also made a claim of knowledge about the beginning of the universe. Until you can show that your reasoning is not contradictory, I don't see how it would be possible to have a rational discussion. So please resolve your contradictory statements before we try to move onto to other things.

So which is it, Egor? Is it impossible to have such knowledge, or do you drop your knowledge claim that the expanding early universe wouldn't have imperfection?

This discussion is pointless due to two points:

Primus: Our friend Egor's inability to realize that the metaphore of the ball bearings was a metaphore, not a reenactment and his blanket dismissal of all other arguments.

Secundum: Egors prozeletizing of his DIY christian sect.


Egor, if you have special knowledge of the physics of the Big Bang that contradicts modern physics in everything from quantum mechanics, to cosmology, to ballistics please present your evidence. No more blanket statements.
If you are able to convince even one of us, I will nominate you for a Nobel Prize in physics.

And congratulation on your DIY religion. What title have you taken for yourself? I mean, can't be a religious (cult) leader without a swanky title.

Not going to waste time here, other than to suggest Egor read "The Elegant Universe". I think it might blow his mind. Which is satisfying in so many ways . . .

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 15, 2012, 07:41:40 PM
This discussion is pointless

I think we all knew it would be pointless from the first post and we're basically just responding for any passer by who is honestly wanting to know.  ;)

Quote from: Whitney on February 15, 2012, 08:33:35 PM

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 15, 2012, 07:41:40 PM
This discussion is pointless

I think we all knew it would be pointless from the first post and we're basically just responding for any passer by who is honestly wanting to know.  ;)

Yeah. I only pointed it out for the record. 8)

Does any one else thinks it's funny that Egor describes his religion as "The doctrine of those who follow that which is true?"  Forgetting for a moment the debatable "truth" behind religion, it just such an...I don't know....vague and weird way to describe it.  Doesn't every religion believe that it is "the doctrine of those who follow that which is true?" 

Quote from: Ali on February 15, 2012, 09:02:35 PM
Does any one else thinks it's funny that Egor describes his religion as "The doctrine of those who follow that which is true?"  Forgetting for a moment the debatable "truth" behind religion, it just such an...I don't know....vague and weird way to describe it.  Doesn't every religion believe that it is "the doctrine of those who follow that which is true?" 

I find it to pathetic to be funny, but I'll grant you that there is some irony.

What I'd really like though is a better explanation of whay Egor means by a singularity expanding into nothingness. Where does that come from?

Quote from: Ali on February 15, 2012, 09:02:35 PM
Does any one else thinks it's funny that Egor describes his religion as "The doctrine of those who follow that which is true?"  Forgetting for a moment the debatable "truth" behind religion, it just such an...I don't know....vague and weird way to describe it.  Doesn't every religion believe that it is "the doctrine of those who follow that which is true?" 

Buddhism may not fall into the general 'I know it all' group, but I can't think of any others that don't.

Quote from: Ali on February 15, 2012, 09:02:35 PM
Does any one else thinks it's funny that Egor describes his religion as "The doctrine of those who follow that which is true?"  Forgetting for a moment the debatable "truth" behind religion, it just such an...I don't know....vague and weird way to describe it.  Doesn't every religion believe that it is "the doctrine of those who follow that which is true?" 

Uh, yeah . . .

I'm always confused by people who try to justify religion through science. The point almost always comes back to either "You can't disprove it, so it's true" or "You don't know every detail about how the universe came about, so your point-of-view is silly. Magic is the answer." Which are obvious logical fallacies; the more we come to know about the origins of the universe and how it works, the more religious beliefs are convoluted and struggle to live within the margins of science. Honestly, if you decide to believe something on faith, just say so.

Reprobate: Egor is referring to The Big Bang, and the expansion of the universe. Everything flying apart very quickly, away from everything else, to create a lot more 'nothingness'.

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 15, 2012, 09:18:28 PM

Quote from: Ali on February 15, 2012, 09:02:35 PM
Does any one else thinks it's funny that Egor describes his religion as "The doctrine of those who follow that which is true?"  Forgetting for a moment the debatable "truth" behind religion, it just such an...I don't know....vague and weird way to describe it.  Doesn't every religion believe that it is "the doctrine of those who follow that which is true?" 

Uh, yeah . . .

I'm always confused by people who try to justify religion through science. The point almost always comes back to either "You can't disprove it, so it's true" or "You don't know every detail about how the universe came about, so your point-of-view is silly. Magic is the answer." Which are obvious logical fallacies; the more we come to know about the origins of the universe and how it works, the more religious beliefs are convoluted and struggle to live within the margins of science. Honestly, if you decide to believe something on faith, just say so.

Reprobate: Egor is referring to The Big Bang, and the expansion of the universe. Everything flying apart very quickly, away from everything else, to create a lot more 'nothingness'.

I like to point out to those people that you cannot prove that sasquatches don't exist either, and there's a lot more evidence favoring their existence than there is for god.

Please note that Egor (aka Edward the Theist) has a stated aim to Troll atheist forums and provoke atheists into abusing him, which he considers a victory, as we don't play those sort of manipulation games here Egor has not achieved his aim of being banned. It should also be considered that responding to Egor's posts is more about demonstrating how flawed his arguments are than 'winning' any debate. As Egor considers himself not only the rule maker but the referee as well he can never lose in his own mind. But other people read this forum as lurkers so if you are going to debate him do not be distracted by his deliberately patronising and abrasive attitude or mind numbing fuckwittery.

Hey Egor, if you put any of this juicy stuff in your book, do we get a mention?

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 15, 2012, 09:18:28 PM

Reprobate: Egor is referring to The Big Bang, and the expansion of the universe. Everything flying apart very quickly, away from everything else, to create a lot more 'nothingness'.

In that case, I guess it's just irrelevant. Space is not nothing.

Quote from: Reprobate on February 15, 2012, 10:34:25 PM

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 15, 2012, 09:18:28 PM

Reprobate: Egor is referring to The Big Bang, and the expansion of the universe. Everything flying apart very quickly, away from everything else, to create a lot more 'nothingness'.

In that case, I guess it's just irrelevant. Space is not nothing.

Pretty much . . . I think there's a lot of fear in knowing this planet will end, all the stars will end, and the universe will collapse on itself (is that still the major theory?). Of course, before that, our sun will explode and the Andromeda will crash into the Milky Way. And that's even if humanity makes it through the next few billion years. Bigness, nothingness, endness . . . awe- and sometimes fear-inspiring concepts

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 15, 2012, 10:49:09 PM

Quote from: Reprobate on February 15, 2012, 10:34:25 PM

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 15, 2012, 09:18:28 PM

Reprobate: Egor is referring to The Big Bang, and the expansion of the universe. Everything flying apart very quickly, away from everything else, to create a lot more 'nothingness'.

In that case, I guess it's just irrelevant. Space is not nothing.

Pretty much . . . I think there's a lot of fear in knowing this planet will end, all the stars will end, and the universe will collapse on itself (is that still the major theory?). Of course, before that, our sun will explode and the Andromeda will crash into the Milky Way. And that's even if humanity makes it through the next few billion years. Bigness, nothingness, endness . . . awe- and sometimes fear-inspiring concepts

Current observation is that the universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating and that we have past the point of no return. So the universe will end as the last stars fizzle out in glorious isolation, Black holes will evaporate in Hawking radiation while brown dwarf stars will freeze surrounded by ever dispersing interstellar gas and dust.

I came across this while reading Chet Raymo's Natural Prayers, and it seems to fit here:  The world, after all, is both beautiful and terrible, creative and destructive, ordered and chaotic.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 15, 2012, 06:27:02 PM

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 06:02:22 PM

QuoteThe question I am dying to ask is how many 'Veridicans' are there in the world? I get the feeling the answer is probably 'one'...

Well, let me ask you this, how many Christians and Muslims are there in the world?

Now, the question I'm dying to ask is this: Do you think they're right?

In the UK, we call that a politician's answer! I'll take it that the answer probably is in the singular

I'll be glad to answer your question if you'll answer mine. Fair is fair.

Quote from: Whitney on February 15, 2012, 06:40:14 PM

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 06:19:49 PM
If parts go missing to allow gravitational effects to unbalance, then those missing parts have to be explained.

Nothing went missing...you are just taking the illustration of the explanation too literally.   

I hope you aren't actually imagining everything was no a grid either....

Sounds to me like you're trying to back off recommending I watch that video.

Quote from: Crow on February 15, 2012, 06:43:28 PM
Egor you are fucking mental.

-I know that breaks the civility rules but it just has to be said.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. I think everyone would agree that following rules of civility is something only expected of theists, not atheists. Not in here. Notice, no one has said a word to you! Can you imagine what would happen if I said that to you?

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 15, 2012, 07:41:40 PM
This discussion is pointless due to two points:

Primus: Our friend Egor's inability to realize that the metaphore of the ball bearings was a metaphore, not a reenactment and his blanket dismissal of all other arguments.

Secundum: Egors prozeletizing of his DIY christian sect.


Egor, if you have special knowledge of the physics of the Big Bang that contradicts modern physics in everything from quantum mechanics, to cosmology, to ballistics please present your evidence. No more blanket statements.
If you are able to convince even one of us, I will nominate you for a Nobel Prize in physics.

And congratulation on your DIY religion. What title have you taken for yourself? I mean, can't be a religious (cult) leader without a swanky title.

I'm not proselytizing my religion. It's my religion; it's where I'm coming from, so I reference it when I need to. You're the one asking questions about it. As for a title—none. I'm the founder, that's a fact. I wrote the Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ—that's a fact. And I intend to write a bunch more books while I'm alive.

Quote from: Ali on February 15, 2012, 09:02:35 PM
Does any one else thinks it's funny that Egor describes his religion as "The doctrine of those who follow that which is true?"  Forgetting for a moment the debatable "truth" behind religion, it just such an...I don't know....vague and weird way to describe it.  Doesn't every religion believe that it is "the doctrine of those who follow that which is true?" 

Veridicanism as a word is just a term. It really doesn't mean that much. The two tenets are what matters. And people who believe those tenets are the followers of truth; it matters not one bit whether they use the term Veridican or not.

Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 10:30:00 PM
Please note that Egor (aka Edward the Theist) has a stated aim to Troll atheist forums and provoke atheists into abusing him, which he considers a victory, as we don't play those sort of manipulation games here Egor has not achieved his aim of being banned.

I'm sorry, Tank, when exactly did I state that aim? Just point it out, that's all I ask. You think I want to be abused? I don't. I come here to have intelligent, thought-provoking discussions. You and your ilk do all the insulting and trolling--and you as the moderator do nothing to stop it. You just blame me for it. Like now; you're lying about me. I didn't try to get you to do that. You just did it. You can ban me any time, but you can't get me to back down, and that bothers you. I know you've gotten other theists to back down, because I don't see any others posting in here. And yes, if you abuse me, it is a victory as it would be your victory if I had to resort to that kind of behavior. And yes, that does make it a kind of power I have over you, because you can't help it, but I can, and you can't knock me down with it.

QuoteIt should also be considered that responding to Egor's posts is more about demonstrating how flawed his arguments are than 'winning' any debate. As Egor considers himself not only the rule maker but the referee as well he can never lose in his own mind. But other people read this forum as lurkers so if you are going to debate him do not be distracted by his deliberately patronising and abrasive attitude or mind numbing fuckwittery.

You break your own rules. What is "fuckwittery" anyway? You break the very rules you are supposed to enforce. Did I make you do that? Maybe I did. This group is called "Happy Atheist." You don't seem very happy to me. You seem small and desperate. In a sparring match in Taekwondo, it's common for someone who is losing the match to begin to hit harder to try to make up for it. It's a loss of control. It's desperation. It happens to me sometimes. Apparently it happens to you, too.

Quote from: Egor on February 17, 2012, 08:03:45 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 15, 2012, 10:30:00 PM
Please note that Egor (aka Edward the Theist) has a stated aim to Troll atheist forums and provoke atheists into abusing him, which he considers a victory, as we don't play those sort of manipulation games here Egor has not achieved his aim of being banned.

I'm sorry, Tank, when exactly did I state that aim? Just point it out, that's all I ask. You think I want to be abused? I don't. I come here to have intelligent, thought-provoking discussions. You and your ilk do all the insulting and trolling--and you as the moderator do nothing to stop it. You just blame me for it. Like now; you're lying about me. I didn't try to get you to do that. You just did it. You can ban me any time, but you can't get me to back down, and that bothers you. I know you've gotten other theists to back down, because I don't see any others posting in here. And yes, if you abuse me, it is a victory as it would be your victory if I had to resort to that kind of behavior. And yes, that does make it a kind of power I have over you, because you can't help it, but I can, and you can't knock me down with it.

QuoteIt should also be considered that responding to Egor's posts is more about demonstrating how flawed his arguments are than 'winning' any debate. As Egor considers himself not only the rule maker but the referee as well he can never lose in his own mind. But other people read this forum as lurkers so if you are going to debate him do not be distracted by his deliberately patronising and abrasive attitude or mind numbing fuckwittery.

You break your own rules. What is "fuckwittery" anyway? You break the very rules you are supposed to enforce. Did I make you do that? Maybe I did. This group is called "Happy Atheist." You don't seem very happy to me. You seem small and desperate. In a sparring match in Taekwondo, it's common for someone who is losing the match to begin to hit harder to try to make up for it. It's a loss of control. It's desperation. It happens to me sometimes. Apparently it happens to you, too.

Your MO is well know on atheist forums. Don't play the bleeding heart card Edward, it doesn't suit you.

Quote from: Egor on February 17, 2012, 07:37:36 AM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 15, 2012, 06:27:02 PM

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 06:02:22 PM

QuoteThe question I am dying to ask is how many 'Veridicans' are there in the world? I get the feeling the answer is probably 'one'...

Well, let me ask you this, how many Christians and Muslims are there in the world?

Now, the question I'm dying to ask is this: Do you think they're right?

In the UK, we call that a politician's answer! I'll take it that the answer probably is in the singular

I'll be glad to answer your question if you'll answer mine. Fair is fair.

You don't seem to understand how 'question and answer' works Egor, you answer a question with an answer, not another question. Answering a question with another question is pointless, it's like me answering your question with 'How many freemasons are there in the world?', it's not an answer. I did ask my question first, but as you don't appear to want to answer it, I'll answer yours first, then hopefully you'll answer mine.

I don't know how many Christians and Muslims there are in the world, but as the founder of Veridicanism, you ought to know roughly how many Veridicans there are!

I would guess at more than a billion of each. Looking on the internet, Wikipedia states there are around 2 billion Christians and around 1.5 billion Muslims, but I suspect the trues figures won't be that high, as they seem to be including a lot of non-religious people as Christians if their numbers for the UK are anything to go by. And I think they're all wrong, but to be fair, given the stark difference in beliefs, at least half of them have to be wrong!

So....I've answered your question, your turn to answer my question, with a simple answer not another pointless question. How many Veridicans are there in the world?

Quote from: Egor on February 17, 2012, 07:38:58 AM

Quote from: Whitney on February 15, 2012, 06:40:14 PM

Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 06:19:49 PM
If parts go missing to allow gravitational effects to unbalance, then those missing parts have to be explained.

Nothing went missing...you are just taking the illustration of the explanation too literally.   

I hope you aren't actually imagining everything was no a grid either....

Sounds to me like you're trying to back off recommending I watch that video.

No...I just didn't realize how badly you'd fail at grasping it.

Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2012, 08:07:44 AM

Quote from: Egor on February 17, 2012, 08:03:45 AM
I'm sorry, Tank, when exactly did I state that aim?

Your MO is well know on atheist forums. Don't play the bleeding heart card Edward, it doesn't suit you.

It's also all over Ed's blog, which I believe he invited us to read so I don't get the innocent act now.

Quote from: Egor on February 17, 2012, 08:03:45 AMYou and your ilk do all the insulting and trolling[...]

lol, behold: the lack of self-awareness!

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 17, 2012, 05:54:57 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2012, 08:07:44 AM

Quote from: Egor on February 17, 2012, 08:03:45 AM
I'm sorry, Tank, when exactly did I state that aim?

Your MO is well know on atheist forums. Don't play the bleeding heart card Edward, it doesn't suit you.

It's also all over Ed's blog, which I believe he invited us to read so I don't get the innocent act now.

But how else is he going to get us to keep going back to his blog? He's got to get those hits  up there! (he was bragging about how popular it was, after all)

Quote from: Ali on February 13, 2012, 10:40:20 PM
  Hence, the fact that the laws exist imply that the world is orderly, and not chaotic.  But I don't know if that is actually what you were getting at or asking.

And this would seem to indicate that "chaos" is only apparent, and that underlying all such chaos there would be some sort of principle of order that would eventually manifest itself.

Quote from: Whitney on February 14, 2012, 01:43:56 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AM
Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

Yup...been expecting it since the OP. (Or perhaps the first cause argument)

Considering that some of us said it's all ordered and some of us went with chaos I guess we suck at setting the groundwork for the argument....

I'm not sure it has to lead to either of those arguments. But an underlying order behind the cosmos could hint at some form of intelligence. Intelligence, logic and rationality are orderly, and so is the cosmos. So, the argument could go, the existence of underlying order in the cosmos is consistent with underlying intelligence.  It's not conclusive, but is at least suggestive.

Why are people even responding to this guy anymore its quite obvious he enjoys making discussions go around in meaningless circles for his own amusement that help him provide content for his blog and bump up his traffic. I have yet to see a reply from Egor that actually brings anything interesting to his original topic that shows he understands the premise behind any science or an understanding of chaos theory and that he is willing to learn and debate with understanding rather than just get into pointless discussions that are intended to infuriate people whilst he gets a throbbing erection from reading them.

Quote from: Crow on February 17, 2012, 06:34:41 PM
Why are people even responding to this guy anymore its quite obvious he enjoys making discussions go around in meaningless circles for his own amusement that help him provide content for his blog and bump up his traffic. I have yet to see a reply from Egor that actually brings anything interesting to his original topic that shows he understands the premise behind any science or an understanding of chaos theory and that he is willing to learn and debate with understanding rather than just get into pointless discussions that are intended to infuriate people whilst he gets a throbbing erection from reading them.

Because his sillyness is funny?

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 17, 2012, 06:36:17 PM
Because his sillyness is funny?

Must be.

Or maybe it's like looking at a racecar spinning out.
You know it is bound for a spectacular crash, but you just can't look away.

Quote from: Crow on February 17, 2012, 06:40:27 PM

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 17, 2012, 06:36:17 PM
Because his sillyness is funny?

Must be.

It's also for the benefit of any lurkers who may be seriously following the discussion.

I wonder why someone who doesn't want a debate is actively seeking it..?  ???

Quote from: Asmodean on February 17, 2012, 08:08:46 PM
I wonder why someone who doesn't want a debate is actively seeking it..?  ???

Because he's a preacher. He's not interested in debate, why should he be, he knows he's right.

Quote from: Asmodean on February 17, 2012, 08:08:46 PM
I wonder why someone who doesn't want a debate is actively seeking it..?  ???

Because he wants to be a badass warrior for Christ, but is too chicken to actually fight?

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 17, 2012, 08:29:18 PM
Because he wants to be a badass warrior for Christ, but is too chicken to actually fight?

...And the hippie-jerk Christ needs badass warriors because..? Doesn't he have like this awesome bloodthirsty dad with unlimited powers and a very short temper?

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 17, 2012, 06:32:48 PM

Quote from: Whitney on February 14, 2012, 01:43:56 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 14, 2012, 08:28:10 AM
Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

Yup...been expecting it since the OP. (Or perhaps the first cause argument)

Considering that some of us said it's all ordered and some of us went with chaos I guess we suck at setting the groundwork for the argument....

I'm not sure it has to lead to either of those arguments. But an underlying order behind the cosmos could hint at some form of intelligence. Intelligence, logic and rationality are orderly, and so is the cosmos. So, the argument could go, the existence of underlying order in the cosmos is consistent with underlying intelligence.  It's not conclusive, but is at least suggestive.

I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

I think Egor has this going on in a big way.

Quote he would bring his bible to science class and debate his teachers on the finer points of evolution.

"In my head, I won every time," says Mr Griffith, now 29.

Quote from: Whitney on February 17, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:05:29 AM

Quote from: Whitney on February 17, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:20:58 AM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:05:29 AM

Quote from: Whitney on February 17, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility. In other words, it's not a good argument.

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:20:58 AM
You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

I'm not presuming intelligence. I'm looking at a cosmos that is ordered at its core.  What we call chaos is only apparent - there is an underlying self-organizing principle that brings order out of this apparent chaos.  It is at the foundation of evolution and natural selection - an ordering process that leads, over a long time, to even greater organization, such as a thinking, conscious human brain. I'm simply noting the similarities between this and our own intelligence. We organize thoughts, put things together, and come up with something rational and logical. We bring order out of chaos with our own intelligence. That mirrors, somewhat, the processes that we see in the development of the universe. I'm not presuming that intelligence is there - I'm simply noting that the order we see could suggest it, and I see no reason to assume that it is not there, or that its absence is more probable than not.  That's why I think starting out at 50-50 on the issue of possible underlying intelligence is a reasonable position.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:38:15 AM

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:20:58 AM
You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

I'm not presuming intelligence. I'm looking at a cosmos that is ordered at its core.  What we call chaos is only apparent - there is an underlying self-organizing principle that brings order out of this apparent chaos.  It is at the foundation of evolution and natural selection - an ordering process that leads, over a long time, to even greater organization, such as a thinking, conscious human brain. I'm simply noting the similarities between this and our own intelligence. We organize thoughts, put things together, and come up with something rational and logical. We bring order out of chaos with our own intelligence. That mirrors, somewhat, the processes that we see in the development of the universe. I'm not presuming that intelligence is there - I'm simply noting that the order we see could suggest it, and I see no reason to assume that it is not there, or that its absence is more probable than not.  That's why I think starting out at 50-50 on the issue of possible underlying intelligence is a reasonable position.

Given number of questions we have eventually answered with science that was initially answered with, "I dunno, God?", I would say a 50-50 probability is a bit generous. If I flipped a coin every day for a millenia, and every day it came up with tails, and I still kept guessing 'heads', would you say I was still valid in thinking the next answer might still be heads? Or, more importantly, just as valid as the heads-nayers who believe there is no head, and think I might be just a little wacko by never betting on tails?

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:38:15 AM

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:20:58 AM
You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

I'm not presuming intelligence. I'm looking at a cosmos that is ordered at its core.  What we call chaos is only apparent - there is an underlying self-organizing principle that brings order out of this apparent chaos.  It is at the foundation of evolution and natural selection - an ordering process that leads, over a long time, to even greater organization, such as a thinking, conscious human brain. I'm simply noting the similarities between this and our own intelligence. We organize thoughts, put things together, and come up with something rational and logical. We bring order out of chaos with our own intelligence. That mirrors, somewhat, the processes that we see in the development of the universe. I'm not presuming that intelligence is there - I'm simply noting that the order we see could suggest it, and I see no reason to assume that it is not there, or that its absence is more probable than not.  That's why I think starting out at 50-50 on the issue of possible underlying intelligence is a reasonable position.

I'd actually not protest the 50-50 if we are talking about a deist sort of god....but that's only 50-50 in the agnostic sense of not being able to know.  Is that what you are getting at?  Since I started really thinking about it, I thought that if a deist god were true we wouldn't be able to know anyway so I take the apatheist position towards it (don't believe and don't particularly care).  It would be interesting to know one way or the other but if we could know it would no longer be a deist god; and so our not knowing is why I default to nonbelief.  Plus, there is always that ancient alien as god theory if we were to confirm a creator god of this sort...and that's just one of many possible alternatives to 'god' in this situation that my sci-fi loving brain can think of :)

A seriously advanced race of aliens... How seriously would they have to be advanced to be able to qualify to gods?

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 17, 2012, 10:26:33 AM

I would guess at more than a billion of each. Looking on the internet, Wikipedia states there are around 2 billion Christians and around 1.5 billion Muslims, but I suspect the trues figures won't be that high, as they seem to be including a lot of non-religious people as Christians if their numbers for the UK are anything to go by. And I think they're all wrong, but to be fair, given the stark difference in beliefs, at least half of them have to be wrong!

So....I've answered your question, your turn to answer my question, with a simple answer not another pointless question. How many Veridicans are there in the world?

2

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:05:29 AM
Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.

I am going with 99.99999999% for unintelligence underlying the cosmos, unless someone can explain to me in a reasonable way how it is possible to have intelligence without the following:
- information
- data transformation rules
- a physical data processing system
- data
- physical system observing measurable attributes of some physical substance or force
- physical substance or force with measurable attributes
- time
- space

Human 1) Oh so many stars, life and death, oceans and deserts how did this all come to be?
Priest) God did it.
Human 1) Of course he did, jolly jolly, no more questions for me.
Priest) Bless you human 1) for asking the question and finding the truth, you're so special.

Human 2) WTF?

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:05:29 AM

Quote from: Whitney on February 17, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

I think that the idea of an underlying intelligence complicates things infinitely, because now we have a being so powerful that it can "order" the universe to it's whims to account for.  Where did that intelligence come from?  We have a hard enough time accounting for how we came to be, let alone how a god would have come to be. 

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:50:39 AM
Given number of questions we have eventually answered with science that was initially answered with, "I dunno, God?", I would say a 50-50 probability is a bit generous. If I flipped a coin every day for a millenia, and every day it came up with tails, and I still kept guessing 'heads', would you say I was still valid in thinking the next answer might still be heads? Or, more importantly, just as valid as the heads-nayers who believe there is no head, and think I might be just a little wacko by never betting on tails?

Thing is, they are taught to believe in tails, they are taught that this is a belief and can never be expected to be proven. That belief is not only a desirable and cherished trait but unbelief will be punished with eternal torture.

It is not that god works in mysterious way, it is that god works in natural ways, as if there wasn't a god. Deceitful and tricky huh?

Quote from: Ali on February 18, 2012, 02:42:43 PM
I think that the idea of an underlying intelligence complicates things infinitely

Definitely. 

A lot of theists seem to think that the idea of god offers a very simple explanation to the universe; but it just adds another layer of mystery.

Quote from: Ali on February 18, 2012, 02:42:43 PM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:05:29 AM

Quote from: Whitney on February 17, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

I think that the idea of an underlying intelligence complicates things infinitely, because now we have a being so powerful that it can "order" the universe to it's whims to account for.  Where did that intelligence come from? 

We don't know where anything came from.  I simply suggesting that the nature of the cosmos suggests that whatever that origin, it is intelligent.

Quote from: Whitney on February 18, 2012, 06:07:14 AM

I'd actually not protest the 50-50 if we are talking about a deist sort of god....but that's only 50-50 in the agnostic sense of not being able to know.  Is that what you are getting at? 

I'm not placing any limitations on what the nature of that intelligence would be, because, as you note, we don't know.  It may be deist or it may be something else. For purposes of this discussion, I'm not assuming anything, only that intelligence is suggested as an equal possibility.

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:50:39 AM
Given number of questions we have eventually answered with science that was initially answered with, "I dunno, God?", I would say a 50-50 probability is a bit generous. If I flipped a coin every day for a millenia, and every day it came up with tails, and I still kept guessing 'heads', would you say I was still valid in thinking the next answer might still be heads? Or, more importantly, just as valid as the heads-nayers who believe there is no head, and think I might be just a little wacko by never betting on tails?

You are the one who is naming it "God" in this discussion.  I'm trying not to approach this from a Christian or theist standpoint, but to start with observation.  It appears that the order in the cosmos is consistent with some form of intelligence, and since I don't know one way or the other, I'm placing the probability at 50-50.  Faith and religion haven't entered the scene yet.

Quote from: Stevil on February 18, 2012, 10:17:45 AM

I am going with 99.99999999% for unintelligence underlying the cosmos, unless someone can explain to me in a reasonable way how it is possible to have intelligence without the following:
- information
- data transformation rules
- a physical data processing system
- data
- physical system observing measurable attributes of some physical substance or force
- physical substance or force with measurable attributes
- time
- space

Well, I could also say I'm going with 99.99999999% for intelligence underlying the cosmos, unless someone can explain to me how something like the cosmos can arise without it.  The Big Bang stands as a sort of barrier to us having knowledge of what's on the other side.  So this is sort of like a Turing test to determine that without seeing what's there.  It may be possible to have intelligence without all the things you list, it may not. Hard for us to know since we can't see.  So we look at the nature of things now, and we see physical laws that work together to bring about living, intelligent beings.  That, to me, suggests that this state of things is reflective of the nature of whatever is responsible for the cosmos to begin with.  It's consistent with intelligence.  I can't explain the things you mentioned, but neither can I explain how physical laws can come into existence that lead to a universe such as ours.  So, from a probability standpoint, it appears justified to start the two options (intelligence v. non-intelligence) on an equal footing.  If we are able to verify information about origins, then the balance may tip one way or the other. 

I think it's OK for the big brained to tell me of the big bang but they don't know what came before.
God is another explanation but it's impolite to question his origin.
This is why you don't have to be particularly intelligent or immoral to be an atheist.
An average non indoctrinated ten year old will see the craziness of it.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 11:58:46 PM

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:50:39 AM
Given number of questions we have eventually answered with science that was initially answered with, "I dunno, God?", I would say a 50-50 probability is a bit generous. If I flipped a coin every day for a millenia, and every day it came up with tails, and I still kept guessing 'heads', would you say I was still valid in thinking the next answer might still be heads? Or, more importantly, just as valid as the heads-nayers who believe there is no head, and think I might be just a little wacko by never betting on tails?

You are the one who is naming it "God" in this discussion.  I'm trying not to approach this from a Christian or theist standpoint, but to start with observation.  It appears that the order in the cosmos is consistent with some form of intelligence, and since I don't know one way or the other, I'm placing the probability at 50-50.  Faith and religion haven't entered the scene yet.

I'm using the word "God" because it's a lot shorter than saying "unknown intelligent creator of the universe". But ok. You're still arguing that order must follow intelligence? Or do you have evidence in favor of the existence of an "unknown intelligent creator of the universe"? We know how intelligence evolved on this planet. The concept of physical 'laws' is just as misunderstood as the concept of scientific 'theories'. Physical laws are just descriptions of what's going on. Just because our human laws are intelligently devised doesn't mean that physical laws are as well, as natural as that assumption may feel. You're coming at this from a very human point-of-view, which I can't fault (everyone does it to some degree), but I would try to persuade you to consider that your human bias is influencing your perception of the universe.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 19, 2012, 12:07:05 AMSo, from a probability standpoint, it appears justified to start the two options (intelligence v. non-intelligence) on an equal footing.  If we are able to verify information about origins, then the balance may tip one way or the other. 

I don't agree with the equal footing thing, humans are biased they are prone to imagine human shaped explanations. Rabbits might imagine things differently, the universe sprung from nothing one night just like grass.  I don't think rabbits are sufficiently arrogant to imagine a big rabbit did it.  Maybe the Big Rabbit did create everything, rabbits like to dig and there all these worlds just waiting to have holes dug in them.  We know how intelligence evolved, why this crazy crazy chicken and egg game?  There were rocks and then there was intelligence, ohhh but maybe intelligence made the rock?  No Big Rabbit did it and he doesn't think about stuff.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 19, 2012, 12:57:40 AM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 19, 2012, 12:07:05 AMSo, from a probability standpoint, it appears justified to start the two options (intelligence v. non-intelligence) on an equal footing.  If we are able to verify information about origins, then the balance may tip one way or the other. 

I don't agree with the equal footing thing, humans are biased they are prone to imagine human shaped explanations. Rabbits might imagine things differently, the universe sprung from nothing one night just like grass.  I don't think rabbits are sufficiently arrogant to imagine a big rabbit did it.  Maybe the Big Rabbit did create everything, rabbits like to dig and there all these worlds just waiting to have holes dug in them.  We know how intelligence evolved, why this crazy crazy chicken and egg game?  There were rocks and then there was intelligence, ohhh but maybe intelligence made the rock?  No Big Rabbit did it and he doesn't think about stuff.

This is a personal preference, but I also find The Big Rabbit theory (as intelligent design will be referred to from now on) terribly unimaginative. We're only just finding out how much stranger reality is from how perceive it. That's what makes it so cool. We're finding out that when we test perception against reality, reality reveals something more bizarre and unexpected and difficult for us to understand. We've only got this far because of the cumulative effect of human intelligence.
That's why I stand in the strictly skeptic zone - if you want me to consider something as a reasonable possibility, you need to show the evidence. The Big Rabbit hypothesis has failed under scrutiny again and again. And yet we're still being forced to say it's a legitimate theory - not because there's evidence for it, but because the more you broaden the definition of The Big Rabbit (i.e. from theism to deism), more impossible it becomes to disprove. So no, I can't agree that there is equal footing here. Consider the words of Jimmy Carr (on winning the lottery), "Sure it's 50-50. Everything's 50-50 - you either win it, or you don't".

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 19, 2012, 12:07:05 AM
Well, I could also say I'm going with 99.99999999% for intelligence underlying the cosmos, unless someone can explain to me how something like the cosmos can arise without it. 

So, from a probability standpoint, it appears justified to start the two options (intelligence v. non-intelligence) on an equal footing.  If we are able to verify information about origins, then the balance may tip one way or the other. 

Sorry, but you are not comparing apples with apples.
We could say that the underlying of the cosmos is either intelligent or unintelligent. Fine, this has no bearing on the likelyhood of each option.

If we go into information theory, i.e. that intelligence requires, knowledge, requires information, requires data, then the intelligence option has problems where as the unintelligent option has no such problems.

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:20:58 AM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:05:29 AM

Quote from: Whitney on February 17, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

I can't even get a grip on the idea that evolution has brought order out of chaos - what criteria are you applying?

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 19, 2012, 12:51:08 AM
Or do you have evidence in favor of the existence of an "unknown intelligent creator of the universe"? We know how intelligence evolved on this planet. The concept of physical 'laws' is just as misunderstood as the concept of scientific 'theories'. Physical laws are just descriptions of what's going on.

The only evidence I have is the existence of a universe that operates in such a way as to bring about organization, including life and consciousness, and operates logically.  That is consistent with intelligent. I understand that the phrase "physical laws" just describes what is.  But the cosmos operates according to patterns, and is consistent, and proceeds logically.  That's about all I have to say - enjoyed the back and forth. 

Quote from: En_Route on February 19, 2012, 05:26:31 PM

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 18, 2012, 04:20:58 AM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 18, 2012, 04:05:29 AM

Quote from: Whitney on February 17, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
I agree that it leaves open the possibility on intelligent involvement.  Really, order or chaos that possibility is still there even if we can naturally explain everything back to the point where everything started.  Probability, however, is what I find questionable.

Yes, there is nothing that we have right now, from a purely objective perspective, that makes it probable (more likely than not) that intelligence underlies the cosmos.  But I'm not sure that we have anything that makes non-intelligence probable either.  Given the two possibilities, I can't really think of a reason not to place it as 50-50 for a starting point.  I've seen Occam's Razor used at this point to argue against underlying intelligence, but I don't know if non-intelligence is the simplest answer.  We have an orderly cosmos that operates according to the laws of physics, and has some self-ordering principle at work which leads to the development of sapient, conscious life. That sounds a lot like what we call intelligent activity.  I think underlying, fundamental intelligence of some sort is as likely as the absence thereof.

You're falling into the trap of intelligence ---> order. That is, order follows intelligence. As pattern-seeking humans, and order-creators ourselves, this is ingrained into our psyche. That's still somehow a major creationist argument against evolution, even though we now have a brilliant scope of understanding about the process. Evolution is an example of order out of chaos and variability -not out of intelligence, but under the pressure of natural selection. To presume intelligence without evidence on the presumption that order must always be preceded by intelligence is a fallibility.

I can't even get a grip on the idea that evolution has brought order out of chaos - what criteria are you applying?

It's not completely analagous, I grant you. It's an old argument that life is so complex and structured that it must be formed by an intelligent being. We now know how organic structures form out of a combination of chance, variability, and physical laws. That's all I meant.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 19, 2012, 12:07:05 AM

Well, I could also say I'm going with 99.99999999% for intelligence underlying the cosmos, unless someone can explain to me how something like the cosmos can arise without it.  The Big Bang stands as a sort of barrier to us having knowledge of what's on the other side.  So this is sort of like a Turing test to determine that without seeing what's there.  It may be possible to have intelligence without all the things you list, it may not. Hard for us to know since we can't see.  So we look at the nature of things now, and we see physical laws that work together to bring about living, intelligent beings.  That, to me, suggests that this state of things is reflective of the nature of whatever is responsible for the cosmos to begin with.  It's consistent with intelligence.  I can't explain the things you mentioned, but neither can I explain how physical laws can come into existence that lead to a universe such as ours.  So, from a probability standpoint, it appears justified to start the two options (intelligence v. non-intelligence) on an equal footing.  If we are able to verify information about origins, then the balance may tip one way or the other. 

One main argument against a creator is from physics which states the more disorder the more probable creation is. The most popular metaphor of this is: a strewn pack of cards is more likely to be brought together by a person than cards that are already stacked. What we know from various mathematical experiments (those which are possible for the LHC to function and various other applications) is that the big bang was the beginning of disorder and ever since the universe began it has been getting more and more disordered, so prior to the big bang the universe was in a unique highly ordered state (therefore we could say perfect). So the hypothesis goes; if a creator was likely to exist it would start creation from a point such as now to create a more ordered creation, however we see the opposite with humans being one of those disorders even though we perceive our plantet to be ordered we are more like the few cards that congregate together. When viewed from a close perceptive it looks ordered but when viewed from afar it is anything but ordered.

It may be impossible for us to know for 100% certainty what came before the big bang. However it is possible from observing what is present now to work out possible solutions to what environment was present prior to the big bang and test those hypotheses and if they work help create a theory.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 20, 2012, 01:57:46 AM

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 19, 2012, 12:51:08 AM
Or do you have evidence in favor of the existence of an "unknown intelligent creator of the universe"? We know how intelligence evolved on this planet. The concept of physical 'laws' is just as misunderstood as the concept of scientific 'theories'. Physical laws are just descriptions of what's going on.

The only evidence I have is the existence of a universe that operates in such a way as to bring about organization, including life and consciousness, and operates logically.  That is consistent with intelligent. I understand that the phrase "physical laws" just describes what is.  But the cosmos operates according to patterns, and is consistent, and proceeds logically.  That's about all I have to say - enjoyed the back and forth.  

What exactly is logical about gravity or the weak nuclear force? What premise would you start from to show that their existence/behaviour is in any way 'logical' except from a subjective human perspective? Why should matter attract rather than repulse?

EDIT: The other thing to consider is that in this universe entropy rules. Any order we see is ultimately transient. This is a dead universe in the same way you are a dead person, you're just not dead yet.

Quote from: Tank on February 20, 2012, 08:05:25 AM

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 20, 2012, 01:57:46 AM

Quote from: Dobermonster on February 19, 2012, 12:51:08 AM
Or do you have evidence in favor of the existence of an "unknown intelligent creator of the universe"? We know how intelligence evolved on this planet. The concept of physical 'laws' is just as misunderstood as the concept of scientific 'theories'. Physical laws are just descriptions of what's going on.

The only evidence I have is the existence of a universe that operates in such a way as to bring about organization, including life and consciousness, and operates logically.  That is consistent with intelligent. I understand that the phrase "physical laws" just describes what is.  But the cosmos operates according to patterns, and is consistent, and proceeds logically.  That's about all I have to say - enjoyed the back and forth.  

What exactly is logical about gravity or the weak nuclear force? What premise would you start from to show that their existence/behaviour is in any way 'logical' except from a subjective human perspective? Why should matter attract rather than repulse?

EDIT: The other thing to consider is that in this universe entropy rules. Any order we see is ultimately transient. This is a dead universe in the same way you are a dead person, you're just not dead yet.

Tank, if I understand you correctly (it's insanely late/very early here, take your pick), I agree with you on any order we see being transient. Ecurb, we don't appear to live in a universe that brings about organization including life and consciousness. The fact that life exists on our planet appears to be a fluke, at least in this galaxy. The majority of space as we currently know it is chaotic and inhospitable to life. The laws of physics that apply to our earth do not apply elsewhere; same goes for the chemical compositions here that do not allow life to occur anywhere else we've currently found. It's entirely possible that somewhere else in the universe, life DID start up against all odds just as it did here... but as Tank points out, the vast majority of the known universe appears to be lifeless. We just happened to win the cosmic jackpot. Unfortunately, winning it means only having it for a short period of time (when comparing how long life on earth has existed to the age of the universe itself) and having it full of danger, disease, and various other limitations that don't really suggest any intelligence, or a design.

EDIT: This post started a discussion about the universality of the laws of physics and the goldilocks zone  (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9384.0) - Tank