[Sandwich]

Originally posted by karajorma
It's not happenstance. What people seem to mistake is that accumulation of random events can end up giving you a fairly complex pattern once acted upon by natural selection.

Evolution is NOT random despite what you may have heard. Mutation is random. Natural selection most definately is not.

I think I said that already:

Originally posted by Sandwich
Evolution can best be compared to billions of descramblers (life forms) trying to break an ever-changing series of passwords (survival in the ever-changing environment), with each wrong password guess neutralizing that descrambler ("bad" evolution, a mutation not working, would kill off that branch of evolved beings). The only advantage given to descramblers that get a password right the first time, and thus survive, is that they survive long enough to multiply into other descramblers that already know the correct password for the previous "level".

[karajorma]

You miss my point. Anyone who says evolution is random doesn't understand it. You'll find there are lots of people on both sides of the arguement who don't understand it (Although there are many more on the creationist side obviously).

My point is the second part of what I said. Evolution is the simplest theory. Anything else has to explain away all the evidence for evolution AND put forwards its own explainations.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich

Personally, I've been "converted" from my basic 6000-year-old Earth upbringing by new realizations that fit the facts as well as being obvious in hindsight. This new look on the history of our planet is something I've explained a number of times in the past, so I won't go into detail here. I'll just refresh your memory that it is that theory which, due to time-dilation upon the Earth from rapid speed induced by the Big Bang, correlates the 16.7 billion years the earth is said to have existed with the events stated to have occurred on each of the 6 days of creation as stated in Genesis.

small problem. The Earth wasn't around during the inflationary period of the universe's expansion. The inflationary period was over very quickly, long before galaxies formed. Back to Cosmology 101 for you.

And as for your last sentence.... I simply can not understand how people can study the complexity and interdependancies all around us - ecological balance (read Charles Pellegrino's novel "Dust"), biological interaction and interdependance (look at our very bodies), and geological dependancies (temperature variances, radiation protection layers, etc)- and call it all happenstance, let alone the "simplest explanation".

I direct you to the study of emergent patterns, et al in chaos theory. Once you understand basic chaos theory, the simplicity and beauty of seemingly complex systems becomes obvious.

No. Evolution is the adaptation of a species to its environment. Self-replication is a species' way of continuing life, and has nothing to do with evolution, except for one thing: without self-replication, there can be no continuation of evolution's beneficial mutations.

Self-replication is the basis for natural selection, which is one part of  evolution. Mutation is one vector for change, not the ONLY vector. You need to bone up on both Darwin and Dawkins and about a dozen other biologists.

"...the universe may not need a creator because it may have always existed..."

If one can accept that, then one should also toss out the window one's opposition to the existance of a Creator based on the "who made the Creator?" argument.

The difference is in Occam's razor. You don't need to add a creator if the universe always existed. Why add extra stuff? It goes against logic.

"...On the other side of the coin he puts forward the argument that the need for a Creator is a moot point as the laws of the Universe started with the creation of the universe, thus what came before is fundamentally unknowable and has no bearing on what exists now in any case..."

Irrelevant on a couple of levels:

a) Your belief or disbelief in the rumors about Israel's possesion of nuclear weapons did not have the slightest effect on the actual truth that Israel does in fact have nuclear weapons.

In like manner, our inability to comprehend the existance of XYZ outside of our realm of physical laws has no bearing on XYZ's actual existance.

My belief doesn't come in to play in either case. The existence or non-existence of a Prime Mover does not matter in this case because the Universe exists in the context of its own laws. Those laws are emergent from the existent fabric of the universe: the charge of electrons, neutrons and protons, the strength and range of the basic forces, etc. No understanding or comprehension or belief is required. The universe exists whether you understand it or not, whether you believe it or not. Go on. Try. Stop believing the universe. It won't disappear for the rest of us. Israel's nuclear weapons status is irrelevant.

b) The concept or mindset of "if we can't affect it, it must be irrelevant" ("...what came before is fundamentally unknowable and has no bearing on what exists now in any case...") is one I find surprisingly immature, as it shows a complete disregard for anything outside of "me". Continuing our analogy, if you tried with every means at your disposal to acertain the existance or  non-existance of nuclear warheads under Israeli control, and yet were able to find out absolutely nothing, would it then not affect you if one of those nukes was detonated a dozen meters away? After all, knowledge of those nukes existing was unknowable for you, but you forgot that "you" are not the only thing in the universe.

I have no idea where you got the "if we can't affect it" thing from. I believe that Hawking suggested that if we cannot observe a cause or conceptualise a cause from the effects that come after, then it does have bearing. You seem to be assuming that either I or Hawking ascribe a special place in the scheme of things for concious observation. Nothing could be further from the truth.  To use YOUR analogy, Israel having nukes is an ascertainable thing. They exist in this universe or they do not. It doesn't matter if you, me or anyone else knows they are there. FACT is not subjective. When one blows up a dozen meters from me, an outside observer could see an effect (big ass boom!) and work his way logically back to a cause (israel launched a nuke that I did not know previously they had).

[CP5670]

you guys are lucky I don't have much time on my hands at the moment; I would have a field day here picking off some of those arguments with my essay posts.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by mikhael

Read Dawkins. Evolution need not be entirely random. There comes a point where the process of self-replication is the driving force beyond mere random factors.

What has that to do with the issue? My point was merely that evolution is not a problem, but purposelessness is.  Theists would say that evolution, if true (and I see no reason to think it isn't), is teleological.  That's all.

Steven Hawking has a wonderful take on this--two of them actually. From one perspective, the universe may not need a creator because it may have always existed (Brief History of Time, the chapter on 'imaginary time'). On the other side of the coin he puts forward the argument that the need for a Creator is a moot point as the laws of the Universe started with the creation of the universe, thus what came before is fundamentally unknowable and has no bearing on what exists now in any case. Either a Prime Mover is unnecessary or He is irrelevant. In both cases, the Universe remains the same.

Read it when I was 12.  Hawking is an incredibly brilliant physicist, but not as good a philosopher.  Even then I remember thinking there was something wrong with those arguments.

The first argument conflates logical progression with chronological progression.  The existence of an eternal universe does not explain the existence of an eternal universe. In other words, even if the universe has always been there, I want to know why.  Just because it has always existed does not explain the fact that it exists.  

The second argument is circular, and of value only in refuting deism, not theism.  (I think deism is a bunch of bull, too, and for more reasons that just this.)  This argument is of no consequence in refuting theism for one simple reason: it assumes that natural laws are inviolable, which theism does not grant.  Hawking is asserting that natural laws are inviolable, not arguing.  Until he can produce a valid argument for why the laws of the universe are inviolable, he has effectively said nothing.  The argument is circular since it claims that there is no God because the laws of the universe are inviolable, and the laws of the universe are inviolable because there is no God.  If, as theism says, there is a God who can and sometimes does interfere in the universe, this whole "argument" simply disappears.

See above.

See above.  Occam hasn't trimmed off God yet.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by karajorma
You miss my point. Anyone who says evolution is random doesn't understand it. You'll find there are lots of people on both sides of the arguement who don't understand it (Although there are many more on the creationist side obviously).

My point is the second part of what I said. Evolution is the simplest theory. Anything else has to explain away all the evidence for evolution AND put forwards its own explainations.

Granted, I did use the word "random" above.  It is hard to find a good common-language synonym for ateleological (the opposite of teleological), so I used "random" in an attempt to communicate the idea with fewer syllables, even though it didn't mean quite the same thing.  Obviously the plan backfired.  My bad.  I guess I'll stick to the technical terms after all.

Anyway, as I said to Mikhael, evolutionary process is not the problem for theists.  Ateleological evolutionary process is.  But whether the process is teleological or not is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.  The scientific question is about what happened.  The metaphysical question is about whether what happened is teleological or not, rather than the details of what exactly is was that happened.  The answer to the scientific question is neutral for the metaphysics, which is what the theist vs. atheist debate is about.  

Therefore, whether evolution is or is not true has no bearing on whether "God exists" is true or "God does not exist" is true.  Moreover, neither would the truth of evolutionary theory excise the possibility of God's existence, nor would the truth of a "six literal days" theory excise the possibility of God's non-existence.

Evolution may indeed be the simplest satisfactory theory, but it has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Evolution may indeed be the simplest satisfactory theory, but it has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.

Never said it did. Almost every single religous person seems to believe that the two are mutually exclusive though.
 However although evolution doesn't disprove the existance of god it does remove the NEED for god. After all if physics can explain the creation of the universe and biology can explain away the evolution of animals and plants what need is there for an all powerful deity? The reason why most people believe in God is because they don't believe the scientific explaination for why we are here.

As for the random comment I wasn't actually having a go at you specifically. I've just heard to many people in general claim that evolution is random and most of them really don't have a clue.

[tEAbAG]

Whoa.  This has gotten heavy since I last posted.

:Straps on SCUBA tank and fins:  
I'm Going In!

The reason why most people believe in God is because they don't believe the scientific explaination for why we are here.

People believe in god because of the generally narcissistic nature of humanity.  We are God's children, created in His image.  Gives purpose in an inscrutable universe.

Anybody think Life, the Universe, and Everything exist just because they can?  The human mind tries to find order and system to everything it sees, not our fault, just they way our brains store things; but that doesn't mean that there is purpose for anything.  Why can't things exist just because they work in our reality and are able to exist?

[JudgeMental]

Why can't things exist just because they work in our reality and are able to exist?

'cause that wouldn't be any fun to debate!:D

Anyway, I think that is somewhat of a moot point.  As far as I can tell, "simple" life and in-between forms SHOULDN'T work in our reality!  Obviously many people here will disagree with me, but I'm just trying to make a point.  Yes, the universe is here, and yes we exist (well, unless you're a Hindu or Buddhist, but that's a different story), but the argument is whether the rules as we know them allow for life to occur through the rules described by evolution.

I am curious about one thing though.  I am perfectly aware that natural selection is the method by which evolution is supposed to work.  However, how does natural selection work?  I know that it's "survival of the fittest," but what is the method by which the survival value of a given organism can increase?

There are two main methods that I can see.  One, genetic modification (resulting in a physical change).  Two, behavioral modification (resulting in something akin to modern instincts).  These both obviously go hand in hand.  After all, how on earth is a bird to learn how do use its physical state (its wings) without the behavior (instinct) that makes it want to flap?

The thing is, even the instinct has to come back to genetics at some point.  After all, not all behaviors are learned via the "monkey see, monkey do" method.  And obviously not all of them can be trial and error.

I have personal experience in some of this, through some of the poultry raising my family has done.  ALL chickens at some point start scratching and pecking the ground.  This behaviour cannot have been learned from watching their momma, 'cause we've artificially brooded many of them, and kept them seperate from all other age groups, up to and past the point in which they start scratching.

My point is, if it's genetic, it HAS to come from somewhere.  And as far as I can tell, mutation is the only way (not counting artificial manipulations) in which genetic information can be modified.  Of course, if the storage of behaviors and instinct is contained in some genetic way, I suppose that there COULD be a carrier for such information to become part of a species permanent genetic structure.  But, that's only a completely unproven guess, based on almost NO evidence.  And that only partly explains an alternative to mutation.

And another thing that has confused me, how is it possible for the sum total of genetic information to increase?  That is, mutations result in the change or loss of a genetic "program."  How is information literally added to the lengths of DNA that make up the genetic structure?

Please, don't get mad and in a huff has others (on different boards) have.  My questions are honest, and I actually HAVE been trying to find answers through my own research.  As I've been typing this, I have been looking through websites on synthetic theory, and neo-darwinism for methods of natural selection that don't require mutation as a source of change.  But, I haven't found one yet.  Maybe I'll find one, but if you have the answer...

While I'm here, I'll just give my views on evolution vs. creation.  I am a young earth creationist.  While I generally wouldn't argue with theistic evolution, I don't believe it to be true, mostly for personal reasons.  Since we're dealing with God, I do believe it is completely and utterly within his powers to use evolution as his method of creating live.  But, I have to choose between that, and young earth, and I chose young earth, because it makes more sense to me.  Atheistic evolution is what I have my beef with.  But don't get me wrong!!! I DO NOT argue against evolution out of spite.  I argue it for other reasons.  The one that applies to my current post has to do with fun.  I enjoy a good debate, even though my debating skills aren't very good:)

Ah well, this post has grown WAY too long for my tastes, so I shall conclude for now.

Ya gotta love rabbit trails:D

*edit*
I just found a place that's talking (albeit at an extremely simple level) about how a mutation can produce a recessive gene.  While this could explain how harmful mutations aren't always immediately fatal (either in the literal, or in the sense of natural selection), it doesn't completely solve the problem.  It also brings up several other questions, but this is beginning to get too involved for it to be fun for me at the moment.  Maybe at a later date, but you can still discuss it:p

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by karajorma


Never said it did. Almost every single religous person seems to believe that the two are mutually exclusive though.

Well, actually, this supposed mutual exclusivity is the product of a certain branch of largely American and (unfortunately) very vocal  fundamentalists.  It might appear that "every single religous person" thinks this way, but that is only because of the natural human tendency to think the world is no larger than the extent of our own horizons.  The larger Church body both now and through its millenia of tradition is in fact encouraging of scientific development.  

Take the story of Galileo, for example.  The popular myth pits Galileo against a backwards, authoritarian Church who tried to suppress his research.  The actual history is rather different: the Church funded his research and the Pope personally authorised the printing of his book, so long as he took care to present both sides of the argument fairly.  Galileo, however, was in fact not a Very Nice Man™, and didn't like this last stipulation.  Instead he decided to slander the Pope as a closed-minded authoritarian idiot, just like everyone else who disagreed with his research. (Incidentally, although he was in fact correct, the evidence he put forward in the book is in the opinion of other scientists actually rather thin.)  This is what is called "biting the hand that feeds you."  The final results of the story of Galileo happen in this context, as the consequence of a lot of bad blood between him and the most powerful man in Europe.  The myth of Galileo is told more or less exclusively in contexts where the tellers are strongly pushing a certain agenda.  In fact, I have never seen that story told except for the purposes of supporting that agenda.

Kepler, Newton, and indeed almost all the earlier scientists were Christian, and published their work without interference from Church authorities.  Instead, the Church was the number one sponser of the Renaissance and all its developments in art, science, history, and so on.  Moreover, while some of them were preserved by Arabs and came back into Western hands by that source, most of the manuscripts we have from the Greco-Roman periods (Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Homer, etc., etc., etc.) were preserved only by the diligent efforts of monks in their cloisters.  If you've ever been to the Vatican, you've seen that today they are among the first to preserve and promote the expansion of human understanding in all its forms.

However although evolution doesn't disprove the existance of god it does remove the NEED for god. After all if physics can explain the creation of the universe and biology can explain away the evolution of animals and plants what need is there for an all powerful deity?

Ah, but it doesn't remove the need for God.  Physics doesn't explain the creation of the universe, it describes it.  Ditto for evolution and the origin of species.  

It is like this: if I ask you where golden retriever puppies come from, you can tell me about golden retriever parents.  If I ask about golden retriever parents, you can tell me aboue golden retriever grandparents.  But if I ask why there are golden retrievers at all, you can't explain it by talking about golden retriever parents or grandparents or great-grandparents or by any golden retrievers at all---those are precisely what has to be explained.  Likewise, if I ask why objects fall, you can tell me about the gravity.  If I ask why gravity exists, you can tell me about the Big Bang and the development of various forces and energy forms in the first moments of the universe's existence.  But if I ask why there was a Big Bang at all, you can't tell me about the Big Bang---that is precisely what has to be explained.  You are going to have to outside the realm of physics to explain the Big Bang, or else refuse to answer the question.

The reason why most people believe in God is because they don't believe the scientific explaination for why we are here.

Not at all.  People who disbelieve in the scientific description of how we got here do so because they believe in God, and more importantly have some confused ideas about what it means to believe in God, not the other way around.  
Edit:  Well, except for the ones who disbelieve it for scientific reasons.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by tEAbAG

People believe in god because of the generally narcissistic nature of humanity.  We are God's children, created in His image.  Gives purpose in an inscrutable universe.

Anybody think Life, the Universe, and Everything exist just because they can?  The human mind tries to find order and system to everything it sees, not our fault, just they way our brains store things; but that doesn't mean that there is purpose for anything.  Why can't things exist just because they work in our reality and are able to exist?

Careful, my friend.  Nihilism lies down that path.  It only takes a few short steps of logic from there to reach the point where there is no reason, meaning, value, truth, or basis for believing that the reports of the senses have anything to do with reality or that the logical processes of the mind have any correspondence to reality.  In fact, nihilism is the inevitable conclusion of what you suggest.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by JudgeMental
While I'm here, I'll just give my views on evolution vs. creation.  I am a young earth creationist.  While I generally wouldn't argue with theistic evolution, I don't believe it to be true, mostly for personal reasons.  Since we're dealing with God, I do believe it is completely and utterly within his powers to use evolution as his method of creating live.  But, I have to choose between that, and young earth, and I chose young earth, because it makes more sense to me.

Read anything you can get your hands on by Gerald L. Schroder - IIRC one title is "The Science of God"... it's a fascinating uncompromising correlation between the scientific 16.7 billion years of the universe and the 6 days of creation.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Ah, but it doesn't remove the need for God.  Physics doesn't explain the creation of the universe, it describes it.  Ditto for evolution and the origin of species.  

If evolution and the big bang theory are correct it's quite possible that the universe has no purpose. Therefore the only explaination needed is HOW since there is no WHY.

It is of course possible that there is a why too but as I said before if evolution is correct there doesn't NEED to be one.  If there is a why or not isn't a question that can be answered by scicence but the question itself was posed by science.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by karajorma
The reason why most people believe in God is because they don't believe the scientific explaination for why we are here.

See what happens when you don't proof read! That sentence was supposed to read The reason why most people continue to believe in God is because they don't believe the scientific explaination for why we are here.

Meaning that there are a lot of people who refuse to understand the scientific explainations because they know they clash with their belief (or believe that they will).

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by karajorma


If evolution and the big bang theory are correct it's quite possible that the universe has no purpose. Therefore the only explaination needed is HOW since there is no WHY.

Even if they are false it is quite possible that the universe has no purpose.  But that second sentence has serious problems, karajorma...

It being possible that there is no "why" does not mean that there is in fact no "why," any more than the possibility that there is a "why" entails that there actually is a "why."  So you can't say that this second sentence is a "therefore."

A "how" is not an explanation, technically, but a description.

If there is no "why," there are some serious consequences:

1)  The atheist is left with a question ("Why does the universe exist?") that is perfectly intelligible and very well could have had an answer, but doesn't.  This undermines a basic principle we live by in our reasoning: the principle that if anything can have an explanation for why it is as it is, it actually does have such an explanation.  In theory, one could throw away this principle, but that leaves mystery on your side of the fence, not the theist's.  Moreover, it opens the door to all sorts of inexplicability in the universe, for if the creation of the universe "just happened," why cannot a myriad of other things "just happen"?  That door is pretty hard to shut once you crack it.  Any assurance that we can understand and explain the universe that we meet is suddenly pulled away.  We are left with a universe where things just happen by chance.  Science will be only one of the casualties of that.

2)  The dominoes keep falling.  If there is no purpose directing the development of the universe, there is no basis to trust that the reasoning processes of our minds have anything to do with reality.  Nature has no interest in making our minds reflect reality---it has no interests at all.  If we argue that our minds must have some correspondence to reality because we have managed to live this long, we are begging the question, because that very argument that mental correspondence to reality has anything to do with survival is also part of what is in question.  Therefore, none of the logical connections we see between things can be trusted.  Likewise, we have no basis to trust that our senses provide us with real information, for Nature has no interest in giving us senses that report truthfully.  Ultimately, we lose all basis for thinking we can know anything.

3)  All basis for making decisions in our lives is undermined.  If there is no purpose, there is no meaning.  If there is no meaning, there is no value.  If there is no value, we no longer have any means for judgement between options.  If we try to invent values for ourselves without a foundation, we always know that we just made them up, and therefore they disintegrate again.  Another domino falls.  But we still go on living our lives and making choices, which points to the fact that we are not truly capable of disbelieving in value, meaning, and purpose.  The atheist can only be an atheist by being ultimately incoherent with himself.

It is of course possible that there is a why too but as I said before if evolution is correct there doesn't NEED to be one.  If there is a why or not isn't a question that can be answered by scicence but the question itself was posed by science.

There certainly still does need to be a "why," or all of the above follows inevitably.  And the question is not posed by science.  The question was posed long before science, and science doesn't ask such questions.  It is the beauty of science that it can be conducted by anyone, regardless their metaphysical beliefs.  Science asks questions about physics (and chemistry and biology).  It does not ask questions about metaphysics.  However, human beings ask questions about both, and do not always clearly recognise when they have moved from one to the other...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
It being possible that there is no "why" does not mean that there is in fact no "why," any more than the possibility that there is a "why" entails that there actually is a "why."  So you can't say that this second sentence is a "therefore."

Yes I can. You seem to be forgetting what the whole arguement was about.
 I claimed that science has removed the need for a god.
 You counter-claimed that science doesn't explain why.
I explained that if there is even one possible path that leads to there being no why then science doesn't need to why. Only how.

If science can explain how the universe started without purpose then my previous comment is correct and science has removed the NEED for a god. It hasn't proved that there isn't one and almost certainly never can but it has given us a way the universe could have started without one. So you no longer need a god.

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
If there is no "why," there are some serious consequences:

1)  The atheist is left with a question ("Why does the universe exist?") that is perfectly intelligible and very well could have had an answer, but doesn't.  This undermines a basic principle we live by in our reasoning: the principle that if anything can have an explanation for why it is as it is, it actually does have such an explanation.  In theory, one could throw away this principle, but that leaves mystery on your side of the fence, not the theist's.  Moreover, it opens the door to all sorts of inexplicability in the universe, for if the creation of the universe "just happened," why cannot a myriad of other things "just happen"?  That door is pretty hard to shut once you crack it.  Any assurance that we can understand and explain the universe that we meet is suddenly pulled away.  We are left with a universe where things just happen by chance.  Science will be only one of the casualties of that.

1) You assume that aetheists are incapable of dealing with a universe that just exists for no reason because if the universe can "just happen" why can't other things. Please explain what are these other things that could "just happen" and why I should care before we go any further down this track

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
[SNIP] There certainly still does need to be a "why," or all of the above follows inevitably

and? Your point is? Just because we poor humans couldn't deal with a universe that doesn't have a purpose doesn't mean that the universe must have one. It simply means that you feel we couldn't deal with it.
 To a large extent you are correct. Most people can't deal with life believing that there isn't a reason for it.

[karajorma]

Double post

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by karajorma


Yes I can. You seem to be forgetting what the whole arguement was about.
 I claimed that science has removed the need for a god.
 You counter-claimed that science doesn't explain why.
I explained that if there is even one possible path that leads to there being no why then science doesn't need to why. Only how.

If science can explain how the universe started without purpose then my previous comment is correct and science has removed the NEED for a god. It hasn't proved that there isn't one and almost certainly never can but it has given us a way the universe could have started without one. So you no longer need a god.

1) Science has not removed the need for God.  The need for God is unaffected by science.  The need for God is a metaphysical issue, and science is neutral to metaphysics.  Science does not eliminate metaphysics, or even deal with it, and ergo does not eliminate any part of this aspect of it.

2) Science has not given us a way the universe could have started without God.  Science can reach back as far as the Big Bang, and there it stops.  To explain the Big Bang, however, we cannot stop there.  Science cannot say anything on this issue, and therefore cannot explain why what happened happened.  Science describes what happened from the Big Bang forward , but describing what happened from the Big Bang forward does not explain why the Big bang happened at all, why the universe exists at all.

1) You assume that aetheists are incapable of dealing with a universe that just exists for no reason because if the universe can "just happen" why can't other things. Please explain what are these other things that could "just happen" and why I should care before we go any further down this track

If things can just happen by chance, all the rules of predictability disappear.  Everything that we assume about the way the universe works is undermined, and that leaves us in the uncomfortable position of confronting a universe that doesn't obey any rules.  

For examples, consider these:  
In Sudbury, Ontario, there is a facility located several thousands of meters underground for detecting neutrinos emitted by the Sun.  Being so far down, pretty much every other type of radiation is filtered out by the intervening rock, allowing the facility to track the numbers of neutrinos emitted by the sun without interference.  However, if things can just happen by chance, one such thing would be the spontaneous emergence of neutrinos from nothing.  This would render any attempt to see how many came from the Sun useless, for who could say how many, or even if any, came from it?
Historians assume that human history can be understood in terms of human decisions, actions, and responses to their circumstances.  However, if chance events just happen, then any number of an infinite multitude of inexplicable random events may have led to the formation of the Roman Empire.  History would become useless, for who could say what, if anything, of the past came as the result of human decisions and actions?
When I am hungry, I make myself a sandwich to eat.  But if we allow inexplicable chance events, who is to say that my eating a sandwich has anything to do with my ceasing to be hungry?  Perhaps when I swallow a bite, it reappears in places like Tahoe.  Perhaps the sandwich goes into my stomach, but that fact that I am not hungry is totally unrelated, the result of some inexplicably coincidental inexplicable event.  This last example might seem obtuse, but it is really and truly what is opened up when we permit inexplicable chance events into our system.  If it seems ridiculous, it is only because the idea of chance, inexplicable events is ridiculous, and totally antithetical to rationality.

and? Your point is? Just because we poor humans couldn't deal with a universe that doesn't have a purpose doesn't mean that the universe must have one. It simply means that you feel we couldn't deal with it.
 To a large extent you are correct. Most people can't deal with life believing that there isn't a reason for it.

I am not describing any mere emotional discomfort.  This is nothing less than the destruction of all rationality and all basis for meaningful choice.  Granted, nihilism might indeed be "true" (although that word ceases to mean anything under nihilism), but the only option available for the nihilist is to stop talking, stop believing in science, stop believing in history, and stop bothering to eat because he has to stop believing that eating has anything to do with not being hungry.  But if he is engaging in any of those activities, he needs to rethink his fundamental assumptions until he can be consistent.

[CP5670]

feh, too much argument recycling going on here; might as well have some quick fun...

1) Science has not removed the need for God. The need for God is unaffected by science. The need for God is a metaphysical issue, and science is neutral to metaphysics. Science does not eliminate metaphysics, or even deal with it, and ergo does not eliminate any part of this aspect of it.

I already addressed this issue in our last argument. Science not only eliminates the need of a god, but even the possibility of a god. Conversely, a god eliminates the need as well as the possibility of a truthful science. The two are fundamentally incompatible because god in your definition cannot follow rules while scientific processes must follow rules, so they cannot both have absolute truth in the same existence alongside the logic rules. Science not only deals with metaphysics but must deal with it if it is to be fully true, because to fully understand any one aspect of the universe it is necessary to know about everything acting on it, or in other words, everything else.

2) Science has not given us a way the universe could have started without God. Science can reach back as far as the Big Bang, and there it stops. To explain the Big Bang, however, we cannot stop there. Science cannot say anything on this issue, and therefore cannot explain why what happened happened. Science describes what happened from the Big Bang forward , but describing what happened from the Big Bang forward does not explain why the Big bang happened at all, why the universe exists at all.

And this was dealt with in that old thread too. Sure, at the moment we may not know about what came before the big bang but if the axioms of science are true, there should be some event before it and maybe we will eventually find out. There will be something before that event as well, and so on. Now just apply the ideas of infinite processes from analysis to the real world by mapping events in the universe to the integers (or reals, if you want the chain of events to be continuous). Just as for any number there is one preceding it, for every event there is another event causing it, and this sequence decreases (or increases) without limit. So asking what the first event was is like asking what the smallest number is; the range of the set is open ended and it thus has no limit.

Anyway, it's not the god itself that I find so strange but rather the god that thinks and operates like a human, having his likes and dislikes, paying attention to what goes on in human affairs from a human-like perspective, taking sides in these affairs and other such things.

I might post responses to any replies to this later if I have time; just carry on with those arguments for now.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by CP5670
BEST. EVAR.

Thanks, CP.