Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: TopAce on May 13, 2003, 12:37:06 pm
-
Well, I am trying to collect your point of views where you imagine the homeworld of the Shivans. As we know Volition inc. hasn't put any info about the origin of the devastators in the original database of Freespace.
Put your opinions here! Mine is that:
As the GTVA knows(supposes?), Shivans can live in Zero G environment, which stopped their evolution from advancing to the level of Humans or Vasudans. I think this only can be the nebula behind Gamma Draconis.
BUT!
The Great War(in 2335) begun at Ross 128, where the Lucifer struck down the system, but she hadn't touched any other systems before she made her strike. This can make doubts for my imaginations about the Shivan homeworld is truly the nebula. Because if the nebula were their homeworld, they wouldn't begin with Ross 128. Only if they have knowledge about a jump node between Gamma Draconis and Ross 128.
Please share your opinions with each other
-
Whada mean "advancing to the level of Humans or Vasudans"? I think the shivans are quite a bit more advanced than us.
I don't think they have a home. Some kinda space Bedouins.
-
Originally posted by tEAbAG
Whada mean "advancing to the level of Humans or Vasudans"? I think the shivans are quite a bit more advanced than us.
I mean biologically advanced, not technologically. We know Shivans are more advanced technologically(despite you take down at least ten of them alone in each mission, but it is no topic this time.)
-
Originally posted by tEAbAG
I don't think they have a home. Some kinda space Bedouins.
You are thinking they are dossers?
-
I think the word you are looking for is nomads.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I think the word you are looking for is nomads.
Correct, I think they are travelling from galaxy to galaxy, like the Kra'hens in Imperium 2! But where do they get supplies from, where can they construct their army, own shipyards etc.
-
Im really interested in the theory that their ships are really another spieces.
Does this mean there is literally a Mother-Ship?
...and if so, how big is she?
Im imagining something that resembles a Sathanas but bigger and have like 20 tenticles.
Can anyone do better???
-
...homeworld... = subspace
:ha:
-
Correct, I think they are travelling from galaxy to galaxy, like the Kra'hens in Imperium 2! But where do they get supplies from, where can they construct their army, own shipyards etc.
I remember one possibility for this that was brought up somewhere around here was that they somehow get material from neutron stars and use that to build their ships, since their red/black appearance is a little like that of neutron star material. This might also explain the Capella supernova, since they would need new material to keep building their fleets and Capella may well be a neutron star after the FS2 campaign.
-
Originally posted by TopAce
I mean biologically advanced, not technologically. We know Shivans are more advanced technologically(despite you take down at least ten of them alone in each mission, but it is no topic this time.)
Compare Biological advancements:
Human grandest point of evolution: Tits
Shivan grandest point of evolution: Plasma cannons.
My money is on the Shivans.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
My money is on the Shivans.
not with alpha 1 around
-
Oh, like we've got millions of those lying around......
-
Back to being serious, I always pictured the Shivans as a warrior caste for an overlord race. Lets call the overlords the Creators (from Shivans perspective). You see, the Creators are extremely xenophobic so they send the Shivans out to patrol known space and wipe out any intelligent life. But you see, Shivan space is vast, and for the most part the Creators are only just learning that the Lucifer was destroyed.
In short, the Shivans have no homeworld. Consider them a weapon system, they do have a built in plasma cannon after all. They have energy blades that pop out of the forearms, and the positioning of their limbs make for excellent maneuverability in zero gravity environments. This sounds a little too "manufactured" to me.:confused:
-
That, or a species that has manipulated its evolutionary genetics itself. With all this talk of 'designer babies' the idea isn't ludicrous in any sense.
Sid.
-
Shivans are their ships.
By that I mean that if you examine the Shivans and their ships they are very similar anatomically.
What if some central command keep track of what kind of ship is needed and dispenses an appropriate hormone or radiation to Shivans at a certain level of development. This hormone or radiation then causes the Shivan to metamorphose into a Mara or a Cain or even a Sathanas, granted it would take some time to metamorphose into a Sathanas but it's possible.
-
Thats cool, reminds me of Zerg from Starcraft.
-
So how would you explain the Terrans snagging one and making it into a terran fighter? I don't think they're born as ships. I can believe maybe they're bred in the ships, so they fit, but not that they're actually the ships.
In regards to their homeworld, I believe that they really don't have a planet. They constantly move around and grow in numbers, infesting systems.
-
Virus's
Edit: Shivan's = Virus
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
Virus's
Edit: Shivan's = Virus
Try antibody if you're going on that line of reasoning.
-
suuubspaaace... theeeyyy weeerrreee maaadee tooo kiilll thiiinngss frrooommm suuubbbspaaaace...
-
Well, if any of you still play the FS2 main campaign, you'll remember Bosch says something about the Shivans being born "from the flux of subspace". That;s probably why they were so determined to reclaim the jump nodes in FS1, because they were retaking their home.
-
Wow, been a while since I've seen this kind of topic. :p There have already been many discussions on this very subject (Origin of the Shivans by Aken Bosch, NTF Publishing House, 2372), just do a search if you want to see what's already been said in the past. :)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Shivans are their ships.
By that I mean that if you examine the Shivans and their ships they are very similar anatomically.
What if some central command keep track of what kind of ship is needed and dispenses an appropriate hormone or radiation to Shivans at a certain level of development. This hormone or radiation then causes the Shivan to metamorphose into a Mara or a Cain or even a Sathanas, granted it would take some time to metamorphose into a Sathanas but it's possible.
Thats just plain silly(like in Starcraft)....
The greates materials known to men can hardly withstand an atmospheric re-entry and you want to tell me that something biological is allso able to?:lol:
ALL biological things have certain properties, one beeing vulnerability to heat/cold... No organism can survive in outer space...it's just too damn hostile.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Thats just plain silly(like in Starcraft)....
The greates materials known to men can hardly withstand an atmospheric re-entry and you want to tell me that something biological is allso able to?:lol:
ALL biological things have certain properties, one beeing vulnerability to heat/cold... No organism can survive in outer space...it's just too damn hostile.
Not true. There's a lot of support for a theoretical seeding of simple life and living molecules between planets, including Earth and Mars. Simple life can almost certainly survive in space.
More broadly though, life, be it simple or complex, is incredibly versatile. There are organisms of some kind on earth in almost every possible environment - tyhe incredibly hot, the incredibly cold, even the incredibly dark, areas where there's no light to begin the food chain. And that's just life as we know it. Conceiveably, alien life could be even more robust and adaptable than that on earth. Add to that the fact that Shivans use mechanical parts to augment there natural limitations, have been in space for at least 8000 years longer than humans, and that they're totally uninterested in planets (Have you ever seen a shivan craft atempt reentry (or more accurately... entry)?) and you've got plenty of potential space liviness.
-
Life is extremly resiliant, but you said it yourself - SIMPLE life (spores) can survive in space....
And it is scientificly proven that where there is water, there can be life....AND THERE IS NO WATER IN OUTER SPACE..
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
And it is scientificly proven that where there is water, there can be life....AND THERE IS NO WATER IN OUTER SPACE..
I suggest you go out there and tell that to every comet in existance! :D
While I doubt that the shivan ships are biological I'm not going to say it's impossible to make biological ships because it probably isn't. Whether biological ships are actually a good idea is another matter. :D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Life is extremly resiliant, but you said it yourself - SIMPLE life (spores) can survive in space....
And it is scientificly proven that where there is water, there can be life....AND THERE IS NO WATER IN OUTER SPACE..
God, this as educational as 3rd grade science. I'm not going to even begin explaining as I'm sure every one of you knows how to use a search engine or open a book.
-
Who says 'no water, no life'? The universe is a big ****in place. Life as we know it may require water, but 1000 lightyears from here; who knows?
-
Bio-ships?
Crap.....
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Life is extremly resiliant, but you said it yourself - SIMPLE life (spores) can survive in space....
And it is scientificly proven that where there is water, there can be life....AND THERE IS NO WATER IN OUTER SPACE..
It definately has been proven on this planet that water seems to be crucial for live. However, its nearly impossible to assume that ALL types of life need water to survive. There is the theoretical assumption that life could take the form of a non-carbon base lifeform (i.e. we are carbon based). Not sure how that would work.
Then theres the fact that yes there is water in space. There are asteroids that are made of ice deposits, comets and meteors can have water in them, mars has water in its polar caps, heck they think there's probably some water on the moon (the most arid of places). Europa is theorized to be comprised largely of water. Titan has a nubmer of life building blocks, probably including some water....so yeah, I'd say water is around. Just nothing as spectacular as a ocean, a lake, or a river.
Just think this way: until you've turned over every stone on the beach, do not assume that there aren't any crabs under them.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
It definately has been proven on this planet that water seems to be crucial for live. However, its nearly impossible to assume that ALL types of life need water to survive. There is the theoretical assumption that life could take the form of a non-carbon base lifeform (i.e. we are carbon based). Not sure how that would work.
Silicon. It's closer chemically to carbon than any other element. Problem is that silicon bonds are much stronger than carbon bonds, so reactions are much slower.
Which means that silicon lifeforms could only exist close to the core where the older stars lie.
-
for the star system I have no idea, but we all know Shivan's live in Dyson Spheres :p
-
Shivans most likely would have lived on a barren planet, i.e. no atmosphere, in order to evolve the ability to survive in a vaccum.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Shivans most likely would have lived on a barren planet, i.e. no atmosphere, in order to evolve the ability to survive in a vaccum.
I very much doubt that is an evolved ability even if it is real (the only proof I remember ever hearing of it is a single joke movie on the Silent Threat CD)
-
The shivan homeworld is a low grav arboreal world. They aren't nomads or antibodies, etc. They're just xenophobic, chitonous bioforms.
Trashman, just because life as we know it requires water does not mean water is required for all life. That's like saying:
1. All the Cars in my neighborhood run on gasoline.
2. All the Cars in my Neighborhood do not run without gasoline.
3. Cars cannot run without gasoline.
This is false because some cars and trucks run on diesel. You may argue that this is not the same thing at all, but I disagree. Your logic is flawed. Life does not necessarily need water unless you are constraining your definition of life artificially to "life as exists on earth today".
-
Originally posted by mikhael
"life as exists on earth today"
revise that, "life as exists on earth today - that we know of"
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
revise that, "life as exists on earth today - that we know of"
Point taken.
-
Let me re-phrase that:
Chamses that a Shivan-like lifeform will evolve somewher in our vicinity is astronomical.....
And bi-ships are crap... Even if they were possible (and they aren't) there's no way they could be as fast, resiliant and overall good as a normal one...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
And bi-ships are crap... Even if they were possible (and they aren't) there's no way they could be as fast, resiliant and overall good as a normal one...
On what do you base this "they aren't possible" position? What are you comparing them to? Whas fast, resiliant and overall good "normal" ships are you claiming?
While I agree that the idea of a biological starship or starfighter is unlikely, I am not going to say that there is no way they could outperform inorganic craft. You're comparing speculation to speculation and assuming you know which one comes out on top.
In the defense of biological craft, I'll mention the voidhawks of the Night's Dawn trilogy. The Edenist biocraft rocked.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
In the defense of biological craft, I'll mention the voidhawks of the Night's Dawn trilogy. The Edenist biocraft rocked.
I'd also point out Vorlon and Shadow ships from Babylon 5, or if prefer Star Trek references, those of that one species that was kicking the Borg's rear end (you know, the ones with 3 legs).
-
Species 8472
Yea, they were the ones that were tearing up Cubes with 1 shot.... but not Voyager!.... :doubt:
-
Have you ever inspected the hi-res Shivan renders on the Descent Network site? You can easily see that the Shivans are wearing body-armor (see appendage joints (elbows, etc) in this (http://www.descent-freespace.com/goodies/gallery/big/bigshiver021161.jpg) pic - 1617Kb), as well as get a good glimpse of true Shivan "skin" in this (http://www.descent-freespace.com/goodies/gallery/big/bigshiver041523.jpg) pic (2082Kb), right around the third leg's "knee".
Therefore, there's no reason to take that Shivan Seth Hijacking movie on the ST CD as a joke per se - it could easily be a Shivan in a spacesuit as opposed to body armor, and we'd likely never see the difference.
-
I thought Adam Pletcher or Dave B told us that the Shivans we see are the real deal, no armour?
-
Yep. I was about to say that.
The armour you see could very easily be part of the animals body. If you'd never seen an armadillo and someone told you it was wearing armour you might believe them :)
-
or a turtle..
or if you saw an animal with horns maybe, like a rhino, you would think it could be a weapon grafted onto it. Or a hermet crab, but in that case it actually is armour.. unless its it's house. Maybe the shivans are like hermit crabs! They live in their armour! ;7
-
There si no way that biological material can be as good as normal, metal one...
Can your skin handle as much punishment as titanuium? As much heat? Cold? Acceleration stress? Weight?
any animal that has skin/shell even as remotly close to plain steel? (O.k. - turtles have a really tough shell, but not even close)
When you find one, gimme a call...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
There si no way that biological material can be as good as normal, metal one...
Can your skin handle as much punishment as titanuium? As much heat? Cold? Acceleration stress? Weight?
any animal that has skin/shell even as remotly close to plain steel? (O.k. - turtles have a really tough shell, but not even close)
When you find one, gimme a call...
Can a centimeter of steel stop a bullet like a centimeter of spiderweb can? :D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
There si no way that biological material can be as good as normal, metal one...
Can your skin handle as much punishment as titanuium? As much heat? Cold? Acceleration stress? Weight?
any animal that has skin/shell even as remotly close to plain steel? (O.k. - turtles have a really tough shell, but not even close)
When you find one, gimme a call...
I thought we were talking about shivans here. And if you ask me, they were made to play anywhere. Space, Planet side, your mother's womb, etc.
Besides, it's sci-fi, which makes it entirely possible for them to have that kind of a carapace.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Can a centimeter of steel stop a bullet like a centimeter of spiderweb can? :D
Can it stop a laser? Heat? Can it hold form?
*yes, you can make anything you like, even Shivans with 10 heads and 11 arms *
-
Consider the following: Humans and all other known life forms on earth are carbon based. We have, however, no indication of Shivans being carbon based, which could in turn change a number of things, the posibilty of strong natural or genetically altered armor is not ludicrous. I'd also point out the dinosaurs, notably the triceratops, I for one doubt you can shoot through its neck armor with a hand gun - even carbon based life forms have their advantages.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Wow, been a while since I've seen this kind of topic. :p There have already been many discussions on this very subject (Origin of the Shivans by Aken Bosch, NTF Publishing House, 2372), just do a search if you want to see what's already been said in the past. :)
:lol:
Anyway, I can't speak for Eddie, but I'm sure if he wanted to say something here, he'd say this:
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/setekh/origin.jpg)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
There si no way that biological material can be as good as normal, metal one...
Can your skin handle as much punishment as titanuium? As much heat? Cold? Acceleration stress? Weight?
any animal that has skin/shell even as remotly close to plain steel? (O.k. - turtles have a really tough shell, but not even close)
When you find one, gimme a call...
Why can't you modify a turtle's follicles to build the shell from a carbon/steel composite? naturally, you'll have to feed the turtle the steel, but there's nothing to stop you from doing it.
Now, in another point, Sandwich presents the spiderweb stopping bullets better than steel. He's absolutely correct. Spider webbing has a higher tensile strength per unit weight than the best steel ever made. Your counterpoint asked about a laser, but see, there you have made a classic misstep. Steel is inferior to ceramic for stopping lasers.
Metal has its place, but its not the only thing you can use in that place.
-
I dont' think it would be possible to make a protein based lifeform use "inorganic" elements for building it's body as proteinsynthesis is what drives DNA based life.
-
Fortunately, we don't have any evidence that Shivans are DNA based.
-
You said steel.... that's only one metal.... how about titanium? Or some of the others hi-tech-space-age materials. They have propertys that would make your head spin...
And you forgot about heat/cold/acid...etc...
And Vilkacis is right... That can't be done...
You've been watching too much si-fi man...:hopping:
-
And you're too set in your own beliefs to be discussing such a theoretical topic as this one. In fact, practically every sci fi in existence is guilty of perpetuating exactly what we are trying to argue against - that alien life would conform to the same rules as life on Earth ever seen a Star Tek alien? If not think Human with bumps :doubt: ). On earth, it may be unlikely that animals would create steel shells or titanium claws, and no earth lifeform could form a vessel capable of moving about practically in space. However, we would be arrogant in the extreme to assume that the rules of life on earth dictate the rules of life in the entire galaxy, or more so the entire universe. We look back and laugh at the astronomers who believed that the sun revolved around the earth... but is your stance any different? The rules and laws that we take for granted on Earth could be meaningless in the environments of other planets, or indeed some sort of interstellar medium, like a nebula or asteroid field.
I guess what I'm saying most of all is that, particularly when discussing a topic for which there is absolutely no hard data whatsoever, you need to keep an open mind.
Oh, and personally, I think this little fella :hopping: might have been a bad idea - there're people proving every day that there are enough ways to display anger on this board without another pissed off smiley.
-
The Universal Laws of the whole Universe:
Laws of physics = organic matter can't stand high temperatures and radiation.... just can't
And I say again...crap...
-
That's not physics - that's chemistry, and if high school chem taught me anything, it's that Chemistry is the single least constant classical science in existence (with the possible exception of biology, which is the other science you law of "physics" touches on, and is inextricably tied up in chemistry anyway). There are rules, and then there are ten dozen exceptions to those rules.
However, I'll eat my words if you can prove, beyond all doubt, that there is no alien life in the universe capable of surving an intersellar existence.
-
Originally posted by Vilkacis
I dont' think it would be possible to make a protein based lifeform use "anorganic" elements for building it's body as proteinsynthesis is what drives DNA based life.
1) The word is inorganic. :)
2) Wanna explain to me how we grow bones then? Considering they are mostly made of calcium phospate which is definately an inorganic material?
While I'll quite happily admit that it is definately easier to have a metabolism which lays down calcium phosphate than metals I don't doubt that there are organisms that could do it.
I've seen papers on enzymatic reduction of mercury salts into mercury metal so maybe it could be done with more reactive metals like iron and titanium.
Cells that used a similar process could deposit a layer of metal over the outside a creature living in space.
It would be hard to do I don't doubt it but I definately wouldn't rule out the possibility of a creature growing a metal exoskeleton.
-
All advanced metals don't exist in nature... They were man-made...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
The Universal Laws of the whole Universe:
Laws of physics = organic matter can't stand high temperatures and radiation.... just can't
And I say again...crap...
Read this...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000
-
If there is(was) word about starcraft earlier, I would tell some words about Imperium Galactica 2(a hungarian game, YEAH! :) )
I think they are Kra'hens, just has red ships. Even their Cain(or Lilith) is similiar to the Kra'hen destroyer. The Lucifer is similiar to their battleship, too.
I just want to say what I had said earlier, they are moving to galaxy to galaxy to destroy everything.
But there is now several obstacles in our galaxy:
1. Alpha 1
2. Who wants to make a game, where humans are sure to be extinguished or enslaved?
3. !I have forgotten!
As I think, Shivan-controlled worlds(planets) encircle our galaxy, allowing them to 'customise' their route, where they want to attack from.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
All advanced metals don't exist in nature... They were man-made...
So? What has that got to do with the price of fish?
I'm talking about genetically modified creatures which are therefore also man-made.
-
Originally posted by Charmande
Read this...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000
Interesting article... an evil twin out there somewhere... hmm... :p
-
This MIGHT be true is the universe really is infinite (which we don't know..).
And who said there is only one "twin" galaxy.... Why not 100?
Ever watched Star Trek TNG, where Enterprises out of millions of dimensions started popping up everywhere?...
-
A few things to be said about this article:
1) It is brilliant. This man is certainly an extremely intelligent physicist.
2) Level I and Level II are based on what is actually a very speculative interpretation of inconclusive data (read carefully the second paragraph of the "What Does Occam Say?" subsection at the end). This means that they have the possibility of being true, but such talk is unwise at so early a stage: more conclusive evidence is needed before a valid discussion along such lines can even begin.
3) There is a very urgent need to define what exactly the word "real" means in this discussion. In the case of Level III parallel universes, if we are able to interact with another of them, then that other is actually not "other" at all, but part of this actualised possibility. But to call parallel universes which are totally inaccessible to us "real" is to strip the word of any meaning whatsoever in this context. Level III universes cannot, from our perspective (Tegmark uses the term "frog's persepctive"), be called "real." They are simply alternate possibilities that might have been and aren't.
4) This leads into the greatest problem in the article: the assumption that we can at any point leave the "frog's persepctive" and gain the "bird's perspective." Even while doing our pure mathematics, we are still doing them from within the situation of our own particular possibility. We cannot escape it. The Level IV discussion, therefore is based on a deeply, deeply flawed assumption and cannot be trusted.
So as I said, this man is a brilliant physicist, and on the bulk of what he has to say I can only read and learn in silence. I am in no position to correct him on that, and wouldn't presume to (although I will wait for more solid evidence before buying into the idea that the universe is uniformly filled with matter). But with this usage of the word "real" and the problem of a "bird's perspective" he has wandered out of physics and into philosophical territory, and I must point out the errors.
-
And to think, this forum initially started out as what Shivan world might look like.:confused:
-
I'm telling you, its a low grav arboreal world. Lots of trees, where multiple limbs are an evolutionary advantage. They're nocturnal by nature, hence the multiple, shining eyes. They're arthropods of signifigant size, hence the lower grav world.
Its easy. ;)
-
While I agree with low-grav, I'm edging towards a small and unstable planet, little atmosphere and thus high levels or solar radiation. Small and unstable because the two pretty much go hand in hand when it comes to low-grav, unstable could also mean that shivans might perhaps be sub-terainean, the radiation on the other hand would account for their need for armor, to block X-rays.
-
:rolleyes:
http://www.interplay.com/freespace/shivans.html
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
http://www.[I]interplay[/I].com/freespace/shivans.html
Well - I'm convinced.
Well, actually I am - I don;t like the idea of a Shivan homeworld, a space borne lifeform fits more to my liking, or maybe some kind of nebula based Asteroid Field or planetary collision site. Zero G, atmospheric (after a fashion), mineral rich, plus probably warmer than the void of space and possibly active enough to generate chemical reactions - not ideal for life, but not impossible.
NB - the Shivans could simply be wearing armour and armed with Plasma cannons - They aren't neccesarily a part of their anatomy - after all - Terran Marines wouldn;t be born with armour, nir with machine guns grafted to their hands. Also, if they are a part of their anatomy, don;t discount the possibility that these were not deliberately put there, grafted into the skin after birth.
-
They ain't natural. They didn't evolve they were created. By what and why, I haven't a clue.
-
I do.
:drevil:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:rolleyes:
http://www.interplay.com/freespace/shivans.html
Good lord, that page is still running?
I would have thought interplay would have deleted it from their servers long ago...
-
Trashman don't take me seriously, but you should take out trash rather than dump it here.
Biology versus technology
Sandwich already came up with the spiderweb analogy.
Biology in most regards exeeds what technology is capable of. Think of the birds' bones. You simply can't create anything that has so good weight/strengh ratio.
Staying at bones - bones are, as earlier mentioned, partly inorganic in their structure. However bones are so superb that they provide fantastic connection for muscules - which are far more efficent than any known motor on Earth.
This may all seem good and ect., but I guess I still wouldn't convince you.
Well to tell one thing there is no such thing as organic matter or inorganic. The vis vitalis idead was abandoned long ago.
What set a "living" being aside from "dead" matter is the existence of metabolism - so viruses are quite dead!
A number of metabolisms are possible. Water is only necessary because it's our only known solvant that maked most of the chemical reactions possible. Other things can fill in that gap as well. *say liquid iron, at high temperatures heavier elements can come into play* - but let's stay close to our frog.
Even your own metabolism uses heavier elements like iron and copper. It's far from being impossible that an animal could develop an organ that would transfer some blood into his hide, where the hemoglobin would slowly decompose and leave a shell of iron.
However that would be far from your good 'ol knights shiny armor.
There are complexes in the body that contain metal in key points.
Some of the hormones are actually like that.
If a complex is created with high quantities of metal you can have an organic armor.
However metal armor is not necesserily as good as other materials:
Why don't cops wear metal armors?
Because kevlar's actually stronger!
Plastics made today are better than alloys made earlier.
And plastics are quite close to some of the materials that nature makes. *after all they are made from alkans*
Let's drop biology and return to Shivan armor:
They could simply use cybernetic implants, and graft an armor over their bodies when they need it. - In a way it is the Shivan, but still a suit.
Same goes for plasma gun.
Let's go back to biology, bioships:
Creating a ship that's an actual creature could be superior in several ways - I doubt however that the Shivans would be their ships - but it would need a horrendous ammount of genetic manipulation and experimentation.
If they found a space adopted lifeform however....
But it looks like the Shivans did not.
That does not take care of bioship. We were talking about the ships as if they were animals - plants are living too.
You could grow a ship - we are back at stage 1. Not too probable.
But you could grow parts for it. An organic component would "repair" itself, resist more usage and could develop on its own. However it would have different tolerances - but don't assume life can't live in outer space. Life needs water - but water won't freeze if you keep it warm, and if it's a part of a ship it can be kept in a better environment.
Such bio-part ships would be useable by humans as well.
As for advanced metals I say an organism can be improoved and can be forced to grow around and across certain structures - an armour plate for instance; if you reject all forms of advanced metabolism.
About Shivan homeworld:
The Shivans could have a homeworld - or I say should have had - but obviously they spent some of their evolution in space and by now they are a space-race that lives in zero-g, and probably uses gene-manipulation and cybernetic implants as well.
So it's also up to debate how much current Shivans resemble their ancestors.
So their planet doesn't even has to be low-g or radiated.
About those Shivans were made issuies - it's more than likely they forged their own image, and "made" their own children.
I doubt they would be messengers of another race, because if so they should have shown minimal sign of communication.
As for their affinity to subspace I had a theory long ago, that I first proposed on VWBB:
Subspace is another set of dimensions paralell to our reality, but it's folded up. It only unwraps where gravity pulls it apart, but it's still so folded that it doesn't affect out daily life (except for laundry, where is that purple sock of mine?:lol: ), but is undfolded enough, to be arranged for entry. Once a ship entered subspace its no longer in our reality.
That's why inrasystem jumps are much easier, and why you always seem to end up near a planet - and explains the existence of nodes as well. Places where gravity maintins a subspace tunnel between the stars *so inside a system you have a subspace sphere*.
I've gone a little further - in subspace light and radiation can get traped, and in a tunnel it forms rings. These ring can both frame the tunnel or collapse it.
Each time a ship passes through subspace it dumps energy into it.
So terrans and vasudans are another couple of pyromaniac in a powder filled barrel!
Ever noticed how dim Shivan engines are - that's the reason. They tone down energy emission.
They travel extensivly in subspace - even if they're not nomads, which I'm inlined to believe, if not totaly, then in the sense, that they are vanderers of the universe. So anyone else violating it is threatening them.
I doubt there's a single Shivan planet. But they may have shipyards and installations. Heck it is possible that they had those, but now most of that's lost, because they've been declining ever since they conquered most of the galaxy, and now it's lost tech.
-
I don't think the shivans conquered anything. If they were out for conquest they could have easily achived it at the end of FS2.
-
sheit...
flaser, you hit most of what I was just thinking :(
I want to father\mother your children, btw.
oh well. homeworld. vasudans had a homeworld, look at what happened to it. maybe they'll rebuild it, maybe not, whatever.
on the topic of biology. I failed the last semester, but it isn't at all unlikely that skin cells (the stratum something or other) can be forged with some (in)organic compound. I recall reading somewhere that scientists have or are working on modifying bacteria to secrete some inorganic compound for use somewhere.
[EDIT] You all need to watch or read Andromeda Strain :nod:
on the topic of technology vs. biology:
the human brain vs. the human athlon\pentium processor???
which would you want? :rolleyes:
even if we could (we might be able to some day) jack an XP 9000 Supar l33b Edition into our skulls, it certainly couldn't do what the brain does in massive amounts. it might be able to assist with some things, with what I have no idea at the moment.
who knows, the borg were like us at some point, as pointed out by the queen (alice kreig, *shudder*) in First Contact. Suppose the Shivans were similar to us? suppose their "homeworld" was like earth? suppose they underwent a massive technological and philosophical revolution?
the advances of technology are closely linked with advances in philosophy and changes in society. look at the invention of the atomic bomb. for the first time in recorded history, we were able to annihilate incredible numbers of people with relative ease and look where the world is today! :shaking:
(hell, look at MTV)
[EDIT] Yes, I saw that episode, it was called "parallels"...loved it to death... The Oberth class science vessel is so under-represented :(
poor little thing...
I for one want to see a campaign where Alpha wing is disabled by a shivan cruiser, docked with, and assimilated into the shivan "collective(?)"
complete with hall change and everything! :D
something else, I don't know, I'm gonna go grab another coke.
Bob
(six years ago, I used to think l33t was "bbt")
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Well - I'm convinced.
Well, actually I am - I don;t like the idea of a Shivan homeworld, a space borne lifeform fits more to my liking, or maybe some kind of nebula based Asteroid Field or planetary collision site. Zero G, atmospheric (after a fashion), mineral rich, plus probably warmer than the void of space and possibly active enough to generate chemical reactions - not ideal for life, but not impossible.
NB - the Shivans could simply be wearing armour and armed with Plasma cannons - They aren't neccesarily a part of their anatomy - after all - Terran Marines wouldn;t be born with armour, nir with machine guns grafted to their hands. Also, if they are a part of their anatomy, don;t discount the possibility that these were not deliberately put there, grafted into the skin after birth.
I'm not. What do you need a concept of 'balance' for in ziggy? The page that Sandwich referenced stated pretty explicitly that the arms are needed for balance. The arrangement of limbs suggests to me a climbing species.
-
Balance is not resticted to planets with considerable gravity.
In space just beacuse things are weightless doesn't mean you loose mass.
It is space where balance matters the most - without a good balance - and limbs to balance yourself - you'd be trashing around wildy in a frentic sery of twist, bends, yaws and smashes.
You need to control your momentum and larger limbs are good for that because they can reach far and creata considerable twist.
-
Shivans do seem to have 360 degree 'coverage' with their limbs, so they'd obviously be good at controlling themselves off stuff in weightlessness. although they have sort of big front legs, which I reckon means they have those for running - i.e. on land - and the rest is evolved for living in space.
Of course, odds are that the Shivans look like that cos it's cool. Or something. I'd be a bit wary about assigning more meaning to their design than the 'big cool scary thing a bit like a xenomorph' principle I like so much :D
-
You could go with the "they look like that because its cool" approach, Aldo, but that's a conversational and speculative dead end. IE, there'd be no point discussing it.
When someone asks questions about the shivans, I somehow doubt "because it looks cool" is the sort of answer they're looking for. Given that the original question was one about what their homeworld would be like, I'd say that their anatomy figures pretty heavily into it.
Consider fish and humans. Both are products of their environment. You're not a kickass swimmer like a shark, and a shark can't climb a tree. It follows that environment has a direct impact on the morphology of a species.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You could go with the "they look like that because its cool" approach, Aldo, but that's a conversational and speculative dead end. IE, there'd be no point discussing it.
When someone asks questions about the shivans, I somehow doubt "because it looks cool" is the sort of answer they're looking for.
*resists drawing parallels between this and mankind's origins on Earth*
:D
-
Nay, there would be no use telling them... - anyway anyone who watched Macross already knows the answer - well, thos who watched it and picked up the voices...
What voices? Don't look at me like that...Well if you insist...no...no that wouldn't do.
Even if we told them the truth they wouldn't believe us...they would stick with the idea that it was the serpent...bah, fish are ignored nowadays.
To tell the truth about Shivans they are just a buch of teenagers who fed up that their parents kept telling them to clean up their room.
So when they got down to do it one last time - and very last - they wanted to do it right. They're still in the middle of the process...
"Vasuda, Sol, Vega - hmm only a couple of more systems to clear in this sector- shivan officer aboard "great sucker - arm. I mean - vacum cleaner" (to us AKA Lucifer).
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
*resists drawing parallels between this and mankind's origins on Earth*
:D
Feel free. I'm sure the general chain of evolution from self-replicating nonliving chemical compounds to modern species is roughly parallel, though not identical, to Shivan evolution, Sandwich. ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I'm not. What do you need a concept of 'balance' for in ziggy? The page that Sandwich referenced stated pretty explicitly that the arms are needed for balance. The arrangement of limbs suggests to me a climbing species.
The page Sandwich referenced also was on an Interplay site, and we all know how good at FS information stuff they are...
However, if you are willing to accept that page as Canon, then it also states that the Shivans probably do not live on planets at all, and that they have been seen in zero G environments.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Feel free. I'm sure the general chain of evolution from self-replicating nonliving chemical compounds to modern species is roughly parallel, though not identical, to Shivan evolution, Sandwich. ;)
Alright, you asked for it. :p
The "looks cool" explanation to Shivan existance, you must agree, is not only the simplest explanation, but it also is probably the true reason for their form - Volition wanted something cool. Ok?
Now here's where I get all "religious". :p The simplest (and IMHO most likely) explanation of life's existance on this planet we call Earth is that we were either created this way, or created to evolve this way. The incredible intricacies involved and delicate balances of ecologies and ecospheres on this planet, not to mention the mind-boggling complexity of our own human bodies, virtually eliminate any possibility of random chance being the cause behind our existance.
But no, it can't be that simple, we can't be the product of a Supreme Being's creative actions, because that would be too simple and boring. So let's discuss all the possible and impossible ways in which we might have come about to our current state of existence without requiring the Supreme Being equation to make 1 = 1. Hmmm... random evolution from lifeless slime? Perhaps. Maybe we were seeded here by some alien race that has never shown its face since! Yeah, that could be... except if you believe that, what's the big opposition to the belief that we were placed here by a Supreme Being?
So... did I get into enough trouble yet? ;)
-
I've always wondered where proponents of the "seeded by extraterrestrials" suggestion think the aliens came from...
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Now here's where I get all "religious". :p The simplest (and IMHO most likely) explanation of life's existance on this planet we call Earth is that we were either created this way, or created to evolve this way. The incredible intricacies involved and delicate balances of ecologies and ecospheres on this planet, not to mention the mind-boggling complexity of our own human bodies, virtually eliminate any possibility of random chance being the cause behind our existance.
But no, it can't be that simple, we can't be the product of a Supreme Being's creative actions, because that would be too simple and boring. So let's discuss all the possible and impossible ways in which we might have come about to our current state of existence without requiring the Supreme Being equation to make 1 = 1. Hmmm... random evolution from lifeless slime? Perhaps. Maybe we were seeded here by some alien race that has never shown its face since! Yeah, that could be... except if you believe that, what's the big opposition to the belief that we were placed here by a Supreme Being?
The existance of an all knowing, all powerful deity is by its very definition complex because to explain god away you'd have to explain how he existed before the universe, how he created it etc. Since those explainations must include an explaination for every single peice of scientific evidence any credible explaination must by its definition be more complicated than the scientific one.
Hell, even most religious people will say that God is so complex that we can never understand him.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
I've always wondered where proponents of the "seeded by extraterrestrials" suggestion think the aliens came from...
Skegness
:p
I think some people like the idea of having some guardian angel / father figure, whether it be through religion or some sort of theoretical alien race.
Insofar as FS goes, my preference is that there's a sort of massive level of chaos between races like the shivans (i.e. a state of perpetual war), and the young races like humans, etc, exist just under that - like fish under a seething ocean*, or worms under a nuclear blast. Occasionally, we cross paths in the war, ala FS1/2.
My opinion is that the Shivans are simply evil ********, and that's all the motivation they need when they chance upon weak races. I like the idea of an uncontrollable, primal force.
*Not a particularly great (set of) analogy, that
-
Please steer as far from good/evil discussion as possible.
Both of these ideas are purly human ones - probably Vasudans can have extremly different idea of stealing - which are based on the ethics in use.
However ethics are just that - something that most of the population agrees with. But people and society changes, so are ethics.
You would rope someone who starts discussing the good aspects of slavery - but among the Romans it was totally normal and accepted, and no they weren't evil, in fact the basis for most of our laws are derivated from their laws.
-
While I agree that a single random string of evolutionary changes creating humans is unlikely, keep in mind that evolution is a stage by stage process. First you have to get from that slime into multi-celluar organisms. More to the point, the universe is by inherent nature chaotic - it doesn't stop when one combination fails, it keeps going until it finds one that does work.
Evolution and modern organisms can be paralleled with a password and a descrambler. If one thing doesn't work, it tries another, and another, until it finally get its right.
-
....or not.
But if life were a lottery, you could only see the winner numbers 'cause the loosers don't even exist.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
....or not.
But if life were a lottery, you could only see the winner numbers 'cause the loosers don't even exist.
You don't see many dinosaurs wondering down the high street do you? The Russians didn't use mammoths for heavy lifting :D
There are more extinct species than living ones. Hell the Permian Extinction wiped out more than 90% of all the species alive on Earth at the time. :)
So Flaser is right. You only ever see the bones of the losers (if that) :)
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
I've always wondered where proponents of the "seeded by extraterrestrials" suggestion think the aliens came from...
:drevil:
Like aldo said, I'm more for the Big war rather than the shivans picking on the little people because they like to kill or because they see us as a threat (please...) And keeping them as faceless murderers keeps their evil feel. Even if they aren't the evil in the universe, pussyfying them should not be dne hastily.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
I've always wondered where proponents of the "seeded by extraterrestrials" suggestion think the aliens came from...
They're actually human beings from the future, travelling back through time to seed the human race (ow, ow, head f*ck)
Anyway, Sarnie - why is the whole alien thing any dafter than the concept an invisible dude sitting on a cloud telling us what to do and chucking lightning bolts at us if we misbehave?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The "looks cool" explanation to Shivan existance, you must agree, is not only the simplest explanation, but it also is probably the true reason for their form - Volition wanted something cool. Ok?
I already addressed that above. It is most likely the correct answer for "Why are Shivans shaped the way they are?". However, that's not the question being asked, so its not a terribly useful answer.
...The simplest (and IMHO most likely) explanation of life's existance on this planet we call Earth is that we were either created this way, or created to evolve this way... But no, it can't be that simple, we can't be the product of a Supreme Being's creative actions, because that would be too simple and boring.
A supreme being creating us from the aether would not be boring. It'd be pretty damned exciting. However, the evidence is to the contrary. There is a fairly conclusive fossile record dating back before the ~6000 year mark most Creationists believe in (I think there's some Biblical 'evidence' for that number. I am not sure). The problem with the Creationist theory is that it is not testable in any meaningful way. It is unscientific.
For a theory to be scientific, it must explain why things are as they are now, and make predictions as to how they will become. Creationist theory does the former, but fails the latter. What predictions can you make from Creationist theory? Do organisms evolve or do they just pop into existence (ie, are they created)? Evolution also explains why things are the way they are, but it also makes certain predictions about the future development of organisms. The predictions are borne out by observation of simple organisms (bacteria for example) and more complex organisms (such as reptiles and fish).
You argue that a Supreme Being is "simple". This is as far from the truth as one can get. Occam's Razor states, "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". Your invocation of a Creator that can not be detected, predicted, duplicated, observed experimentally, or otherwise be shown to exist, sounds like "increasing... the number of entities required to explain" the situation. I'll reserve my judgement on the existence of creator beings for private conversation. However, given the evidence at hand, I'm going with evolution from self replicating chemical compounds as the simplest explanation.
... Hmmm... random evolution from lifeless slime? Perhaps.
Very possible.
Maybe we were seeded here by some alien race that has never shown its face since! Yeah, that could be... except if you believe that, what's the big opposition to the belief that we were placed here by a Supreme Being?
...
For this to be the case, the species would have to be able to move faster than light, which puts them on the same footing as a supreme being, and thus outside the scope of science and reason. Given the speed of light being constant, and EM radiation moving at the speed of light, I'll leave the proof of the impossiblity of extraterrestrial creationism as an exercise to the reader.
Side note: if you ever want to discuss this at length, Sandwich, I'll be glad to do so in email.
Yes, I'm aware of the basic stupidity in arguing for a scientific basis for this stuff when we're talking about a game that throws science out the window completely.
-
Okay, now I have to pipe up once again. I'll try to be as quick and pointed as possible in my comments this time, so hopefully people will read them...
1) The problem with "random evolution" from a Christian/Jewish/Muslim standpoint is not the "evolution" bit. The problem is the "random" bit. If the way God made us was through an evolutionary process, that's fine. What we aren't willing to say is that it "just happened"--God oversaw it. It wasn't a random process, but had a purpose.
* Some theists, who are confused in their thinking, take aim at the evolution part instead of the random part. This is because they have failed to distinguish between these two separate elements in the phrase "random evolution."[/size]
2) So the question is, was evolution (assuming it is true) random or purposeful? The answer to that question cannot be scientific: it falls outside of the boundaries of scientific invetigation. To say it is random is as unscientific as to say it is purposeful. This is not a problem, in much the same way that it is not a problem that 1+1=2 and 1+1¹2 don't rhyme. When we say that evolution was random or purposeful, we are no longer talking about science. We are talking about metaphysics.
3) Occam's Razor does indeed say that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." (BTW, it is refreshing to hear someone actually state the principle correctly for a change. :) ) The thing is, an uncreated Creator is the only sufficient explanation available for why a universe exists at all. If there is not such being, we don't have any explanation for the universe's existence. I would hardly call that a "needless" multiplication of entities. It is very needful.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
1) The problem with "random evolution" from a Christian/Jewish/Muslim standpoint is not the "evolution" bit. The problem is the "random" bit. If the way God made us was through an evolutionary process, that's fine. What we aren't willing to say is that it "just happened"--God oversaw it. It wasn't a random process, but had a purpose.
* Some theists, who are confused in their thinking, take aim at the evolution part instead of the random part. This is because they have failed to distinguish between these two separate elements in the phrase "random evolution."[/size]
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.
2) So the question is, was evolution (assuming it is true) random or purposeful? The answer to that question cannot be scientific: it falls outside of the boundaries of scientific invetigation. To say it is random is as unscientific as to say it is purposeful. This is not a problem, in much the same way that it is not a problem that 1+1=2 and 1+1¹2 don't rhyme. When we say that evolution was random or purposeful, we are no longer talking about science. We are talking about metaphysics.
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.
3) Occam's Razor does indeed say that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." (BTW, it is refreshing to hear someone actually state the principle correctly for a change. :) ) The thing is, an uncreated Creator is the only sufficient explanation available for why a universe exists at all. If there is not such being, we don't have any explanation for the universe's existence. I would hardly call that a "needless" multiplication of entities. It is very needful.
See above.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
While I agree that a single random string of evolutionary changes creating humans is unlikely, keep in mind that evolution is a stage by stage process. First you have to get from that slime into multi-celluar organisms. More to the point, the universe is by inherent nature chaotic - it doesn't stop when one combination fails, it keeps going until it finds one that does work.
Evolution and modern organisms can be paralleled with a password and a descrambler. If one thing doesn't work, it tries another, and another, until it finally get its right.
:wtf: First you state that evolution is a stage-by-stage process. I agree, and even emphasize it more - evolution is billions of stages, each building upon the successes or failures of its predecessors.
Then you compare it to a password and a descrambler. Inaccurate. 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".
:D
Originally posted by mikhael
A supreme being creating us from the aether would not be boring. It'd be pretty damned exciting. However, the evidence is to the contrary. There is a fairly conclusive fossile record dating back before the ~6000 year mark most Creationists believe in (I think there's some Biblical 'evidence' for that number. I am not sure). The problem with the Creationist theory is that it is not testable in any meaningful way. It is unscientific.
For a theory to be scientific, it must explain why things are as they are now, and make predictions as to how they will become. Creationist theory does the former, but fails the latter. What predictions can you make from Creationist theory? Do organisms evolve or do they just pop into existence (ie, are they created)? Evolution also explains why things are the way they are, but it also makes certain predictions about the future development of organisms. The predictions are borne out by observation of simple organisms (bacteria for example) and more complex organisms (such as reptiles and fish).
You argue that a Supreme Being is "simple". This is as far from the truth as one can get. Occam's Razor states, "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". Your invocation of a Creator that can not be detected, predicted, duplicated, observed experimentally, or otherwise be shown to exist, sounds like "increasing... the number of entities required to explain" the situation. I'll reserve my judgement on the existence of creator beings for private conversation. However, given the evidence at hand, I'm going with evolution from self replicating chemical compounds as the simplest explanation.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Originally posted by mikhael
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.
*pilots 747 through "plot-holes"* :p
"...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.
"...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.
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.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
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".
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.
Evolution isn't simple either. Most of the people who argue against it don't even really understand how it works. However there is an enormous amount of evidence around in favour of evolution any religious explaination needs to explain that away too which as I said makes it automatically more complicated than the scientific explaination.
-
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.
:rolleyes: 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".
:D
-
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.
-
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).
-
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. :D
-
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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :nod: :yes:
-
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.
-
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).
-
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...
-
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.
-
Double post
-
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.
-
feh, too much argument recycling going on here; might as well have some quick fun... :D
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. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
BEST. EVAR.
Thanks, CP. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
Time to stop lurking for a bit and jump in with both feet.
Science does not eliminate the need for God. People who have already decided there is no God use science and evolution as a crutch to support their ideas. Also, many people who put faith in God choose not to believe in much that science has to offer.
Let's see if I can say this correctly: The Theory of Evolution is not necessarily the problem. Science in general is not the problem. As has already been stated, there was no separation of church scholars and scientists for over 1700 years (by "church" I am refering to Christianity, but I believe this applies to other religions as well.) Scientists who believed in the Biblical God and Creation set out to learn more about God by studying His creation much in the same way I can study the works of a certain artist to understand his or her way of viewing the world. The Biblical God is the author of law and order, both the Jewish "Law" and the "Laws of Physics". God does not work chaotically but through the Laws that He has created. Now, there may be laws we don't know yet. Quantem Physics has managed to turn the "impossible" into the "improbable". For instance, The possibility of me walking on water is very low. But if my molecules vibrate at the right frequency and the water molecules do the same, then I could indeed walk on water. Or pass through a "solid" wall. Does this diminish God's ability or His "supernatural" nature? It certainly changes the idea of supernatural from outside the laws of nature to "using higher laws of nature".
It is only in recent history that people (in the Western culture) have tried to prove the nonexistance of God through science - which is as impossible as proving God exists. I cannot prove that God exists. I have "faith" he exists. Someone else cannot prove God does not exist. They have "faith" he does not exist.
Don't scoff at the notion that scientists must have faith in a theory. An excellent book that may help is T.S. Khun's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" Where he describes the "conversion" process that the scientific community undergoes whenever a new theory is accepted. For instance, Newtonian physics wasn't an overnight sensation. There were many scientists who disagreed with it because it didn't fit the facts. They had lots of data to back up the old Classical physics. Relativity had a hard time, too. It makes no sense when looking at it from a Newtonian frame of reference.
See? It's that "frame of reference" or to use Khun's word "paradyme" that get's us into trouble. That paradyme acts as a filter, a set of glasses through which we view all the world. If my glasses are tinted red, I see everything shaded differently than you who are wearing blue glasses. Even though we are looking at the exact same object, for example a white box, we will describe it differently. We can argue forever that the box is red or blue with neither of us "winning". Not until one of us desides to put on a matching pair of glasses will we agree. That changing of the glasses, the "paradyme shift" or "gestalt shift" is, in Khun's view, exactly the same as a "religious conversion".
In that light, we can continue to debate Creationism vs Evolution but I doubt we'll make much headway. I look at the fossil record as pointing to Creation. You look at the exact same thing and say Evolution. We're looking at the exact same thing yet we can't agree! It is because of the frame of reference we use to interpret everything else.
So, it's not science itself that eliminates God. It is a fundamental part of your religion that God does not exist.
I must also ask to anyone who wants to answer, Why must their be no God? What do we have to gain or loose by making a statement one way or the other? That, I think, is the real heart of the issue.
Although I must admit much of science fiction relies on the absence of God. Christianity believes in the imminent return of Christ. If that happens then all future Sci Fi can't happen. Therefore, no Freespace.
So, have I succeeding in making any sense today?
Now, back to topic: Shivan's grew up in Niven's Smoke Ring! :D
*Resumes lurking*
-
Originally posted by CP5670
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.
*sigh* I have tried to point this out to you in several different ways in the past. Maybe you'll get it this time...
The problem with your argument is that it has room for only two possibilities: absolute determinism, or utter chance. You refuse to grant the possibility of the purposeful choice of a personal entity, which is to say the possibility of will. But you have offered no valid defense of this assertion, for every attempt has been circular, at some point assuming it to prove it. You say "If God exists, his actions must be either determined, or chance." I reply "Neither. They are guided by purpose, which is a concept that does not fit into your dichotomy." You rejoin "There is no such thing." I ask "Why?" You say "Because it does not fit into my dichotomy." I reply "The validity of that dichotomy is precisely what is in question." You answer "No it isn't." I ask "Why?" You reply "Because purpose doesn't exist."
You see, the phrase "god in your definition cannot follow rules while scientific processes must follow rules" is misleading. That is your definition of God, not mine. In my definition, he can follow rules: he created them, they have their source in him, and thus they reflect him and how he works. By my position, the order of the universe is derived from his nature. By yours, the order of the universe precedes his nature and holds him subject. These two are incompatible, but you have only dogmatically asserted your position. You have not argued to it from mutually agreed premises.
As for science and metaphysics, I remind you once again that science is a ultimately a method, a rigourous form of inductive logic. We observe nature looking for order, and when we believe we have found order, we forge and test theories of the form "If there is no outside interference, X behaves in Y fashion under Z circumstances." If there is outside interference, the theory is not invalidated. But nowhere in the theory is it stated whether there is or will be any outside interference. Neither is any explanation given for why things tend to behave in this orderly fashion if they are not interfered with. It is only stated adn described that they do. Scientists must also be metaphysicians because they are human, and they may sometimes let their metaphysical beliefs creep in when they are talking, but science does not speak about it.
As for the claim that "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," I would like to point out the corollary to it. We do not know everything about everything, therefore of necessity we cannot claim to know anything about anything. This immediately undermines all supposed knowledge we now have, sparing nothing. The fact that I am typing this into a computer leads me to believe that we do know something, and so I am forced to reject this sophism.
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.
If you read above, you'll see that mikhael and I have already discussed the possibility of an eternally existent universe. As I said to him, "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. "
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.
Rather, it is human personality that reflects God's personality. God may be more than personal, but he is certainly not less.
-
God does not work chaotically but through the Laws that He has created. Now, there may be laws we don't know yet. Quantem Physics has managed to turn the "impossible" into the "improbable". For instance, The possibility of me walking on water is very low. But if my molecules vibrate at the right frequency and the water molecules do the same, then I could indeed walk on water. Or pass through a "solid" wall. Does this diminish God's ability or His "supernatural" nature? It certainly changes the idea of supernatural from outside the laws of nature to "using higher laws of nature".
Wait, but from what I have seen from others it seems that god is indeed chaotic, or in other words, unpredictable; that is why he is considered so great. If we could predict everything he does, that would quite diminish his seeming greatness, right? Anyway, it doesn't really matter if he can perform some so-called miracles; sure, it means that what was thought to be a law was actually not so, but there can still be another law that takes the miracle into account. But if he can do this for any law, then there are no laws and thus no science, and if there exist laws that he cannot violate, then there are limitations to his power. This is where the problem comes from.
Don't scoff at the notion that scientists must have faith in a theory. An excellent book that may help is T.S. Khun's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" Where he describes the "conversion" process that the scientific community undergoes whenever a new theory is accepted. For instance, Newtonian physics wasn't an overnight sensation. There were many scientists who disagreed with it because it didn't fit the facts. They had lots of data to back up the old Classical physics. Relativity had a hard time, too. It makes no sense when looking at it from a Newtonian frame of reference.
I quite agree, and notice that I did not say anything about choosing either science or religion over the other. What I am saying is that the two cannot go together because of this incompatbility with their very core assumptions.
I must also ask to anyone who wants to answer, Why must their be no God? What do we have to gain or loose by making a statement one way or the other? That, I think, is the real heart of the issue.
These are the main reasons:
1: it gives us something to fight about
2: the small font sentence in your post: we are all Freespace nerds and must have Freespace at all costs
:D
next one up...
The problem with your argument is that it has room for only two possibilities: absolute determinism, or utter chance. You refuse to grant the possibility of the purposeful choice of a personal entity, which is to say the possibility of will. But you have offered no valid defense of this assertion, for every attempt has been circular, at some point assuming it to prove it. You say "If God exists, his actions must be either determined, or chance." I reply "Neither. They are guided by purpose, which is a concept that does not fit into your dichotomy." You rejoin "There is no such thing." I ask "Why?" You say "Because it does not fit into my dichotomy." I reply "The validity of that dichotomy is precisely what is in question." You answer "No it isn't." I ask "Why?" You reply "Because purpose doesn't exist."
Exactly, because even a tiny bit of probability will introduce a non-determinstic element into the law. The essence of the deterministic law is that things must happen in a certain way no matter what; the law is either determinstic or it is not. You can't have any middle ground because anything in the middle would automatically be at the non-deterministic end by definition. As for the rest, we can use the Occam's razor thing once again. Why introduce this "will?" Not only does it invalidate the existence of laws describing everything (unless the will runs on laws as well, but then it is not much of a will), but it is not necessary to explain anything. In fact, we can carry this one step further. In addition to science laws and will, we will introduce two more governing systems into the universe; let's call them will2 and headz. Every event in the universe is governed by science, will, will2 and headz. :D All are mutually distinct and no two can be combined into a single idea. A will2 law says that no will laws are true and a headz law says that all laws are true. None of them control anything alone. Now all this may sound silly, but it certainly makes at least as much sense as just having the first two, as it also involves making distinctions because a unification would be self-contradictory. Mind you, a will by itself makes perfect sense (I think that's how Schopenhauer had it); it is in connection with science laws that it creates a mess.
And yeah, of course you cannot really have an absolute purpose. There is the book example I gave you before; you can use a book for reading, throwing at people, as a doorstop, or anything else you can think of. Which is the "true" purpose for the existence of the book? All of them, really. A purpose doesn't make any sense because it depends on how one interprets observations. But regardless of this, if the god's actions are guided by a purpose, then they are predictable at least to some extent (assuming he is smart enough to do things that work towards that purpose :D), so that diminishes his power. If he is to be fully omnipotent, he cannot be guided by anything and must be completely unpredictable, but that means that he might work against that purpose.
You see, the phrase "god in your definition cannot follow rules while scientific processes must follow rules" is misleading. That is your definition of God, not mine. In my definition, he can follow rules: he created them, they have their source in him, and thus they reflect him and how he works. By my position, the order of the universe is derived from his nature. By yours, the order of the universe precedes his nature and holds him subject. These two are incompatible, but you have only dogmatically asserted your position. You have not argued to it from mutually agreed premises.
So he does follow rules then; I thought you said otherwise before. Can he change the rules after making them? If he can, then they would not have been rules in the first place, which invalidates the assumption that there must exist rules. The rules still hold if he had already decided to change them later when he was still making them (and thus had incorporated the upcoming change into the rules), but then he did not have the power to actually change the rules and so has limited abilities. Remember, what someone will do is part of the measure of what they can do, so unless the god actually does something, he "cannot" do it (the obstruction to his capability may be his will but it still counts). Besides, the idea that god creates laws that in turn control him is a cyclic argument of the same nature that you keep accusing me of putting forth. :p
As for science and metaphysics, I remind you once again that science is a ultimately a method, a rigourous form of inductive logic. We observe nature looking for order, and when we believe we have found order, we forge and test theories of the form "If there is no outside interference, X behaves in Y fashion under Z circumstances." If there is outside interference, the theory is not invalidated. But nowhere in the theory is it stated whether there is or will be any outside interference. Neither is any explanation given for why things tend to behave in this orderly fashion if they are not interfered with. It is only stated adn described that they do. Scientists must also be metaphysicians because they are human, and they may sometimes let their metaphysical beliefs creep in when they are talking, but science does not speak about it.
That is just the manner in which we look for the science laws; it shouldn't have any bearing on their existence. As with any method science uses its own assumptions, one of which is obviously that such laws exist in the first place, or else we would not bother to look for them. This is about the absolute existence of the laws and is not really related to whether or not they have been or even can be discovered. If the law can be violated in any way, then it is no longer a law. Of course, we can probably make a new law which is similar to the obsolete one but also takes the violation into account, but if the god is totally powerful then he should be able to violate this one as well, so it wouldn't be a law either. He could do this with any law in theory, so there would be no laws and only his will running things, which is no problem, but it's not science.
As for the claim that "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," I would like to point out the corollary to it. We do not know everything about everything, therefore of necessity we cannot claim to know anything about anything. This immediately undermines all supposed knowledge we now have, sparing nothing. The fact that I am typing this into a computer leads me to believe that we do know something, and so I am forced to reject this sophism.
I'm not sure where you got that "of necessity" corollary. :wtf: We can certainly know some things about everything without knowing everything about everything; not knowing everything is definitely not the same as knowing nothing.
If you read above, you'll see that mikhael and I have already discussed the possibility of an eternally existent universe. As I said to him, "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. "
Well, like I said, split the universal event up into multiple parts, so for each event you will have another event causing it even if the train of events is circular, so causality is still maintained. Actually, it doesn't even have to be circular; it can be simply open-ended, as with the number line thing I said before. Besides, you are taking apart your own argument there, since this eternal existence is exactly what you have been saying about god; if god has always existed, how does one explain the fact that he exists?
Rather, it is human personality that reflects God's personality. God may be more than personal, but he is certainly not less.
Wait, but if he is like us, then that really undermines his image of superiority. Even the theists would agree that there are quite a few things "wrong" with humans, so if god basically acts like humans do, there is not much special about him. Also, what does more and less mean in this context?
Well, that's all I have time for today; I'm going to be pretty busy for the next couple of days and probably will not have time to reply to anything here. Thanks for the fun anyway. :D :yes:
-
Hehehe, now we're getting around to ANOTHER favorite topic of mine: theology:D I'm noticing some inaccuracies and misconceptions going on...
First, is the assumption that in science, laws are absolute. That is based on another asumption that science yields absolute truth. Both are wrong. I'll address the second point first...
A key part of science is observation of something, directly or indirectly, and gleaning useful information that could be used. Whether these observations result in a prediction or the ability to reproduce an observation varies. Optimally, both happen, you can both reproduce an event and make a prediction. Some events ALWAYS seem to happen, and are thus called laws.
However, science does not yield absolutes, but probabilities. The law of gravity is not an absolute. As far as we know it is, but as far as we know, all of a sudden, gravity might not work. We trust that it will, because all we've ever seen it do is work. Because EVERYBODY has observed gravity, and nobody has seen it not work, science tells us that the probability of gravity to continue working moment to moment is extremely good. There, are other laws similar, but you get the point on this particular issue. I think this may be realised and implied, but it needs to be stated clearly.
You (CP5670) say that if God were running things, that would void science. I don't see how that could be true.
Have you ever played chess? I have, I enjoy it (though I'm not very good at it) because the rules are well defined, and chance doesn't have much bearing (unless, of course, both players are rank amateurs...). But wait, since it's possible for me to move my King anywhere I want, that must mean the rule that the King can move only one space in any direction, and never into danger, is void! Well, strictly speaking, that's true. But, if this is possible, how is it that chess can still be played and enjoyed? Because both parties playing the game agree to abide by the rules.
Just because God set the rules, and can change them, doesn't mean that he will. Yes, if science were grounded in utterly unchanging and unchangable rules, then it would be baseless. But, science isn't, it is based on the probibility that things will continue to operate the way they are. And as long as God doesn't permanently change any of our established laws, science can operate with the rules it has determined. If the rules were to all of a sudden change, then science could be used to determine what these new rules are. It is not science that claims absolutes in anything, but your worldview, the glasses you see the world through.
As for God resembling us, I think that's putting the cart before the horse. God resembles us, because he made us to resemble him! Because of this, it IS possible to understand God. Oh, we could NEVER hope to understand him completely, but we CAN understand him in part.
Why does it matter if God is predictable or not? He does, after all have Ultimate Free Will. That's not to say that God can do anything. He can't lie, he can't ever do evil, and other things. This, however, isn't because there are limitations inherent in being God. It is not the "rules" that define God, but God that defines the rules! It is difficult to follow, but it's still simpler than the topic of the Trinity...
Anyway, within the self defined rules, God can very literally do anything. As it so happens, when He created our universe, He gave it rules to follow. Though He could change the rules, I think He designed it so that he wouldn't have to in order for it to operate smoothly. Because He created us in His image, and inherent in that is logic (which is defined by God, not by us), we are capable of diserning the rules He has set up.
I think that one reason we can continue to predict the "laws" He has set into motion is because He DOES have a purpose. And this purpose would not be served by changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Note, we are created in His IMAGE, but we are not created like Him.
We are somewhat like God as in our reflection in that mirror is like us. True, the reflection LOOKS like us, it has some of the same apparent abilities, but it is NOT us, it is much more limited than us (please ignore the breakdown of the analogy in the point of free will).
Does the fact that we have a reflection that resembles us in some ways, reduce us? Hardly. We are far more complex and incredible than a simple reflection. Just so is our relationship to God. Just because we are designed with similarities to God, does not reduce him.
Yet, there is another point. Yes, humans have errors, and weaknesses, but have you ever seen a reflection in a mirror that has gotten dirty? That image still bears resemblance to you, but it has lost some of that resemblance. Perhaps an eye has been covered up. If this reflection was an entity of itself, it would no longer have binocular vision. That doesn't change the fact that you still have binocular vision (assuming that you haven't lost an eye or two in an accident:p).
The fact that God chooses not to do various things (like change the laws of gravity), doesn't mean he can't. Indeed, the intent to do something is just as important as the ability to do it, because even if the ability is there, nothing will happen if the will to do it isn't present.
But, there is an out. What if his will is to NOT do it? I know that this has been mentioned, but let me continue. I have a deck of cards in front of me. Is it within my power to pick them up? Unless something drastic happens, yes. Am I going to pick them up at this point in time? No. Indeed, it is a limitation, but it isn't imposed by an outside power (remember, I believe in free will). It is perfectly possible for me to later decide to pick them up, and then proceed to do so.
The only way for God to TRULY be limited in that way is if the limitation is imposed by an outside power. But it isn't, it is imposed by the nature of God, which includes choice and free will. A self imposed limitation of action is no limitation of abilities. CP5670 is simply trying to trap God into a corner that has him needing to actually DO everything in order to demonstrate true omnipotence.
Well, I am done. There is SOOOO much more I wish I could say, but I can't for now. At least I stuck to theology:-P I know I wander a lot of places, and I'm not the best writer. If there are any questions, just ASK! I don't guarantee that I can provide an answer, but I will do my best.
Thanks for the most fun writing I've had in a month:)
-
Shivans are The Great Mystery in Freespace which differentiates the game from other "commodities", and makes it live after 5 years.
Any suggestions that create a "third race with somewhat different features" out of them would instantly ruin this atmosphere and the game itself.
Any exact answers to "where they come from, how they live, what they eat, how they mate ..." drive towards this direction.
I would say the appearance V designed for them (intentionally or not) is absolutely perfect, 'cos its entirely different from anything we have seen before.
IMO story writers should avoid trying to clarify the details about them, 'cos that would spoil the mystery.
Keeping this in mind, the events of FS1 and 2 make me feel that they did not come to exterminate races, nor to extend territory, so they must be something different.
Though a "hive mind" theory seems reasonable if I purely see their combat tactics.
Does it make any sense ? :rolleyes:
-
I agree....
That's why you won't find out practicly anything about them in the DOTA mod...
-
It will be easiest to answer your post, CP, by making a basic statement, and then by going through and picking out salient bits of your post that warrant specific comment:
Laws are not "things." They are descriptions of what we observe as tending to happen. A great deal of your difficulties lie in the assumption that "natural laws" are some sort of actual metaphysical entities. Essentially we are rehashing what David Hume and Immanuel Kant covered long ago. Hume pointed out that all of these laws are not, in fact, things. Nowhere can you discover any thing out there called the law of _____. Kant finished the job in reply to Hume, pointing out that these laws are our interpretations of what we experience. In other words, scientific laws are not "out there" for us to discover: reality is out there doing its thing. Our scientific laws (a somewhat misleading term, I suppose) are descriptions of what order we see in those goings-on.
What does all this mean? It means that statements of the form "If there is no outside interference, X behaves in Y fashion under Z circumstances" can quite happily survive the existence of a God who is not constrained by natural laws. So long as God is keeping things ordered according to his usual fashion, things behave according to the usual fashion. If he decides to change that temporarily, it is functionally equivalent to a case of outside interference. If he were constantly changing it, we would not say that the usual fashion was the usual fashion, of course, but rather that the alternative that he was constantly changing it too was the usual fashion. But he does have his usual fashion, and it is what it is, and that is what science investigates and describes. So long as one thinks of scientific laws as independent metaphysical entities, there is a problem when God walks onto the scene, but even Hume the atheist has already shown that they are not entities at all.
Chaotic is not the same thing as unpredictable. Chaos is utter confusion, incapable of being understood, for it is reasonless. Unpredictable means unable to be determined beforehand, but not necessarily reasonless. The two are not equivalent terms.
Something that is not deterministic may still be capable of being understood. Even if someone who believes that all human choices ultimately are predetermined is correct, it remains true that he does not claim to be able to unerringly predict the behaviour of another person. He believes that with sufficient knowledge he could, but right now he cannot. And yet, he is still able to understand his fellow human beings, to empathise with them, to see the reasoning underlying their behaviour, and so on, even without thinking he could have predicted their behaviour or can predict it now.
Your book illustration is flawed in that it assigns purpose (or more precisely, telos (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=telos)) to objects instead of events. A book is just a book. Reading it is teleological, throwing it is teleological, writing it is teleological, using it as a doorstop is teleological. When there is change, process, action, development, the opportunity exists for a telos. A noun cannot be teleological, only a verb can.
If a person says that an object is teleological, they are really just being lazy and sloppy in their speech. If I say "The universe is teleological," that is just sloppy language in place of the more precise "God created the universe for a telos," and/or "Events in the universe occur teleologically."
Originally posted by CP5670
Wait, but from what I have seen from others it seems that god is indeed chaotic, or in other words, unpredictable; that is why he is considered so great.
So he does follow rules then; I thought you said otherwise before. Can he change the rules after making them? If he can...[/b]
No, no, no. You misunderstand me. 1) He is not great because he is unpredictable, he is great, at least in part, because he is personal. 2) As for the rest, basically, you are raising Plato's "Euthyphro Dilemma." The Euthyphro Dilemma assumes that either the principles of reason precede and bind the gods, or the gods precede the principles of reason, undoing them. The answer to the dilemma lies in pointing out that neither option is correct. Specifically, when monotheists come along and posit a single Creator, the principles neither precede nor follow the God, but inhere within him. Their expression in the created order is a reflection of their existence in the Creator. (NB: technically, they are not things to exist. They are merely abstractions of facets of the Creator's nature, he being the actual metaphysical entity in existence.) Moreover, they are expressions of the Creator's will.
...He could do this with any law in theory, so there would be no laws and only his will running things, which is no problem, but it's not science.
Essentially, that is what I am saying, except for the last clause. Science investigates and describes the order with which his will runs things, and is therefore not killed by God's existence (see above). Laws are not things to exist. However, God does maintain order quite consistently for our sake, and our "laws" describe that order. (By the way, very rarely does he contravene his usual order; that's why we call it a miracle if he does. And in fact, most, or perhaps all, of his miracles could probably be cases, not of patterns of orderly behaviour being revoked, but of the Creator God adding or removing bits of matter and energy from the material universe and letting the usual patterns of behaviour run their regular course on them.)
We can certainly know some things about everything without knowing everything about everything
is in contradiction with it is necessary to know about everything acting on it, or in other words, everything else.
Well, like I said, split the universal event up into multiple parts, so for each event you will have another event causing it even if the train of events is circular, so causality is still maintained. Actually, it doesn't even have to be circular; it can be simply open-ended, as with the number line thing I said before.
Whether it is circular or an infinite line makes no difference. I am not asking for an explanation of any of the events within the system, I am asking why the whole shebang is there at all. In essence, I am asking why there are any golden retrievers at all, but you keep talking about golden retriever great-great-grandparents and great-great-great-grandparents, as if they weren't the very things to be explained.
Besides, you are taking apart your own argument there, since this eternal existence is exactly what you have been saying about god; if god has always existed, how does one explain the fact that he exists?
Ultimately, one does have to come to an inexplicable explanation, to something that is "just there." The difference is, God's existence by definition is inexplicable (if someone had made him, he wouldn't be God, but that someone else might be), whereas the material universe's is not (explaining the material universe's existence does not negate its being the material universe like explaining God's existence negates his being God). The theist carries his line of explanation as far as it can go. The atheist stops short of the final step.
Wait, but if he is like us, then that really undermines his image of superiority. Even the theists would agree that there are quite a few things "wrong" with humans, so if god basically acts like humans do, there is not much special about him.
[/b]Even in the beginning, we were but dim reflections of him. And of course theists would agree that there are "quite a few things 'wrong' with humans": Christianity is basically the story of the problem and solution. But how it came to be that humans who once were finite and dim, though flawless, reflections of God are now plagued by many things "wrong" with them is a matter of history, not philosophy. Basically, we choose the path of corruption, and so ceased to be flawless, and warped and marred the reflection of God in ourselves. He remains perfect, but our reflection of him is more like that of a cracked, mud-covered fun house mirror than a clean smooth straight one.
Also, what does more and less mean in this context?
They mean that personality is one facet of God's nature, but that isn't all there is to be said. Gravitation is one facet of the behaviour of the material universe, but there is more to it than that. Thus I could similarly say that the behaviour of the universe may be more than just gravitational, but certainly not less.
-
Originally posted by JudgeMental
*Long and enjoyable post*
Hey, a fellow theologian! Up till now I thought I was the only one on HLP. It is good to meet you. May the Lord bless you! :D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I agree....
That's why you won't find out practicly anything about them in the DOTA mod...
Well, that's the case, where saying nothing is the best concept for a story. :D
Btw, I'm following (almost) the same rule in TCP.
-
... a low grav arboreal world for naturally evolved tree dwelling nocturnal arthropods. Why? Because it would be cool if they weren't some mysterious bull**** created elemental force that everyone is trying to make them out to be. ;)
(see? Sandwich and I can agree. Sometimes "cuz its cool" is valid. ;))
-
Wow! thats one of the coolest ideas about shivans I've ever heard.
Originally posted by JudgeMental
Note, we are created in His IMAGE, but we are not created like Him.
Thats the one thing I find most upseting about the western religions. You're telling me that out of all the planets, all the stars, all the myrid races that may have existed or exist in the billions of years of the universe existed before and will exist after we're gone, that we were the ones created in his image? I not only find this hard to believe, but the most egocentric ideas to grace this planet. Unless, of course, god looks like everything?
Oh, and Sesq, I am a bit of a nihilist, but thats just a product of being an American teenager:D
-
Thats the one thing I find most upseting about the western religions. You're telling me that out of all the planets, all the stars, all the myrid races that may have existed or exist in the billions of years of the universe existed before and will exist after we're gone, that we were the ones created in his image? I not only find this hard to believe, but the most egocentric ideas to grace this planet. Unless, of course, god looks like everything?
Egocentric? Perhaps, if man came up with the idea, but man isn't the one who came up with the idea!
(NIV) Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, in Our likeness...
Now, who's saying that our universe is billions of years old? I have done bit of research in that area, and the reasoning behind giving the universe such an old b-date is flimsy.
Also, I have NEVER met any Christian who has said that we are the ONLY creatures in His image. We are just the only ones that I (and pretty much every other person I know) have ever seen. And I believe that we are the only creatures in His image that exist as a part of this universe.
While the Bible doesn't give us extensive knowledge about angels, I think it is clear that they are made in His image, in many of the same ways we are. They communicate, they have intelligence, free will (after all, how else could Satan have pursuaded a third of them to going him?) etc.
I don't think God looks like everything. Because He is infinite (actually, He's probably beyond infinite), there are likely MANY other ways that a creature could mirror Him. While there are some basic attribute they may all have, they could be quite different compared to us. But, I don't want to speculate too much, because the Bible doesn't talk much at all about God's creations other than this universe and us. My guess is that we'll (we being Christians) get to meet at least some of His other creations.
We ARE special in one case, though. We are the only creature that the Bible describes (even though, as I have already said, describtions of other creations are limited) for which God has died.
Is THAT egocentric? Perhaps. But, you know what? It doesn't fill me with pride. It doesn't give me any ideas of man's "greatness." Instead, it humbles me. First, we must be REALLY messed up if it takes nothing short of God Himself dying to save us. Second, He's got to love us A LOT to die for us. We're utterly incapable of earning that kind of love. The only way for Him to love us that way is if He wants to.
We aren't special by anything we are, or we've done. That would be another extremely arrogant statement to make. We're special because God made us that way, and wants us that way.
In summary, I would agree that it would be EXTREMELY arrogant and egocentric to claim to be the ONLY creatures made in his image. But I haven't met any Christian who has made this claim. We ARE made in His image, but it's not us telling ourselves that, it's God.
Of course, if you don't believe the Bible to be true, then it's all moot anyway. I, however, sincerely hold it to be true, in all respects.
On a side note, the Bible also says that we'll still be around even AFTER this universe is destroyed. We all may be in different places (heaven or hell), but we'll still be around.
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Hey, a fellow theologian! Up till now I thought I was the only one on HLP. It is good to meet you. May the Lord bless you!
Yes, indeed:D I am lucky to have many friends who share my interest in theology. Are you a Christian theologist? I don't want to assume you are:p Either way, may God bless you too.
-
Oh yes. :) Right now I am in Vancouver attending Regent College (http://www.gospelcom.net/regent/regentnew/), halfway through a Master of Christian Studies degree. I should get your ICQ number; I'd like to get to know you more.
-
Hehe, cool:) I don't have ICQ, but I'm looking at it. I do have AIM though.
Yes, I think we could have some interesting conversations. Well, I'll see how this ICQ thing goes...
And I can't believe I used the word "theologist" instead of theologian... Is theologist even a word? LOL Well, either way, you knew what I meant:P
-
Ah. I don't have AIM, just ICQ and MSN. (What a preponderance of acronyms!) I like ICQ, it's the mother of all instant messengers, and still the best.
And no, theologist is not a word. :lol::)
-
Originally posted by J3Vr6
So how would you explain the Terrans snagging one and making it into a terran fighter? I don't think they're born as ships. I can believe maybe they're bred in the ships, so they fit, but not that they're actually the ships.
That's an interesting suggestion, considering the hugely varied shapes of the Shivan ships, and how some do not appear to be able to accomodate a being the size and shape of the Shivans seen in Hall Fight, the tech room, and ST. The configuration of small Terran and Vasudan ships is usually somewhat consistent to accomodate accomodate the pilots' bipedal, humanoid physiology. However, Shivan fighters and bombers have massively varying configurations, some of which cannot hold a large, tripedal, insectoid being like the Shivans we have seen. Therefore, the pilots of these ships may be specially bred to fit their ships. An SB Shaitan pilot would not be nearly as tall, and a Manticore pilot would be quite narrow, because it looks like it would best accomodate a being like a Terran, and said humanlike pilot might have to stand up while flying because the central "pod" that sits between the two "arns" is quite short as well as narrow and there's a thruster at the rear of the pod that would eat into usable space. A Seraphim pilot might have a similar shape, but a different body shape might not be necessary because the Seraphim is rather large. A Dragon is just plain too damn tiny to accomodate a typical Shivan (at 12.4 meters long, it's probably the smallest fighter in the game), so smaller or juvenile specimens would be needed to fly them. The Nephilim looks like it would fit a "normal" Shivan quite nicely.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
A Dragon is just plain too damn tiny to accomodate a typical Shivan (at 12.4 meters long, it's probably the smallest fighter in the game), so smaller or juvenile specimens would be needed to fly them.
The Dragon is 12m long and 6m high and you're trying to tell me a shivan couldn't fit in there? Most of a shivan is basically arms and legs anyway. Fold them in against the body and you've got a much smaller package.
-
There's also the engines, 5 (!) gun mounts, a small missile bank, sensors, nav, communications equipment, maneuvering thrusters, all kinds of assorted electronics and displays, fuel tanks, power generators, and what have you. The smallest Terran fighters are around 16m long and 7m high. And you think you can shrink it to 12m by 6m and stick a Shivan in there?
-
err.. yes. 12m by 6m is a lot of space. And your saying that the shivans in all the wisdom and evilness and age, would build ships that couldn't fit thier pilots?
then again there's my favorite answer to the question, which would be "it's a game. they fit."
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
There's also the engines, 5 (!) gun mounts, a small missile bank, sensors, nav, communications equipment, maneuvering thrusters, all kinds of assorted electronics and displays, fuel tanks, power generators, and what have you. The smallest Terran fighters are around 16m long and 7m high. And you think you can shrink it to 12m by 6m and stick a Shivan in there?
The shivans are technologically ahead of the Terrans. Your comment may make as much sense as comparing the size of 1970s computer with a modern PC with the same computing power.
For all we know shivan technology could be pretty small leaving most of the space for shivan itself.
Besides it seems like you're either scaling the shivans up too large or not realising how large a dragon would actually be. We aren't talking the size of a large car here. Try bus instead. It's easy to get the scale wrong in FS2 cause the game makes things seem much smaller.
-
Dragons are only small to make the some missions of the game difficult. There was no 'how can a Shivan sit into it?' question front of the eyes of the authors.
Making a game difficult is always beating logics. :ick
-
This was mentioned for many ocassions.
Once again we have to say that the Dragon's actually big enough to fit a Shivan - the looks are deceiving.
A Shivan would be as big as the whole canopy on an Apollo - but' that's still small enough to fit into a Dragon.
Beside who said they had to fit in - maybe they're suffed in...the legendary Dragon pilots, who beside their small armor - even put up with little space in the cocpit and surgical reduction of their inherent armor...sounds like a good enough explanation.
-
Originally posted by TopAce
Dragons are only small to make the some missions of the game difficult. There was no 'how can a Shivan sit into it?' question front of the eyes of the authors.
Making a game difficult is always beating logics. :ick
Buddy, the Dragon is as big as a house! 11 m * 6 m * 16 m = 33' * 18' * 48'. Fitting a single Shivan into such a spacious volume would hardly be difficult.
-
So what the hell is the smallest ship? The Loki? The Pegasus?
-
actually, its the dragon IIRC.
Note: that the dragon is twice as big as most Star Wars fighters.
-
Again bringing up the point that one of the best modifications the SCP cpuld do for the SW TC would be to fix the apparent size of ships in-game... I want the Orion to look big! :)
-
More detailed textures, bump-mapping, more-poly models based on current textures.
The Realisation project started it a while back...wonder what they managed so far.
Bump-mapping is very far away if what the SCP guys tell is true - and they're always right about this kinda stuff.
I think it's up to modellers/skinners.
I saw a very good Hecate/Collosus reskin - with lots of windows.
With glow-mapping they seemed indeed huge!
-
Originally posted by Flaser
I saw a very good Hecate/Collosus reskin - with lots of windows.
With glow-mapping they seemed indeed huge!
Where? Show us!!
Was it up for download??
-
Check the Mod area...
-
Mod area? HLPs mod area hasn't been updated for ages!
(just looked)
-
*thinks he meant the mod phorum*
-
Actually, check the art forum for a post by Deep_eyes. It should be near the top.