[Setekh]

Well, when someone people say "science is their god", they often mean that scientific enquiry (inquiry? I always forget which is which) is the ultimate authority that they trust in. This stands separate to believing in a personal entity who is the ultimate authority that they trust in.

[Stryke 9]

Trashman: Try the Catholic church. The Limbo bit's right there in the catechism, and most of the major Protestant churches say you just go straight to Hell. Like I said, if you're Unitarian or something then I don't know the deal, but then they're barely Christians in the first place.

And once you go to Limbo, you stay there. There is no afterlife transfer department, unless you wind up in Purgatory you're stuck wherever they put you for all eternity. End of story. For Zoroaster's sake, man, you can't just change the faith to fit your personal bloody perception of what it should be, there's thousands of years behind this stuff and it's not all just gonna make way for your bleeding-heart sentiments. Don't like it, find another religion. Religion is a set of rules and a universal philosophy, not Hollywood's latest feel-good story.

Beat: Then you're abusing the very concept of "science". The whole point of scientific thought is to try and figure out the universe by observation, not just put blind faith in what some guy in a clerical collar or labcoat tells you the Universe is like. I don't think you'll find any scientists who appreciate your deification of their work. I sure don't, it lends credence to those assholes who want to pretend that quantifiable fact is debatable because they think everybody's a blind-faith zealot like them.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Setekh
words really were inspired by God, and God  

you know what people these days who say "god told me to say/do this" are called? insane

[Kazan]

Originally posted by beatspete
It's hard to define 'god' if you dont believe in god(s). I basically mean that science is where I put my trust, and where my beliefs come from.

actually it's really easy to define god if you don't believe in god(s)'

let's use American Heritage

Code: [Select]


god    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (gd)
n.

   1. God
         1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
         2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
   2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
   3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
   4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
   5. A very handsome man.
   6. A powerful ruler or despot.


You get your belief in god out of science? Two Words,  one contradction: Bull****

Show me a single logically valid syllogism that support your proposition that god exists.  No you may not defer to another person because nobody and I mean NOBODY can make a logically valid syylogism to support that proposition.  

I know a person with two PhD's ni the field of religious studies who tried to make an argument supporting that syllogism - he made twnety five logical fallacies and I called him on it

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan


You get your belief in god out of science? Two Words,  one contradction: Bull****

Show me a single logically valid syllogism that support your proposition that god exists.  No you may not defer to another person because nobody and I mean NOBODY can make a logically valid syylogism to support that proposition.  

I know a person with two PhD's ni the field of religious studies who tried to make an argument supporting that syllogism - he made twnety five logical fallacies and I called him on it

How about this as a beginning;
"God invented the world, and all in it.  Science is a way of understanding Gods creation."

It's perfectly valid -  I'm sure there are plenty of scientists out there whose beliefs have been reinforced by the complexity of what they study.... IIRC, based on random chance alone, it would have taken several billion years for the first single celled organisms to develop on Earth - i.e. so we should logically be still part of the primodvial soup.  Or other stuff which is equally inexplicable by current logic*

Now, I'm not arguing either pro or anti-religion here - I've already stated my views on this whole thing - i'm just trying to make the point that there is more than one way in which a person may choose thier beliefs.

As for the proof of Gods' existence, well that's a matter of belief and how you view the world around you.  There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a higher being, though.

*NB: whilst it's obvious that science has yet to (even begin to) answer every question - I've used that reason as counter to why so many 'zealot-ish' religious people just ignore it - it doesn't necessarily entail that it can answer all the questions.

[Bobboau]

"based on random chance alone, it would have taken several billion years for the first single celled organisms to develop on Earth"

earth is sevral billion years old, most complex life has only been around for 500 million years,
and who said random chance allone, it was evolution
evolution != random chance

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Setekh


Kazan, the assertion of GW's is that the Bible's words ought to be taken with a grain of salt, because they are stained by humanity's touch upon them in the writing and selection process. However, the assertion itself is historiographically only one of many possible explanations. It too must be taken with a grain of salt.

Ace, I think it's useful to realise that if those words really were inspired by God, and God is not some sort of fairy who is unable to keep his communication with us as accurate as he wants it to be, then what he wants to communicate to us will get to us despite human plans to intervene.

Btw, it's called 'Revelation'.

Then what is your opinion, Setekh, on things such as the Catholic belief in purgatory, or the Calvinist belief in predetermination? Or the rejected apocryphal books, such as the Apocalypse of Peter? If you are certain that the leaders of the Church were divinely guided when choosing the books of the Bible at the Council of Nicea, were they also divinely guided when developing the concepts of predetermination and purgatory? And if the writers of the accepted Gospels were divinely guided, who guided the writers of the rejected books?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
"based on random chance alone, it would have taken several billion years for the first single celled organisms to develop on Earth"

earth is sevral billion years old, most complex life has only been around for 500 million years,
and who said random chance allone, it was evolution
evolution != random chance

I'll dig out the figure if i can find it (IIRC it was more than 2 bn, and probbably something like 6+).... but the appearance of life on Earth was definately far, far, sooner that would have been expected.

although I think there are holes in evolutionary theory that are still being explored - such as how & why random mutations occur, and what environmental pressures 'naturally select' a particular mutation as being beneficial, and soforth.

And evolution was not responsible for the creation of the first life.  To clarify, I'm referring to what is the first formation of DNA molecules and soforth from the base, um, stuff that was floating around at the time - i.e. the first 'spark' of life.

I'm not saying this was necessarilly the 'hand of god' at work or anything, just that some people may see it as evidence of a higher power.  Likewise, it could just be an unknown factor.  It's just something I'm pointing out about how much we have yet to understand, and how people can view that.

[Flipside]

Well, if space is infinitely big, then there is infinite room, therefore almost anything has somewhere to happen.

Possibly all of the above are true

[Bobboau]

if you head off in one direction long enough, acording to the laws of probability, you will find a planet identical to earth as you left it.

it's true

"how & why random mutations occur" there are many ways wich this has been found, from radiation to simple errors in the DNA spliceing proces when to organisms mate.

"what environmental pressures 'naturally select' a particular mutation as being beneficial" all of them, if you do better than your siblings or especaly competitors you are naturaly selected (doing better can be somewhat circularly defind as haveing children who do better)

if a simple easily created by chance molocule happens to be able to replicate it'self, there you have evolution. something of the complexity of a single sugar molocule is all that is needed to get it started.

[Grey Wolf]

I thought that they thought the first organic molecules were amino acids, not sugars.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
if you head off in one direction long enough, acording to the laws of probability, you will find a planet identical to earth as you left it.

it's true

"how & why random mutations occur" there are many ways wich this has been found, from radiation to simple errors in the DNA spliceing proces when to organisms mate.

"what environmental pressures 'naturally select' a particular mutation as being beneficial" all of them, if you do better than your siblings or especaly competitors you are naturaly selected (doing better can be somewhat circularly defind as haveing children who do better)

Yes, but what does 'do better' actually mean?   And how can some animals remain at the top of their food chain for so long without being challenged, like sharks?  Why aren't all evoluuntionary niches filled?  How do interdependiencies (like between plants and pollen-carrying insects) develop?  How does behaviour evolve? (humans being the best example - because we're basically helpless at birth, a family group is required not only to survive, but also to educate).   That sort of stuff......

.I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I'm not even going to try and put together some mindblowing argumeent or whatnot (i.e. I'm too bloody lazy and tired to look it up on google ), but it's been my understanding that there are many aspects behind the theory of natural selection that have still to be fully determined.

[Kazan]

aldo_14: you're 'Earlier than expected" statement is bullocks - the atmosphere of early earth consisted of a set of gasses than when  a powerful spark (such as LIGHTNING) was introduced to it would spontaenously generate so-called "organic molecules" this process is called abiogenesis and is the single largest "obstical" for life to get going - and in early earth it wasn't an obtical at all the atmosphere favored it.  The presence of life then altered the amtosphere  and some of the lighter gases were also shed off.


the arguement that the universe is inherently "Complex" is based off a erronious understanding of the laws of thermodynamics - every structure in the universe is easily obtainable by simple processes of natural forces.

I'm sure you'd say an "orbit" is complex - it's just the combination of inert and gravitation.

I'm sure you'd say a "Galaxy" is complex - it's just a whole set of orbits - everyhting in it can be broen down into results of inerta and gravitation (stars have fusion because of gravitation pulling them on themselves, etc)

[Bobboau]

do better, haveing more childeren who have more childeren, who have more childeren ... who have more childeren, than a competitor, if for some reason down the line all you progeny get wiped out then you lose.

sharks have a design that has yet to be improved upon, if there was a better one then there would probly be no sharks any more.

what is a nich you think should be filled that isn't (there is no law sayin gthat they have to be filled, just wonderig what you are talking aobut)

interdependencies and behaviour develop just like any other evolutionary feature

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: you're 'Earlier than expected" statement is bullocks - the atmosphere of early earth consisted of a set of gasses than when  a powerful spark (such as LIGHTNING) was introduced to it would spontaenously generate so-called "organic molecules" this process is called abiogenesis and is the single largest "obstacle" for life to get going - and in early earth it wasn't an obtical at all the atmosphere favored it.  The presence of life then altered the amtosphere  and some of the lighter gases were also shed off.

I'm prepared to be proven wrong... it was only a half remembered example after all.

  Although a quick google check shows that ( http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html ) there is still an ongoing debate over the whole thing (I believe this is what you mean)... honestly, i can't be arsed arguing over it.   and there is appraently some issue regarding organic compounds - to - cells, and exactly what the atmospheric conditions were on earth, and soforth.

 But my point was about the fact that the universe is a very, very, complex and intricate thing., and how people may interpret that as being for, or against a certain belief system.

[Kazan]

aldo: interesting site there - but that still doesn't refute abiogenesis it supports it - and it doesn't refute the experiement - it just says that it may not have been the only biological source on earth


second: you ignored half of my post - you keep asserting the the universe is "very, very, complex and intericate" but you do not A) support that assertion of B) assuming A you must prove A cannot arise out of natural forces

A is more semantic than anything else - B is the important proposition - PROVE that "Complexity" cannot be caused by the INTERACTION OF NATURAL FORCES

you know what i think about you avoiding that? I know you know you cannot support that proposition because you know you're full of it - you know why I say this? because proposition B is unsupportable

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo: interesting site there - but that still doesn't refute abiogenesis it supports it - and it doesn't refute the experiement - it just says that it may not have been the only biological source on earth

second: you ignored half of my post - you keep asserting the the universe is "very, very, complex and intericate" but you do not A) support that assertion of B) assuming A you must prove A cannot arise out of natural forces

A is more semantic than anything else - B is the important proposition - PROVE that "Complexity" cannot be caused by the INTERACTION OF NATURAL FORCES

you know what i think about you avoiding that? I know you know you cannot support that proposition because you know you're full of it - you know why I say this? because proposition B is unsupportable

I think you missed my point - I never made, nor intended to make,  an argument for creationism.  I was making an argument for belief in it.

Now, I am not a devout person or whatnot.  But it's pretty obvious that B) in particualr is a pointless statement.  Because there's no way to define natural forces in a completely neutral way.  

What I mean, is that you can say it's down to themodynamics, and then someone religious can hit back with 'well, thermodynamics were created by God'.... and there's no real way to logically contest it (because the existence of God can neither be proven or disproven - or at least, not by anyone still alive ).

So ,you see that B) is supportable if your belief structure allows it.  yours doesn't, but it doesn;t mean that someone else doesn't.  And it doesn't prevent them wanting to explore it, either.

And the problem is that you seem unable to grasp that side of it (the whole essence of faith)- you seem to show unmitigated contempt for anyone who has religious beliefs, which is just daft, really.  And I think that you're so set in that mindset, that you'll porobably miss my point in this post too.

Because you don;t seem to want to accept the possibility that science is not the antithesis of religion.

C'est la vie.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I'll dig out the figure if i can find it (IIRC it was more than 2 bn, and probbably something like 6+).... but the appearance of life on Earth was definately far, far, sooner that would have been expected.

Based on the model that the article you read was using. The problem isn't that the scientists can't figure out a way that life on Earth got started. There are several therories. The problem is picking which one happened not which one is more plausable.

The thing that most people forget is that Replicator - the first self replacating molecule (which almost certainly wasn't DNA!) only needed to appear once.  In all the reactions that occured on the primordial Earth for 4 billion years only one needed to give rise to a self replicating molecule.

Originally posted by aldo_14
although I think there are holes in evolutionary theory that are still being explored - such as how & why random mutations occur, and what environmental pressures 'naturally select' a particular mutation as being beneficial, and soforth.

Only the minor details of natural selection are being studied now. The basic theory is simple enough and well understood enough that even though I've only read "The Selfish Gene" & "The Blind Watchmaker" I can understand it. (Both books are by Richard Dawkins and I HIGHLY reccomend them to anyone who wants to be able to talk about evolution without talking through their hat).

Originally posted by aldo_14
And evolution was not responsible for the creation of the first life.  To clarify, I'm referring to what is the first formation of DNA molecules and soforth from the base, um, stuff that was floating around at the time - i.e. the first 'spark' of life.

I'm not saying this was necessarilly the 'hand of god' at work or anything, just that some people may see it as evidence of a higher power.  Likewise, it could just be an unknown factor.  It's just something I'm pointing out about how much we have yet to understand, and how people can view that.

As I said there are several theories which explain how life got started. We may never know which one is correct as all of them are plausable. It's like looking at a murder committed 1000 years ago and trying to figure out who did it. You can eliminate some suspects but you can never say who did it for certain. You don't however need to ascribe a supernatural explaination for it.

Originally posted by aldo_14
Because you don;t seem to want to accept the possibility that science is not the antithesis of religion.

Sorry Aldo but it is. Science says nothing can be true unless we prove it. Religion says this is true but can't even prove that God exists let alone anything else.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma

You don't however need to ascribe a supernatural explaination for it.

I was only saying that you could.  that's all.  Didn't say that i did, just that some people might and it's perfectly understandable.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14


I was only saying that you could.  that's all.  Didn't say that i did, just that some people might and it's perfectly understandable.

You could. But there is no need. You could also say that the murder was committed by a giant tapdancing mongoose but why say that unless you've got even some slight proof?