| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2007 05:43:56 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you even admit of that possibility, why not convert and be done with it? If there is no God, you lose nothing; if the Christians are right, you gain eternal bliss.
R. |
What? And lose my appreciation, wonder and intrigue about the world (rather than simply attribute them to "god"), lose my ability to do things for good causes that I believe in (even if condemned 5,000 years ago), and lose my sense of rational thought?
Surely God's omniscience would see through any calculated attempt to obtain eternal bliss. If such a god existed, surely he would be big enough to be able to cope without my belief in his existence?
If you truly believe Pascal's wager to be convincing, why not start believing in Allah, Baal, Loki, etc etc? - your odds of obtaining eternal bliss will improve with every god that you suspend your disbelief in.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 07:41:28 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
That sounds ridiculous to me, too. How can I possibly force myself to truly believe in anything? |
By suspending your disbelief. It's called "faith". ;-)
R. |
True faith (or belief) is much, much more than a simple "suspension of disbelief." Imagine this scene: I die and meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter asks me if I believe that Jesus Christ is my saviour. I respond "Well... I don't not believe he's my saviour". From what I understand about Christianity, that won't get me very far.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 07:55:09 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
However, if you were to start with a big bang and follow a sequence of changes that follow natural laws, then each event may become a probability, or at least not impossibly unlikely. |
And what about the probability of the big bang itself?
None of 'this' that we see around us had to happen at all. I would argue there was an infintely *small* probability that the big bang had to happen.
And with no time dimension in existance for it to happen during, it should never have happened! |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:07:44 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
with no time dimension in existance for it to happen during, it should never have happened! |
Um, how do you know there was no time dimension? Does it make sense that if you go back in time far enough that time would suddenly stop at some point? The odds against a Big Bang might be staggering, but if we have evidence that it DID happen, then it should be obvious enough that it's possible no matter how improbable. As with a Powerball lottery, over a long enough period of time every possibility will show up eventually.
The faithful will often point to the Big Bang and ask how something can spring from nothing, yet dodge the exact same question when it comes to a creator. If at any point there was nothing, then there was by definition nothing to will something into existence. If something (or someone) has always existed, then why can't the same premise reasonably apply to space, time and the laws of physics? If you think about it, there simply couldn't have been anything before time since "before" is a description of chronological order (eg. time must exist to have a before or an after).
Message edited by author 2007-01-04 11:56:12. |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:19:57 AM · #205 |
These threads are always immensely entertaining.
My husband watched some propaganda movie from the 50's the other day. The premise of the movie was "us against the communist". So, this scientist starting receiving encrypted messages from Mars. After soooo long, they figured out that the messages were quoting the Bible. Oh proof!!! The short story is that this message spread throughout the world, communism crumbled and faith was restored amongst all. All other religions feel by the wayside. But... it turns out that the messages really came from a scientist in the communist block and he used it to escape communism. After he reached the states, he went to the scientist who received the messages from Mars with proof that he sent the messages and now that he was out was going to expose his hoax to the world. Rather than let their religion be defamed, they choose to blow him and themselves up, thus saving Christianity and making the world a better place for the children that they orphaned with this decision. WOW!
I tend not to discuss politics or religion online, because I have yet to find anyone who totally agrees with my thinking.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:23:29 AM · #206 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Edit: I would add that the chances of 1,2,3,4,5,6 coming up on a lottery is no more or less likely than any other sequence of numbers. |
Oh, absolutely correct. Any given sequence of numbers is equally as likely as any other. This one just gets more attention when seen on the page :-) As to the rest of your point, I do understand the principles behind the probability of complex events occurring; bear in mind that my quoted statement was in response to something Doc said, and that the point I was making with it is essentially the same as the much more detailed exegesis you just gave us....
R.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:28:45 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
TO Wikipedia!!!
...most scholars believe that either Matthew or Luke was written around the year 80 and used Mark as a source, they find a date past 75 unlikely... |
Well if you hadn't scolded me for using Wikipedia in the first place, I might have looked that up. ;-P
Nevertheless, it changes little. If we assume Mark was written in A.D. 70, that leaves only two possibilities for an account of history (as opposed to fiction): either Mark personally witnessed events firsthand and waited 70 years to write them down, or he was relating the stories of others (more likely their children or grandchildren) from decades earlier... and in Greek rather than the Aramaic of those actually present. Matthew and Luke are widely considered to be later works based on the earlier Mark, yet contain important events (virgin birth, miracles and such) that appear nowhere in Mark. THIS is our proof of history? |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:32:44 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
What? And lose my appreciation, wonder and intrigue about the world (rather than simply attribute them to "god")... |
It's not like you to be so simplistic :-) In no way does belief in God require a denaturing of one's awe at, or appreciation of, His creation. Robinson Jeffers, an unorthodox believer if there ever was one, but it this way:
as mathematics, a human invention
that parallels but never touches reality,
gives the astronomer metaphors
through which he may comprehend
the powers and the flow of things:
so the human sense of beauty
is our metaphor of their excellence,
their divine nature —
like dust in a whirlwind, making
The wild wind visible.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
If you truly believe Pascal's wager to be convincing, why not start believing in Allah, Baal, Loki, etc etc? - your odds of obtaining eternal bliss will improve with every god that you suspend your disbelief in. |
I don't think it is convincing. It was just apropos the discussion at that point. Part of the reason I find it unconvincing is exactly what you have just said :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:39:58 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
However, if you were to start with a big bang and follow a sequence of changes that follow natural laws, then each event may become a probability, or at least not impossibly unlikely. |
And what about the probability of the big bang itself?
None of 'this' that we see around us had to happen at all. I would argue there was an infintely *small* probability that the big bang had to happen.
And with no time dimension in existance for it to happen during, it should never have happened! |
Well - there is certainly an argument that it did not happen. But the evidence we can see around us indicates that something did happen, and most qualified people agree that the best solution we can identify from what we can see and detect, is the big bang theory.
A quick potted history. The theory was postulated in the 1920s after observations of the speed and direction of movement of stars apparently away from a central point. Gamow predicted in 1948 that for the theory to be accurate, there would be cosmic microwave background radiation ("CMB"). CMB was discovered in 1964 in accordance with the predictions. It was also predicted that, for the steady state theory to hold, CMB would be featureless and constant, and for big bang theory to hold, there would have to be fluctuations in density. In the 1990s, two space probes made fine measurements of the temperature and fluctuation of CMB, the results of which perfectly fit the big bang theory (predicted temperature, predicted fluctuations). Subsequent measurements have deepened our understanding of, but not contradicted, the theory.
Thus, the evidence that we have collected indicates that big bang theory is a likely explanation of the start of the universe, and steady state theory is not - it would be somewhat perverse to deny that strong evidence is there (although people cleverer than me do debate its precise meaning or application).
So - while you may believe something else, the theory holds under the increasing weight of evidence. Unless we find something better or contradictory, there is a good chance that it is accurate. It would certainly be perverse to describe the odds of it being accurate as "infinitely small".
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:41:40 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
I tend not to discuss politics or religion online, because I have yet to find anyone who totally agrees with my thinking. |
Hmmm. Makes ya think, doesn't it? :) |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:45:45 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
It would certainly be perverse to describe the odds of it being accurate as "infinitely small". |
C'mon. beagle! He didn't SAY that!
Originally posted by jhonan:
None of 'this' that we see around us had to happen at all. I would argue there was an infinitely *small* probability that the big bang had to happen. |
See? He's not saying the Big Bang didn't happen, he's saying that the odds that it would have happened were infinitely small. That's a huge difference. Some would argue that this is proof of a Prime Mover, to make such things happen, though I can't say this is Jhonan's point...
R.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:45:59 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
I tend not to discuss politics or religion online, because I have yet to find anyone who totally agrees with my thinking. |
Hmmm. Makes ya think, doesn't it? :) |
Yep, makes me think that I'm an individual with my own views. Just as no two snowflakes are the same, neither are any two people the same.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:47:18 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
that the point I was making with it is essentially the same as the much more detailed exegesis you just gave us....
R. |
heh heh - "exegesis".
I do assume that your posts are making the subtle point - but I prefer to be sure (plus I fear that your sophistication can be lost in the brawl - although I acknowledge that my lack of concission probably leads to other readers simply skipping my posts).
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 09:48:59 AM · #214 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
I tend not to discuss politics or religion online, because I have yet to find anyone who totally agrees with my thinking. |
Hmmm. Makes ya think, doesn't it? :) |
Yep, makes me think that I'm an individual with my own views. Just as no two snowflakes are the same, neither are any two people the same. |
And in your view, the only satisfactory discussion occurs when all parties involved agree with each other? From my perspective, you can spell that B-O-R-I-N-G... I love it when people participating in a discussion are all over the map :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:01:04 AM · #215 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
I tend not to discuss politics or religion online, because I have yet to find anyone who totally agrees with my thinking. |
Hmmm. Makes ya think, doesn't it? :) |
Yep, makes me think that I'm an individual with my own views. Just as no two snowflakes are the same, neither are any two people the same. |
And in your view, the only satisfactory discussion occurs when all parties involved agree with each other? From my perspective, you can spell that B-O-R-I-N-G... I love it when people participating in a discussion are all over the map :-)
R. |
No. I will go toe to toe with someone in person. It's just the online discussions that always seem to go badly. It seems someone always ends up leaving in a huff. When something cannot be "proven" beyond the shadow of a doubt, there's not much point in arguing. You can't "prove" your point if there is no "proof". I argue religion all the time with my family. My grandmother is a staunch Catholic. My mother was excommunicated. Her crime against the church? She married outside her religion. Today that's allowed. I was raised Episcopalian. I took bible lessons from a Jehovah's witness as a child as well. I also indulged in Wicca and Buddhism as a teenager. Does that make me wicked? Am I doomed to hell? Is my mother still doomed to hell? According to my grandmother, the answer to those last two questions is yes, because that's how she was raised. According to the current teachings, no. Who's right? Is there a right?
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:15:20 AM · #216 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
C'mon. beagle! He didn't SAY that! |
Ah - yes. Sorry.
Originally posted by BearMusic:
Some would argue that this is proof of a Prime Mover, to make such things happen, though I can't say this is Jhonan's point... |
Theorising that "something" caused the big bang is not unreasonable (although the concepts of time and space will be conceptually very challenging in this context). Without more, trying to add any detail to it (eg it was a god with particular characteristics, or had x% probability of happening) is no more than a stab in the dark (as would be any assertion that it was inevitable that the glorious teapot would come about on the extra-universal potter's wheel).
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:29:24 AM · #217 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
See? He's not saying the Big Bang didn't happen, he's saying that the odds that it would have happened were infinitely small. That's a huge difference. Some would argue that this is proof of a Prime Mover, to make such things happen, though I can't say this is Jhonan's point...
R. |
Thanks Robt. - Yes, that was my point.
I understand the science behind the big bang, and I'm not debating whether it actually happened or not, but more the causality. |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:29:25 AM · #218 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In no way does belief in God require a denaturing of one's awe at, or appreciation of, His creation. |
I think that there is an element of depreciating the natural world. The change to one's appreciation/general awe is subtle: I delight in the complexity and beauty of nature, appreciating the natural balance and forces that it has resulted from, whereas a believer in creation presumably wonders at the genius of god, in making such clever things.
However, the more serious issue is the desire to explore and find out more: if there is something about nature that is not understood, my instinct is to (encourage others more qualified to) find out more, obtain a better understanding, perhaps revisit previous understanding and refine it. Presumably a creationist does not feel the same desire, given the soporific explanation that there is no need to enquire "because god made it so", and perhaps "and who are we to question god?".
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:30:34 AM · #219 |
Just a thought with regards to the original post...
The religious practices of many of those other tribes in the land involved the sacrificing of children and sexual orgies with temple prostitutes which spread rampant disease and death.
So if you look at the intent to prevent such practices and the spread of deadly diseases. Then one could understand. It becomes akin to putting down a rabid dog.
It doesn't mean you hate dogs. But the risk of letting that rabid dog remain to endanger the rest of the dogs or your own children is too great. Go watch "Old Yeller"
That said, the knowledge and understanding wasn't present at that time to test and see if someone had a deadly disease. Heck, even with our present technology we're doing a piss-poor job of dealing with the systemic plague of HIV/AIDS.
This is also shown with much of the kosherite diet. It eliminated many of the animals most likely to carry diseases compatible with humans such as pigs. It eliminates most of the top level predators, higher intelligence species and the vast majority of scavengers/filters. Said diet reduced the number of encounters with diseases.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:32:10 AM · #220 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Who's right? Is there a right? |
Yes - I am.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:32:47 AM · #221 |
Regarding the most troubling issues (How can something come from nothing? How can there be time before there was something? etc) there's a fascinating theory by a young man named Peter Lynds, the consequences of which are loosely summarized in an article on scienceagogo
This basic account of Lynds’ theory brings us back to human perceptions of time and why the brain needs to have a concept of time. We are finite beings in an infinite universe (as far as we know) and understanding the universe requires that we are able to measure the events and objects that make up the universe. Being able to control our physical environment by allocating and referring to time in ‘instants’ is a handy way of dealing with the problem. But it seems increasingly likely that we need to change the way in which we approach, observe and evaluate the universe’s dimensions before we have any hope of understanding any of the universe’s mysteries. Perhaps Lynds’ theory is just what we need to get started.
You can read a popularly-oriented article on him at Wired Online, and you can go to his own web site for links to other articles, some much more challenging.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:33:41 AM · #222 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Thanks Robt. - Yes, that was my point.
I understand the science behind the big bang, and I'm not debating whether it actually happened or not, but more the causality. |
Apologies again - I hope you saw my response.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:41:27 AM · #223 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
So if you look at the intent to prevent such practices and the spread of deadly diseases. Then one could understand. |
Agreed - it provides a practical guide to survival. Very interesting from a historical perspective.
Originally posted by theSaj:
That said, the knowledge and understanding wasn't present at that time to test and see if someone had a deadly disease. |
No - I would contend that the ancient guidelines no longer serve the useful purpose that they were intended for. Blind belief in their accuracy merely because they form part of a holy book is odd. However, if you are going to believe in a holy book, as I argued earlier, it is hard to pick and choose which bits to comply with when eternal salvation depends on you properly interpreting the mind of god.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:43:02 AM · #224 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
However, the more serious issue is the desire to explore and find out more: if there is something about nature that is not understood, my instinct is to (encourage others more qualified to) find out more, obtain a better understanding, perhaps revisit previous understanding and refine it. Presumably a creationist does not feel the same desire, given the soporific explanation that there is no need to enquire "because god made it so", and perhaps "and who are we to question god?". |
Historically, this is not true at all. The great ages of discovery were profoundly religious times, far more so than what we have now. And what higher calling might a man have, anyway, than to delve into and expose for all to see the full glory and intricacy of His creation? Much of the great work in the beginnings of science was explicitly done under the rubric "AMDG": Ad majorem Dei gloriam — "To the greater glory of God". No less a modern scientific luminary than Albert Einstein found it inconceivable that there was not a God; and surely he was an appreciater of the beauty & intricacy of creation.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-01-04 10:43:17.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2007 10:43:12 AM · #225 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Regarding the most troubling issues (How can something come from nothing? How can there be time before there was something? etc) there's a fascinating theory by a young man named Peter Lynds, the consequences of which are loosely summarized in an article on scienceagogo |
I read this when it came out - very interesting. It will be interesting to see how this theory stands the test of time and greater scrutiny.
|
|
