Disturbing Passage from The Bible

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/04/2007 12:56:02 PM · #251

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Let's not forget the theory that our entire universe is actually contained within a single water molecule making up an infinitesimally small component of a vast sea on a strange planet in an unknown (and unknowable to us) mega-universe that itself is but a speck of something larger, ad infinitum :-)

R.

I heard that theory from Donald Sutherland's character in Animal House! ;-)

Apple iPhone 5

01/04/2007 01:02:21 PM · #252

Originally posted by scalvert:

It'll just happen? ;-)

Yes, I was exploring one of the options you presented. That everything has always existed. So, given an infinte amount of time is available after the last proton has decayed (assuming time ceases to exist), probability dictates that the next Big Bang will 'just happen'.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Assuming you meant some Grand Poobah energy state will set another batch in motion, your claim seems to be that a super-advanced intelligence of pure energy does little more than set up the universal dominoes, push the first one and wait a loooong time for the next run.

I didn't say what form this intelligence would take. But that's roughly the idea, yes.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Such a concept requires faith indeed, and doesn't exactly match the idea of a god concerned with the personal matters of one individual species of animal among millions on an ordinary flyspeck of a planet among trillions.

Why should this creator even be concerned with the small things? - There's no fun in triggering the mother of all explosions and then stepping in to fiddle about with the results.

Just wait until the next Big Bang. The creator has plenty 'time' on his hands after all.

And I'm not even attempting to bring the 'All powerful, all knowing, all loving' thing into this, or to explain the creator's motives or feelings towards his creation.

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 13:02:55.

01/04/2007 01:21:59 PM · #253

Originally posted by jhonan:

I'm not even attempting to bring the 'All powerful, all knowing, all loving' thing into this, or to explain the creator's motives or feelings towards his creation.

That's fine, but you did sort of sidestep my original point, which is that if energy (or indeed anything) existed before the Big Bang, then you wouldn't necessarily need an intelligent force to set the wheels in motion, nor could you HAVE an intelligent force present if nothing existed. That would be saying God didn't actually exist, but conjured everything into existence. :-/

Perhaps the greatest marvel of the known universe is the capacity of human imagination. It makes debating religion with logic a bit like fighting a cartoon character with a metal sword. No matter how accurate your aim, some irrational miracle will always pop up in response. Faith is the magical armor against reason.

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 13:23:57.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/04/2007 02:01:12 PM · #254

Originally posted by scalvert:

Perhaps the greatest marvel of the known universe is the capacity of human imagination. It makes debating religion with logic a bit like fighting a cartoon character with a metal sword. No matter how accurate your aim, some irrational miracle will always pop up in response. Faith is the magical armor against reason.

Just please be aware that at least in the current conversation about what came "before" the Big Bang, you are wearing ACME underwear just as much as anybody else.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/04/2007 02:01:40 PM · #255

Originally posted by scalvert:

The weird thing is people keep trying to bring up rational arguments to support or decry something that doesn't have any basis in rational proof. It always seems sort of pointless on either side.

I've been trying to sneak Deus Ex Machina or McGuffin into this post, but well, I just did.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/04/2007 02:47:25 PM · #256

Originally posted by theSaj:

... 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.

Yes, I can see where it would take the threat of eternal damnation to get some guys to voluntarily give up bacon and eggs for breakfast ... : )

Interestingly, I've heard there actually are hog farms in Israel. The swine live their entire lives on these raised wooden platforms, because the law specifies that no pigs shall be raised "on the soil of Israel."

Also note that Kosher (Jewish) and Halal (Muslim) dietary rules are almost the same.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/04/2007 02:57:52 PM · #257

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by jhonan:
What if the Creator was the initial 'cause' of the Big Bang, setting the natural laws in motion, effectively creating a recipe for the eventual creation of life, and then letting physics do its thing...

See my earlier post. There are only two possible choices for the universe before the Big Bang- either nothing existed or something existed. If nothing existed, then by definition there couldn't have been a creator to set things in motion. If a creator had always existed, then you are claiming the possiblity that things can always have existed, and there's no reason that time, space and energy couldn't have been among them.

Proton decay means the matter that makes up the Universe can only exist for a finite time. However, there's no reason that the energy that makes up the Universe could not have always existed in some form.

Assuming a Creator is setting things in motion with a Big Bang, or 'Big Bangs' the only thing that needs to have existed forever is the energy state, and something to create the Big Bang(s). Time and space are created when each Big Bang happens.

So, wait another 10^1000 years or so, the energy in the current Universe has dispersed, so eventually the next Big Bang happens.

It may or may not work. Perhaps the next time around the 'creator' gets the physics wrong so that atoms don't stick together properly. Or perhaps it works a treat and we're living in galaxies where every planet is full of peace-loving humanoids who all love him. Or perhaps he decides to give recipe 1928392 another go, and we end up back exactly where we are right now for the trillionth time having this exact discussion.

Groundhog day.... :-)

You should really read the aforementioned Isaac Asimov's treatment of this issue in his story The Last Question -- it's been heavily anthologized, so your library should probably have something which includes it -- I know it's in his book Opus 100 (c. 1969).

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/04/2007 03:34:57 PM · #258

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just please be aware that at least in the current conversation about what came "before" the Big Bang, you are wearing ACME underwear just as much as anybody else.

I terms of unproven speculation perhaps, but not reason. It's irrational to me to claim that the universe is too complex to "just exist" without a creator when the counterclaim is that it was willfully formed by a higher intelligence that "just exists" without a creator. Think about it.

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 15:41:27.

Apple iPhone 5

01/04/2007 03:52:02 PM · #259

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Thanks for the reference. I've read some Asimov, mainly his Foundation series. I'll look up The Last Question.

In fact, I first came across the idea of proton decay (The Big Chill theory) in Manifold: Time by Stephen Baxter (a great read!)

ETA: Here's a link to the full text of Asimov's 'The Last Question' if anyone is interested //adin.dyndns.org/adin/TheLastQ.htm

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 16:29:49.

EducatedSavage

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

01/04/2007 04:54:01 PM · #260

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

It is a fallacy to assume that the long odds of the universe existing in its current form support the argument that god had some responsibility for its direction - the complexity of the universe is a reason for disbelieving there to be a god directing it. The natural progression and evolution of the universe over a significant time span explains away these seemingly long odds with great ease. The alternative, the invention of a god-like figure infinitely more complex than the universe in order to explain that complexity, creates more problems than it solves.

Precisely so, but equally so would be the assumption that the long odds of theuniverse existing in its current form support the argument that there was no god responsible for it's direction. And, though the likelihood that each specific event could occur are fairly reasonable, the likelihood that they all occurred just so are not. While flipping a coin may be a 50/50 event (though some studies suggest 3 possiblities), flipping a coin 100 times and coming up heads every instance is quite the longshot - low odds.

I didn't get a chance to read all the new posts - but my goodness, this sure has taken off!

- C, ES

01/04/2007 05:08:29 PM · #261

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just please be aware that at least in the current conversation about what came "before" the Big Bang, you are wearing ACME underwear just as much as anybody else.

I terms of unproven speculation perhaps, but not reason. It's irrational to me to claim that the universe is too complex to "just exist" without a creator when the counterclaim is that it was willfully formed by a higher intelligence that "just exists" without a creator. Think about it.

It doesn't seem so irrational to me. Occam's Razor is a tool of science, not of philosophy. I would also point out that the number of people who believe the former in history far outweigh those that believe in the latter. So either you feel you are one of the few "rational" beings on the planet, or you are overstating your case. (I did notice that at least you said it was irrational "to you". Fair enough.)

01/04/2007 05:12:35 PM · #262

Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

And, though the likelihood that each specific event could occur are fairly reasonable, the likelihood that they all occurred just so are not.

This is fallacy when speaking of past events. Imagine that any sequence of numbers from 1 to 9 are possible and they come up 4, 6, 4, 1, 8, 8, 7, 3, 5, 9, 0, 1, 1, 2, 6, 5, 8, 4, 7, 1, 5, 5, 8, 6, 2, 4, 1, 1. You are essentially saying that the odds of each particular number coming up is 1 in 9, but the odds of that particular sequence appearing are astronomical (even though it obviously did). The odds of the universe appearing in its present form may be long, but if some other sequence of events occurred, then the universe wouldn't be in its present form, now would it?

01/04/2007 05:17:49 PM · #263

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I would also point out that the number of people who believe the former in history far outweigh those that believe in the latter.

The number of people in history who believe(d) in Zeus, Odin, Baal, Horus, dragons, fairies, UFOs or the Tooth Fairy likely outweighs either. So? 1000 years after the Gospels were written, most Europeans believed the earth was flat, the sun orbited us, sneezing expelled demons through your nose and wearing gemstones could cure disease. Does this mean it's true? :-O

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 17:24:20.

01/04/2007 05:22:29 PM · #264

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would also point out that the number of people who believe the former in history far outweigh those that believe in the latter.

The number of people in history who believe(d) in Zeus, Odin, Baal, Horus, dragons, fairies, UFOs or the Tooth Fairy likely outweighs either. So?

So it was probably not "irrational" to believe it at the time. "consistent with or based on reason." Every time I put a tooth under my pillow, it disappears, I get a nickel and my parents tell me it's the tooth fairy. I think it would be quite rational to believe she existed. It's wrong...but it's rational.

As science filled in the natural world things started to become "irrational". The Gods who lived on Mt. Olympus were never found, yet Mt. Olympus was there for the exploration. The actual size of the universe was understood, UFOs become harder to believe in. None of these matter for the above argument (what came "before" the Big Bang) because we have now taken our speculation OUT of the universe. There is absolutely no way to get at the information using scientific principle. It all comes down to reason and philosophy.

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 17:26:38.

01/04/2007 05:35:15 PM · #265

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's wrong...but it's rational.

Intelligent Design's claim that the universe is too complex to have been formed without the guidance of an intelligent being makes no sense given the required complexity of a being able to provide such guidance. Saying that one thing is impossible while claiming something else is true that requires that same thing to BE possible is irrational to me in any time. To your point though, nothing is irrational to those who believe.

01/04/2007 05:41:27 PM · #266

In an amusing twist, I just got a stock photo request from Photographer's Direct for photos of POPE BENEDICT XVI and I actually do have some (though they're not suitable). ;-)

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/04/2007 05:42:03 PM · #267

You love to move your goalposts, don't you Shannon. I'm always shooting and scoring, only to find the "new" net is now to the left and 10 yards further back.

Your claim is easily shown to be false. The Watchmaker Argument tells us so. If we found a watch on the beach, we would naturally assume that an intelligent force created it because it is too complex to come about naturally. Now, assuming you aren't going to move the goalposts on me again (by now saying "science has shown blah blah blah), that idea is rational, isn't it?

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/04/2007 05:52:26 PM · #268

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If we were to find the watch on the beach, yes. But so far, no-one has found the equivalent of the watch on the equivalent of the beach: things only ever appear in the order predicted by the theory of evolution/natural selection. Finding the watch on the beach would be instant nobel time!

edit to point out the better argument: arguing that something is too complex to have evolved, and theorising something infinitely more complex as creator in order to explain it, is not entirely rational.

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 17:55:07.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

01/04/2007 05:58:25 PM · #269

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

edit to point out the better argument: arguing that something is too complex to have evolved, and theorising something infinitely more complex as creator in order to explain it, is not entirely rational.

When the hell did we start talking about intelligent design? I was talking about the Prime Mover before the Big Bang. I am sure I know more of the ins and outs of evoultion than an arbiter of the law. I do not need a lesson on the pros and cons of I.D. I didn't even say I was a proponent.

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 17:58:50.

milo655321

Nikon D70

01/04/2007 06:04:28 PM · #270

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Your claim is easily shown to be false. The Watchmaker Argument tells us so. If we found a watch on the beach, we would naturally assume that an intelligent force created it because it is too complex to come about naturally. Now, assuming you aren't going to move the goalposts on me again (by now saying "science has shown blah blah blah), that idea is rational, isn't it?

The problem is your extrapolating the watch you find on the beach into the conclusion that the beach itself is designed.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/04/2007 06:07:06 PM · #271

Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

equally so would be the assumption that the long odds of theuniverse existing in its current form support the argument that there was no god responsible for it's direction.

this is what I said - maybe you missed a "not" somewhere.

Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

And, though the likelihood that each specific event could occur are fairly reasonable, the likelihood that they all occurred just so are not. While flipping a coin may be a 50/50 event (though some studies suggest 3 possiblities), flipping a coin 100 times and coming up heads every instance is quite the longshot - low odds.

Flipping the coin and getting a predicted series (whether all heads or all tails, or alternate hs & ts, or hhttthhhthtthtthhhhttthhh etc or anything else) has a single set of odds. The fact that it is one of 65 billion trillion trillion possibilities does not mean that it is special or intended - merely that it was the particular series that happened. To impute that the current state was somehow "intended" is mysterious - you first have to impute that there is someone intending a specific result, which effectively means predicating the existence of god, rather than proving it.

01/04/2007 06:11:28 PM · #272

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your claim is easily shown to be false. The Watchmaker Argument tells us so. If we found a watch on the beach, we would naturally assume that an intelligent force created it because it is too complex to come about naturally. Now, assuming you aren't going to move the goalposts on me again (by now saying "science has shown blah blah blah), that idea is rational, isn't it?

The problem is your extrapolating the watch you find on the beach into the conclusion that the beach itself is designed.

I think Matthew just got caught in the crosshairs of my frustration with Shannon's ever moving goalposts. I probably used a poor analogy since the watchmaker is a famous analogy used in the argument of ID. My basic point is if you find something complex, it is not irrational to speculate that something more complex created it. The rationality comes from the fact we see complex objects created by more complex being every day of our lives. I'm not arguing the truth to it, I'm merely arguing the logic of it.

Way up above I jumped back into this crazy argument to point out to Shannon that all speculations (including his) about anything "before" the Big Bang are on an equal scientific footing (i.e. no footing at all).

He than said, "'fraid so." and, I believe, tried to apply Occam's Razor (I could have been wrong on this).

I then said, "'fraid not." and pointed out that Occam's Razor (if it was being employed) had no bearing. I further pointed out that Shannon was calling the vast majority of people who have lived on this planet as being "irrational". Knowing that man is, if anything, rational, I pointed out he was likely wrong.

The he started moving the goalposts...

Message edited by author 2007-01-04 18:15:14.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/04/2007 06:14:03 PM · #273

The goal posts didn't move. I may use different examples, but my point about something claimed to be impossible when the alternative has the same requirement is the same one I've been making since 9:07 this morning. You can't score until you at least address the target. ;-P

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If we found a watch on the beach, we would naturally assume that an intelligent force created it because it is too complex to come about naturally.

Sure, but we would base that assumption on the fact that it doesn't look like anything we've seen in nature. What in the natural universe doesn't look like anything we see in nature? You wouldn't naturally assume that the sand UNDER the watch was created by an intelligent force. Oh wait... that's exactly what you're saying!

A better analogy for you would be to use a quartz crystal instead of a watch. Crystals look like minerals we find in nature, but the complexity and precise angles of the crystal may appear to have been fashioned by an intelligent force. It might be reasonable to make that assumption centuries ago, but we now know that SiO2 tends to take that shape naturally because of its molecular structure. Ancient peoples attributed lots of spectacular things to the will of an intelligent being (lightning, aurora, earthquakes, etc), but eventually we came to understand the natural causes. We have a pretty good undertanding of evolution and cosmology, too, but even in 2007 some people fear Pele when a volcano erupts.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/04/2007 06:14:07 PM · #274

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
edit to point out the better argument: arguing that something is too complex to have evolved, and theorising something infinitely more complex as creator in order to explain it, is not entirely rational.

When the hell did we start talking about intelligent design? I was talking about the Prime Mover before the Big Bang. I am sure I know more of the ins and outs of evoultion than an arbiter of the law. I do not need a lesson on the pros and cons of I.D. I didn't even say I was a proponent.

Apologies - I have never heard of the watchmaker argument being used to explain prime mover argument. Fundamentally, prime mover is entirely philosophical a debate - sometimes interesting, but never practical.

If you propose limiting the debate solely to "prime mover", then I have little more to say: it is predicated on the complete irrelevance of god to the universe, world and its inhabitants - incidentally, reinforcing arguments against the existence of any meaningful "god".