Disturbing Passage from The Bible

01/05/2007 01:21:03 PM · #376

Originally posted by jhonan:

If you're going to boil a kettle all you do is flick the switch and wait. You don't have to reach in and excite every molecule by hand.

I think that I understand what you mean - but once again, your analogy only works for a non-interventionist "god" or other force - I am not arguing what might exist outside our universe (we can imagine all we want) - only whether there is a god that *does* interact with us in some way so as to be worth believing in.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/05/2007 01:23:48 PM · #377

Originally posted by jhonan:

When the basic building blocks were in place, once matter, space, energy and time were able to form, then the universe could have taken any number of directions and ended up with some form of intelligent life. It isn't as if *this* version of the universe is the only one that would have worked.

The problem John is that it appears to our knowledge that for every version that works, there are trillions and trillions and trillions of versions that do not work. So many that it is unreasonable to consider that we won some great cosmic lottery that only had one spin.

That leaves us with two options. The lottery kept picking numbers and eventually ours came up (the multiverse idea) or the lottery was rigged (the design idea). You choose the former, others choose the latter.

01/05/2007 01:25:26 PM · #378

Originally posted by hopper:

isn't it logical to think that you could choose to make a decision which is NOT pessimistic?.

FWIW, I suspect the mis-appropriation of the term pessimism is in part ironic here, but lets not get hung up on the specific meanings of that word. My Protestant to pessimism comment was certainly (though probably only funny to anyone who's experienced that side of Christianity). To your logical question above, I can make any decision I like. I just can't not make it. It isn't that there is a fatalistic, predictable path stretching out to the future in front of me (because other agents will act and interact with me along the way) just that I can't actually make a decision that isn't in my character to make. I don't get to a decision point and think "I'm going to do something that I can't possibly decide to do". I do the things I do and make the choices I make because I am who I am. There isn't some magical free choice in each case. So, as the sum of those experiences, the notion of free will is silly - which was the point of the quote above, which as I said, jives quite well with my experiences to date.

Originally posted by hopper:

I was told at young age that God does not exist. And until I was 20 I believed that. But at some point, I chose against what I was conditioned to believe.

Right. But nothing in that disagrees with what I said above. Just that you couldn't not choose to believe that at that time.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:28:24.

01/05/2007 01:27:19 PM · #379

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Heh. What does Sunday School have to do with this? I thought we were not talking about God...
You're the one that re-introduced the ghost in the machine - in the most literal way.

Well, I was just trying to explain why I disagree with that wiki paragraph you posted.

Right, but I always have a problem with disagreements that require magical/spiritual/ fantastic influence to make sense. I'm avoiding asking when the soul gets dropped into the drivers seat, because I don't think we need to divert down the abortion side road.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:31:42.

01/05/2007 01:27:20 PM · #380

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by jhonan:

If you're going to boil a kettle all you do is flick the switch and wait. You don't have to reach in and excite every molecule by hand.

I think that I understand what you mean - but once again, your analogy only works for a non-interventionist "god" or other force - I am not arguing what might exist outside our universe (we can imagine all we want) - only whether there is a god that *does* interact with us in some way so as to be worth believing in.

Yes, this god is non-interventionist, he wants to remain unknown. He needs his creation to love him without him having to reveal himself, he wants his creation to have the free will to make that decision to believe in him and love him.

He set the wheels in motion at the time of the Big Bang, he knew there was a high probabilty of intelligent life eventually appearing, because of the rules he set at the start.(I posted earlier my alternative version of the creator, the one who wants to be 'loved')

01/05/2007 01:29:54 PM · #381

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

More accurately; there are an infinite number of versions that would have worked, and also an infinite number that would *not* have worked. When you start plugging 'infinity' into probability equations, things go slightly askew.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

01/05/2007 01:32:19 PM · #382

makes sense ... i'm all caught up now :)

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by hopper:
isn't it logical to think that you could choose to make a decision which is NOT pessimistic?.

FWIW, I suspect the mis-appropriation of the term pessimism is in part ironic here, but lets not get hung up on the specific meanings of that word. My Protestant to pessimism comment was certainly (though probably only funny to anyone who's experienced that side of Christianity). To your logical question above, I can make any decision I like. I just can't not make it. It isn't that there is a fatalistic, predictable path stretching out to the future in front of me (because other agents will act and interact with me along the way) just that I can't actually make a decision that isn't in my character to make. I don't get to a decision point and think "I'm going to do something that I can't possibly decide to do". I do the things I do and make the choices I make because I am who I am. There isn't some magical free choice in each case. So, as the sum of those experiences, the notion of free will is silly - which was the point of the quote above, which as I said, jives quite well with my experiences to date.

Originally posted by hopper:
I was told at young age that God does not exist. And until I was 20 I believed that. But at some point, I chose against what I was conditioned to believe.

Right. But nothing in that disagrees with what I said above. Just that you couldn't not choose to believe that at that time.

01/05/2007 01:33:17 PM · #383

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That leaves us with two options.

There are others - Hawkings managed to put a figure (possibly by using divine inspiration - I have no idea how) on the likelihood of a big bang resulring in a universe where the fundamental laws are similar to this and came up with a 98% probability.

Personally, I think that it is something of an irrelevance: we are here, and the universe is what it is, and we can identify a probable series of events that takes us from point of explosion to watching cable tv.

Why do we need to invent a god to explain away the fact that it has happened? I can understand the temptation when there is no alternative explanation - but now we have one, and a good, coherent, measurable and probable one at that. The god theory does not aid our understanding one iota (providing, as it does, a mere panacea).

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:39:38.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/05/2007 01:35:00 PM · #384

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

if you want to replace a straight forward "a leads to b leads to c" idea with a chaotic one...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't believe you truly feel each and every one of your actions is a predetermined dance of atoms.

No matter how much a write about the result of chance or random events, you respond to the posts as if I were discussing predetermination or linear progression. Hello? "A led to B" is a gross oversimplification. "A" led to a possibility of B, C, D, E, F, G, etc. As a result of chance, M comes up and in turn leads to the possibility of AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, etc. More likely, EACH possibility comes up in varying amounts through random chance over time, and maybe G turns out to be the most successful even if M lasted for a 100 years and F lasted for 65 million.

I never said that one thing HAD to lead to anything else, but that it could and likely did result from all the other possibilities. Any time you counter an argument with the unlikelhood that it could have been predetermined, you effectively undermine the idea of divine guidance.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The important part in my argument is that each person believes that there is control.

Perception does not necessarily equal reality. People believe lots of things (we already covered this). In the Middle Ages, people believed the stars were set at a fixed distance in a dome that revolved around the earth. If belief were the only requirement for reality, then I'd have a lot more ribbons. ;-)

Surely we can conclude that free will as we perceive it is intimately tied to physical electrochemical processes in the brain. If this were not so, then how could a plea of mental illness (a physical thing) have any bearing on one's responsibility for his own actions? If your willful acts are a spiritual thing apart from physical processes, then no amount of brain damage should matter.

01/05/2007 01:38:56 PM · #385

Originally posted by jhonan:

Yes - but this is not a god similar to any religious god, is it? It is a god that you postulate from... your imagination.

Most religious gods demonstrate their relevance by interfering in our world, or are assumed to be relevant under the supposition that we leave our universe and enter theirs when we die. A god that merely set things up and does nothing other than get upset because the accidental cute mammalians don't love it is not very daunting a prospect (nor a very convincing one).

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/05/2007 01:39:36 PM · #386

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
The best recent poll is that conducted by Elaine Howard Ecklund at Rice University under a grant from the Templeton Foundation ( ref here)
that shows the numbers to be quite a bit less than the population at large.

$283,000 grant from the Templeton Foundation to make 2,148 cold calls and stick the answers in Excel. I might become a scientist...

Although "best" result might be questionable given the tendancy of the Templeton Foundation to support pro-religious research projects very generously (to the extent that (for us cynics) there is a whole section in their FAQ trying to explain that they are not pro-religion!).

A typical response, I'm afraid. Attack the credibility of work done by a well respected, credible sociologist by casting dispersions on the agency that funded her research. Do you seriously think that the Templeton Foundation gave her a grant on condition that she would put her reputation at risk by insuring that the results met that condition?
I thought that only lawyers stooped to such low tactics.

01/05/2007 01:41:36 PM · #387

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Why do we need to invent a god to explain away the fact that it has happened? I can understand the temptation when there is no alternative explanation - but now we have one, and a good, coherent, measurable and probable one at that.

Which explanation is that? - That it just happened? - That out of nothingness sprung the Universe?

The Big Bang is measurable, and it is highly probable the Big Bang did happen. But as to what caused it, if anything - I don't believe we have any way of measuring that. I know you keep telling me that First Cause isn't important - But I think it is *the* most important thing. If a creator caused it then we can talk about the nature and motives of the creator. If nothing caused it and it 'just happened' then the creator doesn't exist and we're floating around space for no reason in particular.

01/05/2007 01:44:39 PM · #388

Originally posted by RonB:

Sorry - I know it is a low blow (but it amused me to note the FAQ). The foundation is rounded upon quite regularly as producing biased reports - in particular, there is the spin of presentation.

The figures look familiar to me (I will check my paper sources later) - but the analysis is light on detail (and in particular the degree to which belief is found is obscured in this article - which prefers by implication the conclusion that "many scientists believe in a personal god" when I think that, from memory, the opposite interpretation of "god" applies).

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:44:58.

01/05/2007 01:49:49 PM · #389

Originally posted by RonB:

I thought that only lawyers stooped to such low tactics.

Do we need to put both of you in time out ? It was going so well, too.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:50:01.

01/05/2007 01:51:11 PM · #390

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Yes - but this is not a god similar to any religious god, is it? It is a god that you postulate from... your imagination.

I'm getting to that point.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Most religious gods demonstrate their relevance by interfering in our world, or are assumed to be relevant under the supposition that we leave our universe and enter theirs when we die. A god that merely set things up and does nothing other than get upset because the accidental cute mammalians don't love it is not very daunting a prospect (nor a very convincing one).

So, he gets upset that the accidental cute mammalians don't love him. He was 'not pleased' with the outcome. He can either wait for the Universe to die so he can have another go, or he decides this time around to start fiddling about a bit;

"I'll give them a few things to think about, I'll send down a representative or two to let them know I really do exist and that I want to be loved. Hey, I'm not cheating, I'm not *really* revealing myself, just passing on some words of wisdom."

"And if they love me then....errr... they can join me in Heaven when they die. If not, they can burn in Hell for eternity. That should get them worried. Easier than selling life insurance."

01/05/2007 01:51:29 PM · #391

Originally posted by jhonan:

I know you keep telling me that First Cause isn't important - But I think it is *the* most important thing. If a creator caused it then we can talk about the nature and motives of the creator. If nothing caused it and it 'just happened' then the creator doesn't exist and we're floating around space for no reason in particular.

Okay - assume that I agree with you that there is a loving god (the only difference being that mine is teapot shaped) who set the big bang in motion, but is totally removed from the universe's development.

You and I are in the same place: something caused the universe to come into existence. We don't *know* what, but are prepared to speculate. What should I do about that god? Nothing - he has no further part to play.

We reach the same conclusion - religion is irrelevant (and worse - wrong: it supposes that god does play an ongoing active role in our lives).

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:51:54.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/05/2007 01:53:45 PM · #392

John, there is nothing in the study of physics I am aware of that implies that there are an infinite number of possible "settings" for the big bang that result in a universe that can support life. You'll have to point something out to me.

Gordon - I'd like to see this Hawking bit. Can you provide me with some link or something?

Shannon - I am baffled how you think that A can lead to B,C,D,E... in the physical world we live in. Answer me this, on a simple level (above quantum), in an isolated experiment if Ball A hits Ball B with a predetermined angle and velocity, can Ball B do anything but react in a single way? Just answer that.

01/05/2007 02:00:40 PM · #393

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Gordon - I'd like to see this Hawking bit. Can you provide me with some link or something?

Which bit is that ? His views on God tends to permeate his best selling book. That'd be the best selling but least read best seller in history, probably. Lots of people own it. Fewer seem to have read it. A Brief History of Time

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 14:02:28.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/05/2007 02:01:08 PM · #394

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by RonB:
A typical response, I'm afraid. Attack the credibility of work done by a well respected, credible sociologist by casting dispersions on the agency that funded her research. Do you seriously think that the Templeton Foundation gave her a grant on condition that she would put her reputation at risk by insuring that the results met that condition?
I thought that only lawyers stooped to such low tactics.

Sorry - I know it is a low blow (but it amused me to note the FAQ). The foundation is rounded upon quite regularly as producing biased reports - in particular, there is the spin of presentation.

The figures look familiar to me (I will check my paper sources later) - but the analysis is light on detail (and in particular the degree to which belief is found is obscured in this article - which prefers by implication the conclusion that "many scientists believe in a personal god" when I think that, from memory, the opposite interpretation of "god" applies).

Matthew, did you even LOOK at the link I provided? It is a link to the Rice University site, not the Templeton site. So, unless you mean to now imply that Rice University is also in cahoots with the Templeton Foundation, you have cast an even wider net. And, FWIW, the title of the article is "Natural Scientists Are Less Likely to Believe in God than Are Social Scientists" and even more astounding, I provided the link to discredit a bogus claim that a "recent" survey showed that the proportion of scientist who believed in God was the same as in the population at large.

01/05/2007 02:01:22 PM · #395

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I didn't say 'loving god', I said a god/teapot that needed to be loved. This is 'selfish god' theory.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

You and I are in the same place: something caused the universe to come into existence. We don't *know* what, but are prepared to speculate. What should I do about that god? Nothing - he has no further part to play.

That was the purpose. That is why he set the wheels in motion, he wanted his creation to love him. Therefore that is our purpose.

Hey, don't get me wrong - I'll also quite happily argue that the Big Bang 'just happened' and that there is no creator and therefore no god. I'm not particularly attached to any religious beliefs.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/05/2007 02:03:11 PM · #396

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gordon - I'd like to see this Hawking bit. Can you provide me with some link or something?

Which bit is that ? His views on God tends to permeate his best selling book. That'd be the best selling but least read best seller in history, probably. Lots of people own it. Fewer seem to have read it. A Brief History of Time

Whoops, I think it was Matthew that gave me the bit about Hawking figuring that there was a 98% chance of the big bang doing something or other...

01/05/2007 02:05:35 PM · #397

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Maths. How many ways are there of arranging the atoms in the Universe? - And what if you added one or took one away at the beginning? And how many different states of energy existed at the moment of the Big Bang. There could be an infinite number of 'working' universes formed, but 36 trillion of them had an extra hydrogen atom somewhere spinning in a different direction to the others.

01/05/2007 02:06:21 PM · #398

Originally posted by RonB:

discredit a bogus claim

I thought I'd made a vague assertion of something I heard. I doubt it could rise to the level of a bogus claim, certainly I don't think it was necessary to bother to discredit something that said 'people in general seem to believe in god' Particularly not to the point of dragging the conversation down to the typically political nonsense that's usually passes for discussion in these rant threads. Moving on...

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 14:07:38.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/05/2007 02:06:42 PM · #399

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

in an isolated experiment if Ball A hits Ball B with a predetermined angle and velocity, can Ball B do anything but react in a single way? Just answer that.

The universe isn't an isolated experiment now is it? Eliminating all the other variables like wind, gravity, and quantum fluctuations eliminates the number of possible outcomes, so your example is invalid.

Put another way, it may be possible to predict the outcome of two ping ping balls colliding in a wind tunnel, but impossible to predict the outcome of a billion ping pong balls colliding over a billion years. Even if you could calculate all the necessary math for the collisions, you couldn't take into account all the elements of chance. Sometime over the course of a billion years, an earthquake might shake the wind tunnel or the ping pong balls might begin to crumble from age. In the real world, there are always elements of chance.

Message edited by author 2007-01-05 14:18:48.