The Co-existence of Science and Theology

12/05/2007 03:52:51 PM · #901

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Agreed. I'm asking Gordon, however, who seems to accept one as a possibility and rejects the other. My question is what he sees as the difference between the two?

Maybe if you asked ME some questions I wouldn't feel so lonely here :-)

R.

Have you eaten any of those peppers yet? :P Don't worry Robert, in these threads you don't really want me asking you questions...

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 15:53:14.

12/05/2007 04:10:34 PM · #902

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm asking Gordon, however, who seems to accept one as a possibility and rejects the other.

That seems to be a large assumption.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/05/2007 04:28:55 PM · #903

I'm not sure I buy into any multiverse model, but I will say that using a Supreme Being as the origin of everything merely sidesteps the question. Something can't create everything since that something must already exist to do the creating. There are only three possibilities:

God was created- in which case, He wasn't really the origin.
God always existed- if it's possible for something to have always existed, then there's no reason that something couldn't be the universe itself in some form. The common claim is that the supreme being existed on some other plane of reality: essentially attributing the creation of our universe to the work of an entity from another universe. That's not an answer, it's a circular argument.
God never existed- Hey, it's one of the possibilities, and most of the world doesn't believe your particular religion (whatever it is) anyway.

Incidentally, how all-knowing would an omniscient being really be before anything existed to know? If you knew nothing, you'd know everything! ;-D

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 16:32:01.

12/05/2007 04:35:54 PM · #904

Originally posted by scalvert:

1) Wait, I want you to answer my question, not get us off on another discussion yet. Where do you stand when considering the anthropic principle?
2) I don't think "our universe in some form" could have lasted forever since all scientific evidence points to a beginning. I suppose you could consider anything before the big bang to be part of our universe, but you have crossed an impregnable barrier and while it's certainly a possibility it does put you on a different foot as far as the argument goes.

So bear with me Shannon. Before poking holes in my particular belief, I want you to elucidate your particular belief on this topic. How do you approach the conundrum of the goldilocks universe?

12/05/2007 04:38:28 PM · #905

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm asking Gordon, however, who seems to accept one as a possibility and rejects the other.

That seems to be a large assumption.

Perhaps I mispoke. Are you an atheist or an agnostic?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/05/2007 04:43:49 PM · #906

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm asking Gordon, however, who seems to accept one as a possibility and rejects the other.

That seems to be a large assumption.

Perhaps I mispoke. Are you an atheist or an agnostic?

You seem to assume I accept the idea of a multiverse as a possibility too. Either are as equally probable or improbable as the other. Or at least, equally provable or not provable. At best I'm somewhere between Russell and Hume, when I think about these things. At worst, I'm potentially ignostic.

I don't know - and I'm fine with that. But then none of all y'all know either.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/05/2007 04:45:00 PM · #907

Originally posted by david_c:

Douglas Adams said it whimsically, and best:

". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

The argument is reversed, IMHO. The universe is not tuned to US so much as we became tuned BY it. You see the difference?

Given the vastness of our own universe let alone what may lie beyond it I think it is equally foolish to believe what you said. To contine with the Douglas Adams' analogy what if we scaled the scene back further? Now say it shows it's not some random puddle but rather a human-made lake? Had the puddle knew this would it think humans is it's god? Would it be right to think so? After all it was there by design by something greater than it.

Given the fact that we haven't seen the big picture yet that is to say we haven't really explored the universe let alone peeked at what's outside and given that we are intelligent and wise beings, who know that we don't know, how can we be anything but indifferent on the issue?

Edited for clarity.

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 16:51:16.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/05/2007 05:16:25 PM · #908

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) Where do you stand when considering the anthropic principle?
2) I don't think "our universe in some form" could have lasted forever since all scientific evidence points to a beginning.

1) Whether or not other possible universes are actually possible is a matter of open debate. Maybe there's only one possible set of physics? Regardless, however improbable our particular universe may be, our very existence confirms that it's not only possible, but happened.

2) We know that energy can be converted to matter (and vice versa). Maybe black holes have a life cycle similar to stars that go supernova, but on an even longer time scale? If a supermassive singularity had a mass limit like stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars, etc., then exceeding that limit may produce exactly what appears to have occurred with the Big Bang. In that case, our beginning might actually be the end of an even longer stage of stellar evolution. Mind boggling stuff.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/05/2007 05:17:12 PM · #909

Originally posted by Gordon:

I don't know - and I'm fine with that. But then none of all y'all know either.

You don't realize how much I can respect this opinion. I wish atheists were less afraid to repeat it. I'm in complete agreement here.

Now I need to hear from Shannon.

EDIT: I see we were cross-posting. So it sounds like Shannon buys into the possibility of the multiverse too. So can I ask you Shannon why a multiverse sits better with you than a Supreme Being?

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 17:18:34.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/05/2007 05:23:40 PM · #910

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I don't know - and I'm fine with that. But then none of all y'all know either.

You don't realize how much I can respect this opinion. I wish atheists were less afraid to repeat it. I'm in complete agreement here.

Then it wouldn't make them atheists now would it? Curious though, that you are in complete agreement. Does that mean you are not a true believer? Are you basically just playing the Pascal card in your own belief?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/05/2007 05:28:27 PM · #911

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But if atheists said it, they wouldn't be atheists, now would they ?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/05/2007 05:54:06 PM · #912

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Have you eaten any of those peppers yet? :P Don't worry Robert, in these threads you don't really want me asking you questions...

Oh yeah! Made a smoking-hot batch of sirloin-tip chili with those peppers! They were great!

On the other topic, I like being involved :-)

R.

12/05/2007 06:04:33 PM · #913

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I don't know - and I'm fine with that. But then none of all y'all know either.

You don't realize how much I can respect this opinion. I wish atheists were less afraid to repeat it. I'm in complete agreement here.

But if atheists said it, they wouldn't be atheists, now would they ?

No, I don't think it is incompatible with atheism. Gordon is just saying he doesn't have ultimate proof to support his position. I think that's just fine. I don't either.

12/05/2007 06:39:22 PM · #914

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I don't know - and I'm fine with that. But then none of all y'all know either.

You don't realize how much I can respect this opinion. I wish atheists were less afraid to repeat it. I'm in complete agreement here.

But if atheists said it, they wouldn't be atheists, now would they ?

No, I don't think it is incompatible with atheism. Gordon is just saying he doesn't have ultimate proof to support his position. I think that's just fine. I don't either.

But Jason is implying that an agnostic position that it is unknowable is akin to an atheistic position of knowing that something doesn't exist. Gordon is implying they are different.

12/05/2007 06:46:57 PM · #915

Originally posted by Gordon:

But Jason is implying that an agnostic position that it is unknowable is akin to an atheistic position of knowing that something doesn't exist. Gordon is implying they are different.

Wait. What am I implying? I don't think agnostics are the same as atheists.

An agnostic would say it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.

An atheist would deny God exists.

A theist would assert God exists.

Sometimes atheism is split into weak and strong versions. The weak version, which merely asserts there is no evidence for God could probably get confused with agnosticism, but I think they are still different.

Does that clear up my position at all?

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

12/05/2007 06:53:40 PM · #916

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:
But Jason is implying that an agnostic position that it is unknowable is akin to an atheistic position of knowing that something doesn't exist. Gordon is implying they are different.

Wait. What am I implying? I don't think agnostics are the same as atheists.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You don't realize how much I can respect this opinion. I wish atheists were less afraid to repeat it. I'm in complete agreement here.

I thought this implied it, really.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

An agnostic would say it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.

An atheist would deny God exists.

A theist would assert God exists.

and a whole lot more division and subdivision beyond that - and an ignostic would say that it isn't even a valid question to begin with, or that to begin you have to at least come up with a meaningful question

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/05/2007 07:04:03 PM · #917

Originally posted by Gordon:

... an ignostic would say ...

What's an "iGnostic" -- someone who only believes something if it's posted on the internet? By Apple ...? ;-)

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

12/05/2007 07:20:26 PM · #918

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Gordon:
... an ignostic would say ...

What's an "iGnostic" -- someone who only believes something if it's posted on the internet? By Apple ...? ;-)

Good question Paul. But now that I have you here, what's your position on the anthopic principle?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/05/2007 07:29:14 PM · #919

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But now that I have you here, what's your position on the anthopic principle?

Supine? Actually, that may be one of the few things with which I have too little information (gasp!) to give a reasonable opinion ... I haven't had time to check any of the earlier links or anything. Maybe later ...

12/05/2007 09:53:59 PM · #920

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Gordon:
... an ignostic would say ...

What's an "iGnostic" -- someone who only believes something if it's posted on the internet? By Apple ...? ;-)

no, someone that believes that the basic definitions aren't a useful starting point for the discussion. Quite different to an agnostic.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/05/2007 10:21:31 PM · #921

Hey, I actually learned something in this thread. Go figure. I had not heard of ignosticism before. I'm not sure I buy it as a simple enough defintion of "God" could be arrived at for a conversation and "falsifiable" seems to smell like "falsifiable by science" and I'm not sure about that at all.

Where's Louis now? He hasn't answered my question yet. So far I have a "don't know" and three "maybe multiverse". It looks like we can really all be buds after all and have just come up on different sides of the same coin. But we already knew that, didn't we?

Message edited by author 2007-12-05 22:25:27.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/05/2007 10:30:54 PM · #922

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Where's Louis now? He hasn't answered my question yet. So far I have a "don't know" and three "maybe multiverse". It looks like we can really all be buds after all and have just come up on different sides of the same coin. But we already knew that, didn't we?

I'm still waiting for my answer. :(

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/05/2007 10:40:56 PM · #923

I have too much laundry.

milo655321

Nikon D70

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

12/06/2007 12:18:22 AM · #924

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, the way I would describe myself would be an agnostic atheist. One word is about knowledge the other is about belief. A weak atheist is equivalent to an agnostic atheist. As an atheist, I don't deny gods exist, I just don't believe they do. It's a subtle difference.

In other words, "there are no gods" versus "I don't believe in gods". Gods exist or don't exist independently from my personal beliefs about them. If gods existed, my first statement would be wrong while my second statement would be correct. If gods don't exist, my first statement would be correct as would be my second statement.