Now, before you jump down my throat, I searched the boards and found nothing.
Given the diversity of Hatrackians in every form of the word, I was wondering where you each stood on the matter.
As an Agnostic Deist (I don't know if God exists, but if he does, I must believe in a Deistic God), I fully support ET. I have not seen any strong evidence against it that is not quickly and thoroughly debunked.
It is important to note that Evolution does not say living things arose from non-living things; that is abiogenesis and another matter entirely. ET makes no distinction as to the origin of the first cell; instead, it starts at that point and moves forward.
So, where do you stand on ET? For that matter, what about abiogenesis?
[ August 06, 2004, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yup. Evolution. Just how it happened.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I tried to stand on ET once, but then he started waiving that red finger of his at me, so I backed off.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I believe in Evolution. I also believe in the Creation. I believe that God probably used evolution to make what we see today. It has never been an issue for me.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
We can never know what happened before the Big Bang...so I guess God can exist there. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yeah, I agree that it's possible to have the major aspects of both.
Although I want to ask this because I haven't heard definitively one way or the other...has any proof ever been found that one species could evolve into another, instead of another form of the same species? (Like with the moths or daisies)
---
Telp, I think he would have had to exist there, at least. I have yet to see anything that even gives a hint as to where things came from before the Big Bang.
[ August 06, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Species don't evolve suddenly into a new one. That goes against the word and idea of evolution. Evolution is a collection of micro changes that you usually can't see in a short period of time. Just like when you have a baby. You don't notice the baby growing up when you live with it day in and day out. But if you go away for ten months all of a sudden it looks like it has changed suddenly into a new thing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
No more proof for that than for the existance of God based on the testaments of the Divine. *But*, I look at the similarities in bone structure and other things, and I believe that it makes sense that they all could be related (all the animal species). I don't really care that much how it happened, for me the only important part is an intelligent, wise, loving, Creator.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This has been discussed a lot, but I can't think of any thread titles. I'm going to hurl just "evolution" into the search and see if you deserve a spanking.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Depends on what part of evolution you are hoping to debate. If you are talking only origin then I go with creation, with God being the original originator. But if you are talking adaptations of some species as shown through fossil record, I have no problem with that.
FG
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
1) I believe in a literal creation and Garden of Eden, just like in the Bible 2) I believe that the Bible is not a biology nor a geology textbook, and it was never meant to convey such information 3) While I believe in the Genesis story, I don't believe it can all be interpreted literally 4) Evolution is a demonstrable fact. It just means that over time, the genetic make-up of a population will change in response to the environment 5) While not demonstratable, it sure makes sense the speciation could occur because of the genetic drift between separate populations 6) I don't believe in evolution the same way I believe in Genesis, but I think that it is probably the method that God used to create life on earth 7) I think that it is just plain silly to not teach children about evolution 8) While I am very comfortable with the idea of all other life on earth coming via evolution, I am much less comfortable with the idea tha man evolved from "lower" apes. I am willing to entertain the idea that it might have happened, but I don't think it did. 9) If I suppose that life on earth all evolved from simpler forms of life, then the abiogenesis would, in my mind, just be where God kick-started the whole thing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yes, Telp. So many don't like the idea of evolution because of the "begetting after their own kind" bit. But we know that small mutations happen all the time. Why not a Supreme Being gently steering those mutations ever-so-slightly at crucial points?
The interesting thing is that if such "directing" is going on, evolution would happen a lot faster than if it were just chance, ya know?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I know that Telp. I am under the impression that they've never found, for example, a fish with feet? Or even a fish with nubs? Or am I wrong?
Not to mention that I can't understand how something like...eyes, for example, would have ever come about. I understand the point that species with certain changes survive better and so reproduce more and the others get left out, but what about eyes? You don't just evolve into a creature with eyes. There would have to be a step inbetween, or many steps, that would be, like, a species with some matter in the front that would eventually become eyes. Wouldn't the creature with the matter in front be LESS likely to be picked for reproduction, having a weird deformity?
Or legs. Before they are legs they're little nubs. Wouldn't a fish with nubs be less capable of swimming efficiently and get picked off sooner? Wouldn't nubs effect the streamlined shape of the fish? I can see how legs would help survival, but all the steps that are needed in between are likely to LESSEN survival.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Before the Big Bang is the unknown. That is all we can say for sure. We don't know. And we probably never will even if we survive millions of years.
To place a God as a Creator is a temptation because that's what we do as a race, we build and create things. So since we do it, something must have done that to the world too. That's a mistake I think, part of human nature to anthropomorphize everything. It's easier on the brain to think of one thing making the cosmos as apposed to multi-bubble universes and other dimensions and such.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
PSI -- there *are* some fish with nubs that they use when the go out of the water. I believe they are called lungfish, and can actually breathe air for a little while.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Why not a Supreme Being gently steering those mutations ever-so-slightly at crucial points?
Why do we have to have one? Where did we get the rather odd idea of a Supreme Being? Would we, if we were not told by others, even come up with the idea?
I argue that the only reason we even argue about God and creationsism is not because of any science but because we were told as small children (or adults) about the idea of religion and God. If our culture had no religion or history of religion of any kind what are the odds of a scientist suddenly coming up with the idea of a Supreme Being?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I wonder why they don't get picked off?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Not to mention that I can't understand how something like...eyes, for example, would have ever come about.
I know exactly what you mean. This is where I think God comes in. Wings too. How does something just "start flying?"
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Speaking about nubs, when you look at snakes or whales you can see tiny leftovers of when they had legs (and arms for snakes). Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Telp: But if there were no creator at all, where would mankind come up with the concept?
I know man can create lots of things with imagination, but it seems weird to base your entire life on a god if he's a figment of your imagination, which most people on the planet do.
[ August 06, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Telp, I believe we got the idea of a Supreme Being into our heads when he spoke and walked with Adam and Eve. That's just me though. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, Telp -- even if you wanted to base it only on fossil record -- there are so many "gaps". It is only "theory" and this particular animal eventually morphed into that kind of animal, and none of the in-between stages are found at all, which seems a little strange for their theory.
Whether you want to believe that the creation of earth and all was from God or from Aliens or whatever -- it still points to a pretty intelligent design rather than a random design.
Farmgirl
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I also think it is interesting, our theories tell us that when left to chance things will become more and more chaotic, less and less organized. And yet, evolution, star and planet birth, goes against that.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:How does something just "start flying?"
Like I said before about evolution being micro changes over a long period of time (or short depending on how long each generation is). So something started jumping. Then it started jumping and gliding with skin flaps or what would become feathers. Then gliding becomes flying.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
PSI--You are a fish in the ocean. You survive by eating the stuff near a rocky shore. A large wave washes you and several others into a tidal pool that slowly dries out. You need to cross a few feet of hot sandy beach to get to the water. If you can make it, you survive. If you can't, you die. Hence legs and the ability to breathe Oxygen on demand become survival traits.
Also, with few salad eaters on land, the plant's thrive. If food is on the land, it becomes important for you to be able to climb up a bank and grab a bite of grass.
Eyes did not start out as eyes. They started out as cells that could detect light and heat. However, early on it became clear that those able to see survived much better than the blind.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I also must point out that HRE, in his original post, only asked WHERE we stand on this issue and what we believe -- he didn't ask us to have to defend our stance. He was just polling that cross-section of Hatrackers for their thoughts on the matter.
Farmgirl
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I noticed that too. If the universe naturally gravitates toward chaos, then nothing would exist beyond the most simple matter.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
PSI -- they don't get picked off because the nubs help their survival -- they use them to travel across land from water hold to water hole. Other fish in other situtations mabye would get picked off, because they wouldn't swim as well. But the lungfish doesn't need to swim great as much as it needs to crawl.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Insects fly also.
I understand what you all are saying, but your description of these things happening by chance is a big leap of faith for me just as me asking you to believe in God is a big leap of faith.
[ August 06, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Telp, I believe we got the idea of a Supreme Being into our heads when he spoke and walked with Adam and Eve. That's just me though.
But were did you find out that information? From a book and from others in our culture that also knew the story. You yourself do not have evidence to the fact...only on what others have told you. If you were stranded on an island from the time of your birth you would never come up with the idea of Jesus Christ or Adam or Eve at random.
ps- don't mean to be pickin on you darlin! *hugs and smooches* Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't see how the leap in numbers of chromosomes happens. Chimpanzees have either more or less chromosomes than us. I know chromosome abnormalities happen, but the most common ones seem to involve the sex hormones and as we covered on a thread on the other side, the nature of sex hormones seems to be common to all members of a class. That is, all mammals use x and y. Birds have a different system, Lizards another, and insects yet another.
But I also think extranuclear material may have more to do with genetics than is popularly thought. Which is why (as far as I'm aware) cloning has had to happen with cells from the cloned animal. I would even go so far as to say that if you put the same chain of RNA through a human ribosome, it might make different stuff than if you ran it through a pig ribosome. As a for instance.
I'm much more concerned about how cell differentiation works than I am about evolution. Natural selection obviously occurs.
I guess in sum, I would fall into those who are skeptical about macro-evolution.
Telp- I take the periodic table on faith as well. I still haven't gotten to run a mass spectrometer myself. It just seems a little too elegant to reflect the real world if you ask me.
[ August 06, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Telp: Can you prove that evolution happens from personal experience? Or did you read about something a scientist wrote explaining why it happens?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:If the universe naturally gravitates toward chaos,
Or perfect order...depending on how you look at it. When/if total universal entropy happens and all matter and energy (or what's left of it) it evenly spaced out everywhere... it becomes perfect Order. Cool eh!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: You yourself do not have evidence to the fact...only on what others have told you.
If I did not have personal evidence to the fact, I would not still be a believer.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Species don't evolve suddenly into a new one. That goes against the word and idea of evolution. Evolution is a collection of micro changes that you usually can't see in a short period of time. Just like when you have a baby. You don't notice the baby growing up when you live with it day in and day out. But if you go away for ten months all of a sudden it looks like it has changed suddenly into a new thing.
Sorry Bro. This is Victorian-style evolution that you are talking about, and most scientists don't believe that this is how evolution really worrks.
The most widely accepted theory of evolution nowadays is punctuated equilibrium. The basic idea is that species go for a long time without changing in any real respect until some catastrophic event (from the point of view of the organism, that is) occurs which shifts the balance of the gene pool and drives speciation.
In a population at equilibrium there is not much change in the overall frequency of allele expression and hence no baby steps to speciation.
quote: Why do we have to have one? Where did we get the rather odd idea of a Supreme Being? Would we, if we were not told by others, even come up with the idea?
I argue that the only reason we even argue about God and creationsism is not because of any science but because we were told as small children (or adults) about the idea of religion and God. If our culture had no religion or history of religion of any kind what are the odds of a scientist suddenly coming up with the idea of a Supreme Being?
I don't think that there is anyway you can support that theory. For this theory of yours to carry any water you would have to explain why every human society that we know of at any time has held beliefs about the afterlife, Gods, etc.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Telp, not a challenge, but a serious question because I don't understand how it works. How does perfect order allow for new stars to be formed?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Can you prove that evolution happens from personal experience? Or did you read about something a scientist wrote explaining why it happens?
Yes, because I can see the data and evidence for it like everyone else. I can't prove God exists because I see no evidence for it. The idea of God was brought up by the ancients in book form. I looked at the idea, didn't find any evidence for it, and moved on.
But if other evidence of proof of the supernatural comes my way I'll be happy to change my opinion! Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
There are things that happen all over the world that have no explanation, i.e. miracles. People who believe in God may see it as his work or whatever, but one will choose to believe there is a scientific explanation, despite having no evidence for that. You may have some evidence that science is true, but science has great big gaping holes and you CHOOSE to believe that science fills those holes, but that you just don't understand it yet. I believe that this is possible in many circumstances. But I still think that the existence of...well, anything can only logically be explained by a Master Creator.
Edit 1: Sorry! Didn't mean "I don't think so" as in you don't know what you believe.
Edit 2: Bwah, I'll just erase it to be safe.
[ August 06, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: Telp, not a challenge, but a serious question because I don't understand how it works. How does perfect order allow for new stars to be formed?
No probs! This is fun! We are attacking the ideas, not each other.
Anyway... well...at the end of the universe when/if total entropy happens then you can't have any new stars. All activity will stop... Who knows for sure though if this will happen.
Now if you are talking about the beginning of our Universe... as far as we know matter and energy was not spaced out perfectly... there were little bumps or tiny tiny imperfections in the maelstrom. So two particles happend to be closer together than with their neighboring particles... gravity in action... then you have bigger clumps... then stars and then galaxies. Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Ok, so I am seeing for the most part a lot of theistic evolutionists (God created or directed the creation of first life and set in motion evolution, and possibly directed evolution).
quote: Although I want to ask this because I haven't heard definitively one way or the other...has any proof ever been found that one species could evolve into another, instead of another form of the same species?
Not actually watching it happen; it takes far too long. However, the fossil record shows excellent transitions, especially in the evolution of the whale from a bear-like terran mammal.
quote: Not to mention that I can't understand how something like...eyes, for example, would have ever come about. I understand the point that species with certain changes survive better and so reproduce more and the others get left out, but what about eyes? You don't just evolve into a creature with eyes. There would have to be a step inbetween, or many steps, that would be, like, a species with some matter in the front that would eventually become eyes. Wouldn't the creature with the matter in front be LESS likely to be picked for reproduction, having a weird deformity?
Richard Dawkins illustrates this point fully in his book "The Blind Watchmaker". There are many possible routes for the evolution of an eye as complex as the human eye, composed of steps seen in modern animals seen all over.
As an easy visual example, check out the evolution of the squid eye, which is very, very similar to the human eye.
quote: I wonder why they [lungfish with nubs] don't get picked off?
They strengthen the fins, and allow the fish to fill a particular niche. A starfish isn't exactly the most adept at not being eaten, but it survives.
quote: I know exactly what you mean. This is where I think God comes in. Wings too. How does something just "start flying?"
Nothing "starts flying". Wings, or partial wings, are believed to have come first, followed by the specialized skeletal system, followed by the proper feathers (if you are going for birds).
quote: Well, Telp -- even if you wanted to base it only on fossil record -- there are so many "gaps". It is only "theory" and this particular animal eventually morphed into that kind of animal, and none of the in-between stages are found at all, which seems a little strange for their theory.
It is a scientific theory, meaning that it must be supported by a large body of evidence and it must be falsifiable. If one piece of evidence is totally inconsistent with ET, it is trashed. As for the vast "gaps", those are a misconception; there is excellent documentation of the evolution of many creatures.
quote: I also think it is interesting, our theories tell us that when left to chance things will become more and more chaotic, less and less organized. And yet, evolution, star and planet birth, goes against that.
You are discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), right?
quote: The most widely accepted theory of evolution nowadays is punctuated equilibrium. The basic idea is that species go for a long time without changing in any real respect until some catastrophic event (from the point of view of the organism, that is) occurs which shifts the balance of the gene pool and drives speciation.
He is correct; Punk Eek is the principle basis of modern ET, as hypothesized by Gould in 1979.
[ August 06, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
PSI, science, unlike many other things, does not claim to know the answers to everything. Science acknowledges its own holes and does not need faith to fill them in; they are either filled or they aren't. Science works to fill the gaps, and at the same time, punches out the "bad fillings" in previous gaps.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*hugs for PSI and bev!*
Long live debate!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Or perfect order...depending on how you look at it. When/if total universal entropy happens and all matter and energy (or what's left of it) it evenly spaced out everywhere... it becomes perfect Order. [Smile] Cool eh!
My point being that evolution and the birth of celestial objects runs opposite to that. It doesn't matter what you call it. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
So HRE -- in your long post above, you are basically saying you already had formed your own opinion regarding evolution and were just trying to lure us into here for debate by asking us what we believe?
FG
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I can't prove God exists because I see no evidence for it.
Some of us look at our existance as pretty strong proof. See my above comment. As my husband said, it is not our only evidence, otherwise we would have let go of our faith a long time ago.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I take that back -- I see now that you made your position clear in the first post. I just hadn't read it thoroughly enough.
FG
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Long live debate!
Ah yes. I *love* these discussions! Keep it comin'.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yay, intelligent conversation!
Unfortunatly it's time for my final duties at work and then I'm off home... I'll try and catch up later. Have a great weekend guys and gals!
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
FG, I really do want to know where Hatrack stands on the matter. And I found out.
On the other hand, I love debate, especially about evolution. And, as opposed to other forums, I know it can be friendly here. Is that so wrong?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: You may have some evidence that science is true, but science has great big gaping holes and you CHOOSE to believe that science fills those holes, but that you just don't understand it yet.
*loudly applauds PSI*
And thus we see even the non-believers have faith!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Nothing "starts flying". Wings, or partial wings, are believed to have come first, followed by the specialized skeletal system, followed by the proper feathers (if you are going for birds).
You know, while I *might* be able to see the eyes developing, I find this one a wee bit harder to believe. I am so in awe of the complexities of our bodies. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think what gets me, in the end, is the beginning of the existence of everything. Those who don't believe in a creator think that it's illogical to believe that a god started it all, mainly because it is unscientific.
But take Big Bang, for instance. The theory states that in the beginning all matter is confined to a singularity, and a singularity is a point at which all the laws of physics break down. That's not really scientific either, if you think about it.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Richard Dawkins illustrates this point fully in his book "The Blind Watchmaker".
As a counterpoint, I would also recommend reading "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe. He's a proponent of intelligent design.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm glad you like to debate, Telp. I hope you understand that while part of my questions are based on my opinions, part are based on genuine ignorance. maybe I should have made each clear at the beginning.
Warning! I do not know what I'm talking about here!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: But take Big Bang, for instance. The theory states that in the beginning all matter is confined to a singularity, and a singularity is a point at which all the laws of physics break down. That's not really scientific either, if you think about it.
I know! Faith.......
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
quote: But take Big Bang, for instance. The theory states that in the beginning all matter is confined to a singularity, and a singularity is a point at which all the laws of physics break down. That's not really scientific either, if you think about it.
...and it isn't ET, either. I, too, know what I'm talking about.
quote: You know, while I *might* be able to see the eyes developing, I find this one a wee bit harder to believe. I am so in awe of the complexities of our bodies.
Would you like me to go into more detail?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
PSI,
quote:But if there were no creator at all, where would mankind come up with the concept?
May I similarly propose:
quote:But if there were no Star Trek Transporters or Faster Than Light travel, where would mankind come up with the concept?
Need I continue?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
As long as they have scientific words to describe something, they can believe it's science. We need a scientific way to describe God.
"God is a singularity at which the laws of physics break down. He is a point in space, and having no size, is able to span the reaches of the universe at any given moment in time."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sure, HRE. Feel free to explain. I have thought about it though, and I have not personally come up with an explaination that actually makes more sense than an intelligent creator guiding the process.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: But if there were no Star Trek Transporters or Faster Than Light travel, where would mankind come up with the concept? Need I continue?
I guess, since I see a vast difference in a pop culture meme and a far-reaching, all-encompassing basis for existence that nearly everyone that exists adopts. See, signs point to the fact that it was atheism that cropped up in history, not theism.
[ August 06, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Exactly, PSI. I am not trying to prove the existance of God. I don't think God wants to be proven, personally. I can see where someone can imagine a universe with no God. I just don't understand the statement that a universe with no God makes more sense than a universe with a God.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
But PSI, scientists do not claim that the singularity loves us, or that it is concerned for our growth and maturation, or that it might support us in a war against the terrorist hordes.
They posit one brief moment of "Just what in the hell is this thing?" apologize for the assumption, feel terribly embarassed about it, and then try to get on with it. They don't try to imbue it with all sorts of mystical and continuing self-contradictory properties.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PSI, in any local, non-closed system (a star, a continent, a human cell), order CAN arise, but it ultimately requires an infusion of energy from outside the system (sugar, geothermal energy, hydrogen). The 2nd law only says that a closed system will TEND to chaos, but doesn't say it will happen quickly; it depends on the qualities of the system.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I have to ask, SS. Do you believe in an objective morality?
quote: They posit one brief moment of "Just what in the hell is this thing?" apologize for the assumption, feel terribly embarassed about it, and then try to get on with it. They don't try to imbue it with all sorts of mystical and continuing self-contradictory properties.
In other words, they ignore it? That's how science deals with things it doesn't understand?
Edit: Or rather, I should say, with things that don't fit the theory?
[ August 06, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: But PSI, scientists do not claim that the singularity loves us, or that it is concerned for our growth and maturation, or that it might support us in a war against the terrorist hordes.
So, is this the part that non-believers find hard to swallow? Or is it something else about God that seems unlikely?
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Okay, I may be way off here, but I have a question for Bev. You suggested that maybe God had a hand in the direction of evolution at critical points. Okay, it's my understanding that in most religions God is perfect (infaliable (sp?)). So how could He possibly need to direct evolution? Or do you believe that every life form has free will, and thus needs God's little nudges every once in a while? I'm not arguing that what you believe is wrong, I just want to understand here how the ideas mesh (and indeed, if they even need to).
My personal belief? Maybe there is a god, maybe not. But if there is, I tend to drift toward the thinking that he/she/it set things in motion and has been hands off ever since. I would tend toward the idea that a supreme being would basically be someone who can predict with absolute certainty what will happen forever and thus can set things in motion to be exactly how he/she/it wants them to be for all time. But then, I don't really believe that there is any such thing as free will, just that the universe is so complex that anyone short of an all knowing supreme being would never be able to fully comprehend it to the smallest detail.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I would think that, since God is perfect and has a perfect will that we can't understand, that his plans for the evolution of species on earth fits right in. Not so much that he helps evolution out, but that he made it go that way in the first place.
I actually kinda agree that God is a bit hands-off, at least at this point in history. There's a place in the Bible that talks about God "giving men over to the evil desires of their hearts" or something like that, and I'm afraid we may actually be at a point like that today.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Wonderful questions! (I love good questions.)
I believe in a perfect God. I believe that this perfect God values free will a great deal. I believe this God gives the universe its freedom to be chaotic and do what it wishes--except where His will requires otherwise.
Yes, I do believe in a "nudging" God rather than a "controlling" God. And yet, I believe because He is perfect, He is never out of control. If anything disobeys Him, it is to its own detriment, not God's.
To explain further, I believe that the elements *always* obey God. Without fail. Only we, his children, can choose to go against God's will.
[ August 06, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
The commonly accepted lineages of the evolution of flight are either the ground-up lineage or the trees-down lineage. The evolution of flight in birds (from the Berkely University site, they can do better at explaining than I) follows:
The most diverse group of flyers ever to evolve are the birds (the clade Aves). Birds show a marvelous diversity not only of species but of flight adaptations. Compare the hummingbird with the albatross, and you'll get a good picture of how differently animals can fly. As is discussed in our bird origins exhibit, current theory holds that birds had a common ancestor with dromaeosaurid dinosaurs during the Late Jurassic period (about 150 million years ago), if not earlier. Birds remained of relatively low diversity until the Cretaceous period.
The earliest known bird is Archaeopteryx. Its form shows us that it was a true flyer, although not as skilled as most modern birds, since its sternum was flat, or at best only slightly keeled, and later modifications of the wrist bones were not present. It is this first bird and its closest relatives that we must consider when discussing the origin of flight in birds, because later birds are more modified in structure, and hence are inaccurate models for understanding the origin of flight in the avian lineage. In support of Archaeopteryx as one of the model ancestral birds, there is a line of later transitional forms during the Cretaceous period -- forms such as Confuciusornis and Sinornis that show the rapid evolution of flight in birds, quickly approaching the structure seen in most modern flying birds.
Dromaeosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and early birds such as Sinornis, then, are the animals that we must consider to understand the origin of flight in birds. Dromaeosaurs were all bipedal, fairly cursorial, and terrestrial. There is no persuasive evidence indicating arboreality in dromaeosaurs, although that negative evidence does not preclude arboreality altogether. Many modern birds are arboreal, but modern birds have had 150 million years of evolutionary separation from their origin, so they are poor analogs for the origin of flight in birds (as Dr. Padian {1985} says, "To study the origin of flight is not to deal with why modern birds live in trees, but how ancient birds got into the air. Post hoc arguments are not acceptable [p.419 -- see sources in the Introduction to Flight exhibit])."
Dromaeosaurs such as Deinonychus, the model for the "raptors of Jurassic Park, were fierce predators that used their forearms in a motion that was very similar in unusual ways to the flight stroke of used in birds. Professor Kevin Padian and Dr. Jacques Gauthier (then a student at Berkeley and now a professor at Yale University) first showed this in 1985. More recently, Dr. Alan Gishlick, a research associate at UCMP, explained in more detail how this stroke evolved. See New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds, edited by J.A. Gauthier and L.F. Gall (Yale Univ. Press, 2001)
Birds have flight adaptations similar to those of pterosaurs: hollow but strong bones, keeled sterna (shown above) for flight muscle attachment, short and stout humeri, and feathers (analogous to pterosaur wing fibers). However, unlike the pterosaur wing, the bird wing (shown above) is primarily supported by an elongated radius, ulna, and modified wrist bones (the carpometacarpus). Among other features, birds have a structure that they share with dromaeosaurs: a fused clavicle (collarbone) called the furcula (wishbone), which serves as a brace during the flight stroke. This feature was probably co- opted in function from the dromaeosaurian function of providing a brace for the shoulder girdle while holding prey.
The phalanges of the bird wing (homologus to those of the ancestral dromaeosaurian hand) follow a trend of reduction and fusion to form the distal part of the wing: dromaeosaurs had large clawed hands, Archaeopteryx had clawed fingers and a more elongate wing, and modern birds have mostly only the second digit of the hand present (at the end of the wing). The same group also shows an evolutionary trend of the reduction of flexion in the wrist, making the flight stroke more rigid and pronounced. Later birds did not have the stiff tail of Archaeopteryx; tails seem to be structures reserved for more primitive flyers.
Birds showed a gradual increase in flying ability during their early evolution -- Archaeopteryx was not a powerful flyer, but it seems it was not much of a glider either. Later birds such as Sinornis, Confuciusornis, and Ichthyornis improved on the basic flight adaptations of their ancestors, becoming better flyers. Some birds found niches that were more suited for flightless birds: Hesperornis was a flightless diving bird in the late Cretaceous period, and in the Eocene epoch (shortly after the demise of the dinosaurs), there were large flightless birds such as Diatryma that may have been the main predators on the early mammals in some areas (a Miocene flightless bird, Phorusrhacos, is depicted below). Penguins and other diving birds do not fly in the air, but use the same basic flight stroke to fly under water. The living ratites (ostriches, emus, kiwis, and the extinct moa) are an ancient lineage of flightless birds. And of course, today we have such adept flyers as the swallows, hummingbirds, falcons, and the soaring albatrosses which demonstrate the great diversity of flight adaptations in birds.
Source Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Sorry, Bev. Your question.
I was thinking that he meant that God had to come along and direct everything, and I just kinda feel like things unfold because God's perfect will has already been determined. Just MO. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Scientists ignore things that they don't understand?
No. Scientists are trying very hard to figure out what happened at the moment of the Big Bang--and before, if that question continues to make any sense. No good scientist can ignore something they don't understand. They tend to be driven nuts by things that "don't fit the theory." Unless you just don't understand scientists.
Bev,
quote:So, is this the part that non-believers find hard to swallow? Or is it something else about God that seems unlikely?
We've had this discussion before. Tell me what God is, and I'll tell you what about Him seems so unlikely.
--Steve
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
This took a while to type up, and now I see I'm many posts behind, but here we are anyways.
Chaos theory states that in a system in which rules are applied iteratively (over and over again) to a set of data, small irregularities in the data can lead to vast differences in outcome over time. The universe’s data and rules have proofed to be such a system, on both a macro, micro, and super-macro (Universe-wide, I made the word up ) scale. Though the complexities and niceties involved in Chaos theory could fill pages for just what I know of it, and what I know of it is just as an interested laymen, vast quantities of books and papers of been written on the subject, but I think that my summary is the heart of chaos theory.
The fact that there are irregular pockets in the universe, some that are completely void and some that are filled with matter (like out solar system) is a result of this chaos theory. Just as sin (x)*e^(x) is a function that will clearly go to infinity over time, when you’re stuck in the middle of the function you’ll notice the curves and some downward trends along with upwards. This does not mean that the function will not eventually go to infinity, just that there are aberrations along the way. So the universe appears to us, we see pockets of extreme order (like each other) and wonder if the natural trend really is towards entropy. What we see are mere aberrations along an unchangeable path, one that leads in a specific direction, it just doesn’t get there right away. Saying that our current, ordered state is proof that we wont eventually go to entropy, or that there’s something wrong with the laws that say that are like saying that the path from your house to the park wont make it because you’re only half way.
What makes the universe unique is the irregularities in the original data, what caused the universe to take on such a form that after 10-20 billion years (using the widest interpretation of the Hubble constant I know) it produced self-aware creatures? Irregularity is in no way a product of the laws of the universe, and thus no scientific evidence as of yet can be gathered to provide even the slightest explanation of why we are here.
Hobbes Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
No problem, PSI. We may have different takes on things when it comes to this, and that is OK. I am interested in hearing your POV also. I was just sharing how things seem to me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: We've had this discussion before. Tell me what God is, and I'll tell you what about Him seems so unlikely.
We have? It seems like most of the times I have tried to discuss my ideas about God on Hatrack, people stop responding. Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
PSI:
quote: In other words, they ignore it? That's how science deals with things it doesn't understand?
Edit: Or rather, I should say, with things that don't fit the theory?
Science has evolved throughout the centuries by *ignoring* the big questions and concentrating on matters it could solve. And if the experiments contradict the theory, THEN scientists look for another theory. From time to time you get the usual philosophers who try to go outside their time and come up with extraordinary theories... most of which, ultimately are crushed by new, more accurate experiments.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Bev,
I'm not stopping.
You're not answering my question.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Scientists are not nearly as egotistical as many people think. They freely admit they do not know everything but are willing to try and learn.
They even admit that knowing everything is nearly impossible, but they want to reach the mortal limit of this knowledge.
So when they take their theories as far as they can be proved, and say "we don't know what goes on from here" some people attack them.
THey say, "Aha. You don't know. See."
And the scientist goes, "duh. We never said we knew everything. This is as far as we can reasonably determine for now."
But the science bashers continue. "Since you can't prove everything, you must be making it all up. See, we can know everything, because everything is right here in our good book."
The big bang is not God. It is all that we mortal humans using scientific principals have determined as the natural limits of the universe.
Most scientists and science fans are not out trying to destroy God, or prove his non-existance. Many are seeking God, finding his fingerprints in the evolution that others scoff at. Most are, however, following their God given curiosity, trying to do the most with the brains and Logic they have been given.
In fact, I think limiting God to just a literal translation of Genesis is doing God a disservice. I vision a much larger God, one who deals in Billions of years, yet manages each second, one who juggles billions of stars, and a billion billion times more electrons, one who orchestrates the evolution of species, but still notice when each sparrow falls.
Of course, such a view of the cosmos is a bit too humbling for many people, especially those who believe that they are important figures who will witness the most important event in the universe--the imminent return of Christ--that they know will happen any day now.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
quote: Science has evolved throughout the centuries by *ignoring* the big questions and concentrating on matters it could solve.
quote: And if the experiments contradict the theory, THEN scientists look for another theory.
Of course. Is there something wrong with that?
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
quote: Of course, such a view of the cosmos is a bit too humbling for many people, especially those who believe that they are important figures who will witness the most important event in the universe--the imminent return of Christ--that they know will happen any day now.
You know, if they decided it was imminent on a geological time scale, than they could rightly claim that the millions of fellows in the past two milleniums that said the same thing were right, also.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
ssywak, you could start by responding to what I said about God being a "nudging" God and allowing free will. Or you could start by asking a specific question.
You don't just say to someone, "OK, tell me everything you learned in calculus." It doesn't work that way.
[ August 06, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Of course. Is there something wrong with that?
Nothing at all. But we must recognize that we cannot perceive all of reality through science. We can only observe and continually revise our theories.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
HRE, I don't know what you are thinking about my post, but it was intended to be somewhat alike to what Dan said: while the question 'How did everything start ?' could bug a scientist for his entire life, he's still going to try to prove other things that he thinks might, someday, lead to answering the BIG question. But he doesn't go head first and wait the revelation of the beginning of everything. That's what I tried to say.
And no, there's nothing wrong with scientists looking for a new theory when experiments contradict the previous one. THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING TOO ! I was merely stating the fact... Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first post.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Gotcha. My apologies. It just sounded...strange... in a way I can't explain anymore...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I thought I'd tackle the odd question in this thread.
Pooka: chromosomal number changes happen all the freakin' time, just due to variations in cell separation. Sometimes they cause problems, but often not, or at least not big ones.
Heck, most plants and a good portion of insects can and do double their chromosomes in a single generation, sometimes creating a separate species (we've seen it in the lab and in nature).
As for the second law, there are several points to address:
1) it only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. Hence it doesn't apply, and anyone who tells you it does is lying (I've had creationist advocates try to tell me it applies anyways, quite recently in fact).
2) Even in a closed system, it only refers to the total entropy (lack of organization of information/energy). A part of the closed system can have a higher degree of organization, so long as the overall system has a lower degree. For instance, when we convert a food in our stomachs to energy, the organization of the energy we uses increases, but the food substance becomes significantly more disorganized.
There are plenty of avenues to flight. Take a look at flying squirrels, for instance, its quite obvious how those could arise from normal squirrels.
As has been pointed out, there are plenty of examples of how a water dweller might become a land dweller around today. Fins become stubbier allow water animal to survive better when local water dries up by finding a new location, continue until its just able to live on land (and the transition between gill and lung is actually pretty easy as well, or rather between air sac and lung. All it requires is that some of those puddle hopping animals had air sacs better at staying closed, allowing them to hop yet further due to keeping air supply around).
In the multi celled organisms arising from those, its entirely easy to imagine patches arising with particularly light sensitive areas (as still exist today).
Does anyone have any other transitions they'd like covered? I can definitely give plausible paths for any transition that can be named, and I can give example fossils/creatures for most of them. we have remarkably good fossil records of many "transitions". Of course, the whole idea of a transition is relatively human centric. There's no starting point or ending point, really.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, Hobbes, irregularity arises from uncertainty, which is an intrinsic part of every major competing theory for physics around.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Disclaimer: It's [EDIT] past [/EDIT] midnight here, if you find that my posts are: 1) incomplete 2) not clear 3) bordering on insanity, know that I've played 2 hours of basketball and that I'm not at my full debating capacity. That being said, after this I'll stop posting until morning. Sadly... 'cause it's an excellent debate...
beverly, in science - at least until now, and I don't see a change coming soon - nothing is 100% proven. As others have said before me in this thread, there's always a doubt. I admit that the thought of not ever having the absolute certainty might prove too much for many people. And I think that's why we humans invented religion in the first place. It was like: we know this and this and this, the rest is a miracle. And then: oh wait, we know this too, strike it from the miracle list ! (sorry for the oversimplification)
The ultimate question is: if we find that God is not needed for a complete theory of this universe, then what ? This is not likely to happen in our lifetime, though, so don't you worry
As for miracles, PSI asked what about them. I've seen a recent article about how probable a 'miracle' is in someone's live, and it's VERY likely IIRC. Unfortunately I'm not able to find the link now, I'll ask the person who brought it to my attention to send it again.
And I'm going down...
[ August 06, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The ultimate question is: if we find that God is not needed for a complete theory of this universe, then what ? This is not likely to happen in our lifetime, though, so don't you worry [Wink]
I thought most people already thought that had happened. They have been thinking that for a long time now. But disproving God isn't going to happen either. The universe will always stretch beyond the bounds of what we can perceive as mortals.
Miracles are not for the purpose of proving God. They only serve to strengthen the faith of those who already have put forth faith of their own. If God wanted to be proven, He would have done so. It's not like it's difficult. Or, of course, you can believe He doesn't exist.
[ August 06, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Everything I learned in calculus:
You can always express something in terms of a rate of change of something else, nothing is ever as static as it seems.
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have forgotten everything I learned in calculus.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Uh, I'm not even allowed to sleep here...
My answer about miracles was for PSI's post from the first page. (search 'miracle') It's not about proving / unproving God, but about the fact that personal miracles - for example, weird coincidences - may happen and very often probabilisticaly speaking. I realize now that I haven't talked about 'natural' miracles. Those are usually considered as only at the surface not conforming to the theory, when in fact the truth is that we did not know all the conditions that concured in order to give that 'miracle'. And if you cannot reproduce it, well, than you can't prove it's a miracle. Kinda hard to argue with something like that, no ? It's because scientists need repeatability of an experiment in order to be sure that they really found all (relevant) conditions to the experiment. Thus, a miracle can induce the search for the full set of conditions, but you'll never convince anyone to try to come up with a new theory just because you saw something that happened only once.
As for 'the ultimate question':
quote: I thought most people already thought that had happened.
Well, many might think it had happened, but I'm not that sure about it. We're still very far from a unified theory of the universe ! Those who say it had happened are basing their assumptions on blind faith.
Huh, I'm starting to write 'thing' instead of 'think'. Time to go to bed...
Posted by Vera (Member # 2094) on :
As a microbiologist, I obviously believe in evolution. I couldn't do my job otherwise, since it underlies all of modern biology.
But when I say I "believe" in evolution I don't think I mean it the same way that someone who says they believe in god means it. I guess it might be more accurate to say that I think evolution almost certainly takes place, but I don't take it as an article of faith, and if someone had a better explanation I would certainly listen to it, though it would take quite a bit of convincing.
There is one thing I take on faith, and that I believe in the same way that I think religious people believe in god. My creed is "I am in a dialog with nature and she will never lie to me." That last part, she will never lie to me, I take pretty much on faith. I can't prove it, but I believe it and would stake my life (even my soul, if I thought I had one) on it. I stake my reputation on it every day.
Basicly, what I mean by my creed is that the universe operates by laws that don't change. The way I ask a question is by setting up an experiment. I trust that if I phrase my question carefully (that is, design and run my experiment properly) I will get the truth. Now, phrasing the question can be tricky, so I'll often ask the same question over in several different ways to make sure I get the same answer. But I have faith that nature will never just lie to me, and that any differences in the answer I get must be due to small differences in how I phrased the question. Nature can be tricky, but she's not a liar.
At least that's what I believe.
As to the question of god, I've always described myself as an athiest, because I don't think there is a god, but I'm guessing that most people here would describe me as an agnostic, because I'm not absolutely sure about it, and I don't care that much. I think if there is a god he's probably more of the watchmaker variety. I can certainly concieve of some sort of creator behind the big bang, and I don't think belief in that is illogical at all. I don't think it's necessary, but I'll admit it's certainly possible.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: And if you cannot reproduce it, well, than you can't prove it's a miracle. Kinda hard to argue with something like that, no ?
I agree! It is usually impossible to prove something is a miracle. If it were possible, it would have to be some crazy, amazing miracle.
But there are times, I believe, when God has been willing to show His power more fully in order to leave little room for doubt in the people of that place and time. One example would be Christ's life. (This assumes you believe the accounts of His miracles of course.)
So let's just say that Christ healed a man known to have been blind from birth. People say, "Hey, that was a really good trick, but we won't believe it unless you do it again." Christ declines. If they weren't going to believe after the first time, why would they believe after the second? He was interested in finding an encouraging faith, not proving anything.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Re: miracles.
For instance, the number of miraculous cures of cancer at various catholic shrines is less than the expected number of spontaneous remissions given the number of visitors.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Well, many might think it had happened, but I'm not that sure about it. We're still very far from a unified theory of the universe ! Those who say it had happened are basing their assumptions on blind faith. [Wink]
If we did find the Unified theory, would that really mean that we understood everything in the universe? I am thinking no.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Basicly, what I mean by my creed is that the universe operates by laws that don't change.
I have a great deal of faith in this myself. A powerful amount of faith in it, in fact.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: For instance, the number of miraculous cures of cancer at various catholic shrines is less than the expected number of spontaneous remissions given the number of visitors.
I have never thought these sorts of healings were a very good example. Here is why: I believe death and suffering really aren't that big a deal to God. And I believe they won't be to us after we have passed through them either. In fact, they are crucial parts of our mortal experience. So often we think that if God loves us He will give us what we want. None of us want a loved one to die or suffer. Of course we are going to pray to God to not let it happen. And somehow we think if God exists, He is going to let everyone not suffer or die if we request it at His hand. That is illogical.
Miracles to me are any time that God intervenes in the natural flow of chaos in response to His purposes or the faith of another when it is in alignment with His purposes. It would be pretty much impossible to prove most of these. But I do believe there are times when God chooses to "make bare His arm" as the scripture says. But He has to have pretty good reason for it, because it has the potential to destroy the opportunity of others to develop faith. But I think God is pretty good at figuring out how not to work against His own purposes.
Posted by Vera (Member # 2094) on :
quote: I would even go so far as to say that if you put the same chain of RNA through a human ribosome, it might make different stuff than if you ran it through a pig ribosome. As a for instance.
I don't think anyone responded to this, although it's possible I could have missed it, but I just couldn't let this pass.
The above statement is completely and demonstrably untrue. You would get exactly the same protein from each ribosome. This is true of every animal, plant, protozoan, and the vast majority of bactieria (there are a couple weird ones that use one or two codons differently). It is true of almost all life on earth. The experiments have been done and this is a solved problem and has been for decades.
Now, processing and glycosylation after the protein leaves the ribosome could be a little different.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Uh, Hobbes, irregularity arises from uncertainty, which is an intrinsic part of every major competing theory for physics around.
Well that's true Fugu, it's irelevant. The fact that irregularity is a certainty due to the Uncertinity princible is in now way relevant to the two big points I raised:
1) Irreuglarity in intial conditions leads to irreugularity through-out the universe, but the chances of that irregularity leading to self-aware creatures... well it requires very specific irregularity for that.
2) This is the more important one, no unified theory ever proposed, or any other theory for that matter, has ever been able to predict the irregularity, or intial conditions of the universe. Meaning the intial conditions are not determined by the laws of the universe but by something external to them.
Hobbes Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
ssywak, I have made several posts here now about my beliefs about God. When you get a chance, I would love to hear your perspectives on them. Perhaps we can have a really great discussion.
Posted by Vera (Member # 2094) on :
Basicly, what I mean by my creed is that the universe operates by laws that don't change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a great deal of faith in this myself. A powerful amount of faith in it, in fact. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly, I find it extremely interesting that you say that. Tying in with what you asked earier about what unbelievers find so hard to believe about god, I think that what I find so implausible about much religious belief is that is seems to disobey my "creed." Take miracles, for instance, since we're kind of on the topic already. I always percieved miracles as god "breaking the rules" in a way, making the universe do things that it otherwise couldn't, and the very thought of that is abhorent to me.
What you say about miracles being little nudges of the chaos makes more sense. Mind you, I still don't believe it myself, but it makes me understand a little better how such a belief could be rational.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
1) Most scientists I know wouldn't agree with this, and I certainly don't. Don't state it like its a fact.
2) Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it isn't true, even in a world devoid of anything supernatural. Brush up on Godel. Furthermore, given that we've only been exploring higher physics for the past hundred years at the outside, its completely absurd to conclude that no theory of physics will ever have conclusions about the initial conditions of the universe. Furthermore, not everything that is model-able is predictable -- you were the one who brought up chaos theory (albeit when it was completely unneeded), neh?
[ August 06, 2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
quote:2) This is the more important one, no unified theory ever proposed, or any other theory for that matter, has ever been able to predict the irregularity, or intial conditions of the universe. Meaning the intial conditions are not determined by the laws of the universe but by something external to them.
Hobbes, just because we haven't been able to determine such a theory for predicting the initial conditions of the universe doesn't mean there isn't one. Maybe it's like differential equations. For each set of boundary conditions there's an answer(universe), and maybe every possible set of boundary conditions exists (a multiverse). Maybe the multiverse is just the ultimate differential equation (and to be honest here, this is pretty much what I think of the universe, with a complete enough understanding, everything that ever has and will ever exist is calculable, but that's really neither here nor there).
(I did get that right, right? Differential equations are the ones where boundary conditions are required? I haven't taken a math course in years. Crap, I'm not even sure what I just said makes any sense.)
[ August 06, 2004, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Happy Camper ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
1) Fugu, I've read a decent number of things about this, I've heard a lot of people talk about. I haven't gone so far as to conduct a survey of scientests, but I have never once heard anyone say anything other than that the chances of any irregularity producing something like is incredibly remote.
2) The fact that it hasn't yet come to be isn't proof that it will either, and until it does science will remain incapable of explaining the reason the universe formed the way it did. And even then there will be a step left in that why was a universe with these rules created?
Hobbes Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Ssywak, was that your own report on Objective Morality, or one you found? I don't understand how it ties in. Not to mention the fact that it isn't really even about morality since the author points out that his definition is different than the traditional definition of morality (as I understand it to be). He says morality is basically doing good for others?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
HC, it depends on what type of differntial equation you're talking about, but that may be possible. What I'm trying to say isn't that's impossible for science to ever predict from theory alone the intial conditions and constants in the universe (Hawking gives an good explenation as to why being able to do that is so important), but that science certainly can't now.
Hobbes Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
Hobbes - I wondered because of the 2nd sentence in your #2. Sounds like you're saying that since we haven't been able to produce a theory that predicts the initial conditions of the universe, then it follows that they must be determined by a force external to the laws of said universe. I don't follow the reasoning behind that. I would suggest our understanding of the laws of the universe is yet incomplete, and a [more] complete understanding may lead to the ability to predict (postdict?) the initial conditions of the universe.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't say it was proof that it will, and you are the one who stated that it won't.
quote:2) This is the more important one, no unified theory ever proposed, or any other theory for that matter, has ever been able to predict the irregularity, or intial conditions of the universe. Meaning the intial conditions are not determined by the laws of the universe but by something external to them.
That last sentence doesn't even remotely follow, there's a logical gulf beyond measure there.
Second, you are completely ignoring that there are good scientific reasons science could be unable to explain it without there being a God or any supernatural explanation. Science doesn't claim to be able to explain everything. For instance if, as we are resonably certain, time travel is not possible for the transport of information, then science will never know/be able to explain what was going through your head ten minutes ago -- even if there is no supernatural explanation.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
[EDIT: for HC]
OK, fair enough, right now the best of our scientists and scientific theories can only say that the intial conditions of the universe were no pre-determined by the laws of the universe itself, but either by chance or by external force. I do not deny the possibility of a new theory that accounts for intial conditions, but I feel that the assumption that we will have one is just a ludicrious.
Hobbes
[ August 06, 2004, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Fugu, you're making an even bigger logical jump here, you may notice that I never once even mentioned God. I'm not trying to proove his existance, I'm just shedding some light on the begining of the universe as is understood by current theories.
Hobbes Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, Vera, I believe that God uses natural laws to perform His "miracles". I do believe, though that He can do things that we can't. I believe that He can command particles to move and they obey Him. I guess I believe that even the tiniest of particles have a sort of will and intelligence. Just no free-will.
Posted by Vera (Member # 2094) on :
I hate to jump into the middle of a fight between Hobbes and Fugu, especially about something that isn't really my field, but...
quote: 1) Irreuglarity in intial conditions leads to irreugularity through-out the universe, but the chances of that irregularity leading to self-aware creatures... well it requires very specific irregularity for that.
I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. I remember from biochemistry that not only do local areas of higher organization actually help increase the overall disorder, but that some very advanced work in thermodynamics (which I don't understand, so don't ask me to explain it, but it all made alot of sense when the prof was explaining it) shows that such things naturally form in large systems, and are, in fact, inevitable. It seemed to me that this suggested that life may, in fact, have been inevitable. The tendency of develop local areas of life may actually be in the very fabric of the universe.
That was one of my few near brushes with theism. :-)
But I didn't fully understand the science behind it, so I don't think too much about it on a daily basis, but it really blew my mind at the time.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Most scientists I know wouldn't agree with this, and I certainly don't. Don't state it like its a fact.
Was this in response to me? Forgive me. I never mean to put my faith forth as fact. Sometimes I forget. It's just, I believe it so strongly myself it is easy to forget.
quote: Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it isn't true
Exactly!
Let me say that I believe *very strongly* that it is impossible for science to observe all of reality as it is.
[ August 06, 2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
When I was a kid I always kinda felt like gravity was an expression of the will of God, or something like that. I haven't really thought about it since.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
A typical scientific way of determining approximate stastical probability of something that can not be reproduced is looking at the time it took to form. Life formed soon after it was possible, while whatever the possibilities of creating a place for life specifically are, if we just count reproducing patterns then yes, life is a likely phenomena in any system. Intelligent life took billions of years to form, as I said, I've never heard a single person say that intelligent life was a likely outcome.
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Re; the necessary initial conditions, first review the anthropic principles, then consider the multiple universe theories, then consider the repetitive big bang theories (each with new laws of physics), then notice your own statement:
quote:but I have never once heard anyone say anything other than that the chances of any irregularity producing something like is incredibly remote.
We're not talking about it necessarily producing something like this, we're talking about it producing something/someplace which could sustain life. Heck, we're not even certain the laws of physics are constant in the universe, and if it turns out they vary, that certainly suggests it may be relatively easy for an exploding universe to result in life . Heck, we aren't even certain the universe has a beginning.
Actually, I find your points here somewhat amusing, as its my understanding that in the LDS belief system God doesn't get to set the laws of the universe, at least not some of them. Those are still left as "just how it is".
And again, even if science can't explain the initial laws of physics, ever, that says nothing scientifically about whether or not they are due to supernatural imposition.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
We all walk by faith in this life whether we realize it or not. We just differ on what we have faith *in*.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Actually, I find your points here somewhat amusing, as its my understanding that in the LDS belief system God doesn't get to set the laws of the universe, at least not some of them. Those are still left as "just how it is".
And again, even if science can't explain the initial laws of physics, ever, that says nothing scientifically about whether or not they are due to supernatural imposition.
And again Fugu you seem to think I'm trying to proove a lack in science or a proof of the Divine, I'm doing niether one. I haven't mentioned God except to say that I hadn't mentioned Him.
quote:We're not talking about it necessarily producing something like this, we're talking about it producing something/someplace which could sustain life
Well I was pretty specific, I was talking about forming this kind of life.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Well I was pretty specific, I was talking about forming this kind of life."
Do I need to explain the Anthropic Principle AGAIN? Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oh, on the natural laws of nature and miracles. Quantum theory tells us that it is possible for my computer screen to wink out of existance and appear in Antarctica. Or the other side of the galaxy. It is *extremely* unlikely, but possible.
Now imagine that these particles each have a tiny bit of will. Not free will, but enough will to obey God.
Seems to leave some room for the tweaking of a Divine Being.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:What makes the universe unique is the irregularities in the original data, what caused the universe to take on such a form that after 10-20 billion years (using the widest interpretation of the Hubble constant I know) it produced self-aware creatures? Irregularity is in no way a product of the laws of the universe, and thus no scientific evidence as of yet can be gathered to provide even the slightest explanation of why we are here.
First, as already pointed out, irregularity is a product of the laws of the universe, so your thus just falls out completely. Second, you certainly implied an argument for a guiding intelligence in your questions, particularly given the overall argument.
As for the "life, but not intelligent life" bit, I again suggest the anthropic principle It happened, so it happened, even if its terribly unlikely. What caused it? who knows, but we can be absolutely certain it happened, and so if there's even a possibility it was naturally caused the probability of it happening is pretty much irrelevant.
Beverly -- it wasn't a reply to you, but your input is always welcome Don't worry, its been scientifically proven that no axiomatic system is complete. This strongly suggests that there are areas (of the physical sciences) no scientific theory can explain.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Tom, please understand I'm not proving that there was something divine in the creation of the Universe, I know what the Anthropic Principle is, I know what it means, it really has nothing to do with the what I'm talking about, because it doesn't give a reason, it says that there was some reason, and now it's happened however likely or unlikely. Just because I am a Thiest doesn't mean that everytime I enter a discussion about creation I'll be intent on proving I'm right, sometimes I just like discussing the science of it.
Hobbes Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
I don't know the anthropic principle, but, as always, I would desire to learn it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:First, as already pointed out, irregularity is a product of the laws of the universe, so your thus just falls out completely. Second, you certainly implied an argument for a guiding intelligence in your questions, particularly given the overall argument.
You've pointed out that irregularity is a product of the laws of the universe, so I proceeded to point out that it may dictate irregularity but not irreguarity that producces intelligent life.
quote:for the "life, but not intelligent life" bit, I again suggest the anthropic principle It happened, so it happened, even if its terribly unlikely. What caused it? who knows, but we can be absolutely certain it happened, and so if there's even a possibility it was naturally caused the probability of it happening is pretty much irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? I'm not proofing anything, I was just trying to have a disucussion.
quote:Second, you certainly implied an argument for a guiding intelligence in your questions, particularly given the overall argument.
The closest I came was mentioning "external forces", other than that I just pointed out what science doesn't know, which has been said several times in this thread by those who agree with you is what scientists do and why their so trustworthy.
quote:2) This is the more important one, no unified theory ever proposed, or any other theory for that matter, has ever been able to predict the irregularity, or intial conditions of the universe. Meaning the intial conditions are not determined by the laws of the universe but by something external to them.
Can you back this up? Why does the first sentence imply the second?
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
quote: HRE: Anthropic Principle
...so that's what it is...
I've always used it, you know, especially in the "probability arguments", but I didn't know there was an actual organized principle to it.
Hehe...and there I thought I was thinking uniquely, you know?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Can you back this up?
Well I know of no comprhensive list of unified theories, but I'm convinced that the physcists here will back me up. If you want a primary source on this one it's from A Breif History of Time.
It implies the second one because these theories include physical constants in them, and are applied to the data, but both the constants and the data have to be determined experimentally, there is no mechanism in the rules themselves for determining either.
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hobbes: science can explain why there are irregularities, and that certain irregularities possibly/likely lead to life.
While it can come up with all sorts of detailed analysis of the possible and probably irregularities, it will likely never dictate irregularity that produces life. Frankly, life is probably not a necessary outcome of the possible irregularities of universe creation. So I doubt science will ever "dictate . . . irreguarity that producces intelligent life" as thats probably not necessary at all. Why should scientific theories have to dictate irregularity that leads to life? Its certainly not necessary for any scientific theory to dictate it given what we know of the universe today, why do you think it is?
And no, your statement is not a paraphrase of Hawking's. He didn't say that something else determined such constants or that they were in any way external, merely that he felt any theory which did not dictate them was inadequate. Furthermore, much modern research on possible details of universe creation focuses on that, simply, the properties of the universe may arise from pure happenstance -- that is, it may be possible to arise at a theory which dictates the possible values, but not the exact values simply because no exact values are physically necessary.
[ August 06, 2004, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Hobbes: science can explain why there are irregularities, and that certain irregularities lead to life.
Certainly never questioned that.
quote:While it can come up with all sorts of detailed analysis of the possible and probably irregularities, it will likely never dictate irregularity that produces life. Frankly, life is probably not a necessary outcome of the possible irregularities of universe creation. So I doubt science will ever "dictate . . . irreguarity that producces intelligent life" as thats probably not necessary at all. Why should scientific theories have to dictate irregularity that leads to life? Its certainly not necessary for any scientific theory to dictate it given what we know of the universe today, why do you think it is?
Well it better if it's going to dictate the orginal irregularities of the universe, since obviously they did lead to live. Remember the Anthropic Principle? The only other option is that it doesn't dictate the irregularities (the current theories) which was my entire point in the first place.
quote: And no, your statement is not a paraphrase of Hawking's. He didn't say that something else determined such constants or that they were in any way external, merely that he felt any theory which did not dictate them was inadequate.
Well actually he did, you just leaving out the first half of his statment. He did indeed say that any theories that did not dictate constants was inadequate, only he prefaced that by saying that no current theories do. It was one of his pet peeves with physic's current "Unified Theories". And since these theories are the current estimaations of the rules of the universe I think we can safely say that at this point, the known rules of the universe don't do that right? I mean if A is B and A doesn't do C, then B doesn't do C. And if the rules don't dictate this then it is external to the rules.
quote:simply, the properties of the universe may arise from pure happenstance -- that is, it may be possible to arise at a theory which dictates the possible values, but not the exact values simply because no exact values are physically necessary.
Well I have no idea what you mean by necessary, but the rest of that is exactly what I said in my first post, as of right now, and possibly in the future, the intial conditions wont be dependent on the rules of the universe, and thus will be external to them.
Fugu, I don't know why you're arguing with me, we agree on all this, and if you're worried about me trying to turn this into some sort of logical case for an All Mighty Creator I would hope that my previous posts have disuaded you from that opinion.
[EDIT: And just for AK, I've not used spell check on this post. ]
Hobbes
[ August 06, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hobbes, science is not certain. If the creation of the universe did not certainly lead to life, scientific theories need not dictate that it must. We know only that it did lead to life, not that it must have. Your logic is in significant error. In fact, given the uncertainty principle and the vast variances it almost certainly makes possible in the early universe, I would be frankly amazed if it were certain life would come into existence from the beginning.
You're right, my memory of Hawking in A Brief History was flawed. He just speculates, stating that it may or may not be possible to determine such numbers from theory. One notable speculation that is absent in your speculation, however, is that they could just happen to vary -- very different from your either or of defined by theory or externally determined, and a point I've been trying to make.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To clarify: constants can happen within the laws of physics, under some sort of general guidelines, without being specifically dictated, and still not being external.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Hobbes, science is not certain. If the creation of the universe did not certainly lead to life, scientific theories need not dictate that it must. We know only that it did lead to life, not that it must have. Your logic is in significant error. In fact, given the uncertainty principle and the vast variances it almost certainly makes possible in the early universe, I would be frankly amazed if it were certain life would come into existence from the beginning.
Once again, that is my point, science currently doesn't, and very likely, will not tell us the begining intial conditions.
quote:You're right, my memory of Hawking in A Brief History was flawed. He just speculates, stating that it may or may not be possible to determine such numbers from theory. One notable speculation that is absent in your speculation, however, is that they could just happen to vary -- very different from your either or of defined by theory or externally determined, and a point I've been trying to make.
This is true, it's possible that if we do discover the true unified theory that it may not specify rules that dictate constants, and if so, it may place limits on those constants, and most likely will not dictate, though may dictate or dictate ranges for intial conditions. I admit that I don't know the unified theory, I mean if I did you think I'd be here right now? I'm really pretty sure you agree with me Fugu, and I'm most unclear as to why you're arguing with me on a point where you're consitantly taking the same side of the issue as I am.
Hobbes
[ August 06, 2004, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, no, you're still missing the first point. Its not that they're not necessarily given (thought that's possible as well), its that the results of them aren't certain. Why do you insist that any complete theory must dictate that intelligent life must evolve, for instance?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And then why on earth did you say this:
quote:2) This is the more important one, no unified theory ever proposed, or any other theory for that matter, has ever been able to predict the irregularity, or intial conditions of the universe. Meaning the intial conditions are not determined by the laws of the universe but by something external to them.
Which explicitly contradicts the idea that the initial conditions could be bound without being determined.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
So, out of the first 257,308 universes, 195,023 collapsed immediately upon forming because their constants weren't agreeable to each other. Of the remaining universes, only 21,345 of them actually supported any sort of life at all, and of those, only 497 supported self-aware life.
Does that work for anybody? Works for me.
Bev,
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I went home, had a great date with my wife, picked up the kids from a Murder-Mystery dinner, and inly now am I ignoring them again to come here to Hatrack (and answer your e-mail).
quote: I believe in a perfect God. I believe that this perfect God values free will a great deal. I believe this God gives the universe its freedom to be chaotic and do what it wishes--except where His will requires otherwise.
Yes, I do believe in a "nudging" God rather than a "controlling" God. And yet, I believe because He is perfect, He is never out of control. If anything disobeys Him, it is to its own detriment, not God's.
To explain further, I believe that the elements *always* obey God. Without fail. Only we, his children, can choose to go against God's will.
First: a "perfect being" is a fictional conceit. What exactly do you mean "God is perfect"? Since nothing we know here on earth is "perfect," I am having a hard time understanding what a "perfect being" would be.
Second: The elements obey God? Are you saying that the elements will act contrary to the known laws of physics if God wills it to be so? Please provide an example. Or, does God spend his (infinite) time moving the elements (quarks, gluons, Clark Bars, etc.) to meet the criteria of the known physical laws (does God make sure that the planets stay in their orbits? Or has he established the laws of physics? I know you will say "No" to that second question--so are you then saying that God can cause a planet to leave and then return to its orbit if He so chooses?)
Third: A "nudging" God? Interesting concept. How does he "nudge"? How do we separate His "nudges" from random chance (if a cat runs across my path, and I go left instead of right, and therefore don't take the Staten Island ferry the day it smaches into the pier, is that a "nudge"? Why didn't God nudge the eleven people who died that day? Please tell their families that God didn't need to nudge them, or that they were too blind to see the nudge.)
And on that note, I promise to return tomorrow. Now I go spend time with my family.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oh, no problem about being gone, I certainly am not going to criticize you for being a wonderful husband and taking your wife out!
quote: First: a "perfect being" is a fictional conceit. What exactly do you mean "God is perfect"? Since nothing we know here on earth is "perfect," I am having a hard time understanding what a "perfect being" would be.
Perfect is an easy word to throw around lightly. I believe that God is the perfect judge, that He does not make mistakes and that He is able to balance the unbalanced. I believe that if there is anything to be known, He knows it. I believe that He adheres to the underlying laws of reality by choice and does so without wavering. He can be trusted implicitly to follow through on the things He has said He will do.
quote: Second: The elements obey God? Are you saying that the elements will act contrary to the known laws of physics if God wills it to be so? Please provide an example. Or, does God spend his (infinite) time moving the elements (quarks, gluons, Clark Bars, etc.) to meet the criteria of the known physical laws (does God make sure that the planets stay in their orbits? Or has he established the laws of physics? I know you will say "No" to that second question--so are you then saying that God can cause a planet to leave and then return to its orbit if He so chooses?)
I do believe that God follows natural law. I also believe that God can command the elements and they obey. I do not think that particles need to go contrary to natural laws in order to obey the commands of God. There is a certain amount of randomness in their motions. Particles move in such a way that defies our current understanding and is different than anything we observe at our size-level. Assuming these particles do have some will of their own, it is not that strange to think that if God commanded this planet to remove from it's orbit, it would be done. Perhaps even mankind will discover such power someday a la "Star Trek Technology".
I do think that the laws we see may have either been set into motion by God (via the Big Bang) to fit a reality that goes beyond even this physical universe, or they are simply the same laws that occur naturally no matter what.
quote: Third: A "nudging" God? Interesting concept. How does he "nudge"? How do we separate His "nudges" from random chance (if a cat runs across my path, and I go left instead of right, and therefore don't take the Staten Island ferry the day it smaches into the pier, is that a "nudge"? Why didn't God nudge the eleven people who died that day? Please tell their families that God didn't need to nudge them, or that they were too blind to see the nudge.)
We cannot discern the difference. It is not God's intention that we discern. But it does allow Him to ensure that His purposes are fulfilled. Let us treat this like the laws of robotics created by Isaac Asimov. They have a heirarchy and structure, the first overriding the second and the second overriding the third.
First: He allows us our free will. He will not under any circumstances remove that or violate it. We are always free to choose.
Second: He responds to faith. The greater the faith, the greater the response. Faith is not about "getting what you want" like a spoiled child demanding candy, it is about trusting God and seeking to align yourself with His purposes. He will intervene (as long as His first purpose is still being served) when there is faith and the amount of intervention tends to (and is perhaps always) proportional to the faith involved.
For instance: I believe that God intervened to help save me from my awful situation described in my recent landmark because of the faith and faithfulness of those who loved me (particularly my parents) rather than on my own merits. I could have denied that intervention and help, but I believe an extra effort was made on their behalf rather than mine. God may have had His own purposes in mind also, but I do believe that their faith had an effect on how things happened.
I cannot prove this to you, but I tell you that I believe it with my whole soul. To me it was a miracle. To anyone else, it is only coincidence.
I find it interesting to note that you bring death into it. As though death is the worst thing that can happen to a person. If you believe in no afterlife, I can understand. But for those of us who do, me continuing on that terribly destructive path would have been far worse than death. Perhaps even to a non-believer's perspective it would have been worse than death.
We could perhaps put a third purpose of "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39) The first two purposes would have priority and thus govern how this third purpose is brought about.
[ August 07, 2004, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I want to second that last comment. For a person of faith, and to God, death is simply a bumb in the road.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:He can be trusted implicitly to follow through on the things He has said He will do.
quote:I don't think God wants to be proven
This seems to be a "common thread" in the description of "God." He does not want to be proven--proof would somehow ruin faith, or the need for faith (why God should require "faith" and eschew "knowledge" is an interesting quandary).
But if God does not want to be "proven," then how do we know what "He has said He will do"?
If you knew God told you He'd do something, then His existence would be proven. That's no good for God, apparently. By your own restrictions, then, any belief that God has promised to do anything must be subjective at best. Being subjective, it can therefore easily be denied or altered when it alteration finds.
"I have prayed to God, and he has told me that the little girl who fell into the well will be saved"
Of course, since God denies proof, my belief that God has told me anything cannot be a "true" belief, or I would have proof. This is starting to sound like something out of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
But then the little girl dies in the well.
Has God failed to "follow through on the things He has said He will do"? I would say yes. What would you say? Having an abiding belief in God, I would bet that you'd say that I misunderstood what God said to me, or that I was hopeful but incorrect in my belief that God had spoken to me at all.
You can't lose. You posit an entity that--by definition--denies proof, and then you can go and call it anything you want. You can attribute any aspects to it at all. And, the moment one of those attributes fails to materialize, you can claim that it's all part of that entity's aspect of remaining unproveable. Not only does your unproveable entity get to continue "existing", but the attribute that failed to materialize remains, somehow, valid.
That's the first contradiction. Do you get it?
quote:I do believe that God follows natural law. I also believe that God can command the elements and they obey. I do not think that particles need to go contrary to natural laws in order to obey the commands of God. There is a certain amount of randomness in their motions. Particles move in such a way that defies our current understanding and is different than anything we observe at our size-level. Assuming these particles do have some will of their own, it is not that strange to think that if God commanded this planet to remove from it's orbit, it would be done. Perhaps even mankind will discover such power someday a la "Star Trek Technology".
The "God follows natural law" comes close to the "make a rock so big..." issue. I don't know what to make of that logical inconsistency!
I also know, from your e-mail to me, that the Mormon God did not create the Universe, but was created at the same time as the Universe. Therefore (I will assume), His powers are great, but limited.
Of course, it begs the question that scientists are currently being accused of begging: what happened before and during the creation of the Universe? What was the "prime mover"?
Secondly, you claim (in the e-mail) that "He is an exalted human being who once lived as a mortal" So God, created at the same time of the universe, has hair, gonads, teeth and an anus. Perhaps a belly button, but I'll leave that question for those much smarter than I. If He is human, then He must have those things. But if he is "eternal in the sense that he lives 'outside' time," and was born before the earth or any planets existed (having been created at the same time as the Universe), then how/why/what would He eat? Does this "perfect" being excrete? Does it even make any sense? Another contradiction / inconsistency.
You also call upon [reverb]quantum uncertainty[/reverb] to allow for God to move a planet out of its defined orbit through His intent, and yet violate no physical laws.
You don't understand quantum physics too well, do you?
Let's recap, then: You have told me what you think God is (more in your e-mail than here on this forum, but still...). And I think, for the most part, I get it. I don't have the belief--the faith--but I can certainly understand your belief, and discuss the points as well as the next religious guy or gal. I also understand physics and a decent smattering of the physical laws--and in ways which I do not believe you do. You do, as do I, have the required "faith" in the laws of physics--that the sun will come up, tomorrow, and all that. But I also have the working knowledge.
Steve: Working knowledge of God, strong knowledge of physics; belief in physics, but no belief in God.
Bev: Working knowledge of God, poor knowledge of physics; belief in physics, belief in God.
I was going to give you "Strong" knowledge in God, but you yourself state that God is impossible to know, because he defies proof (rational analysis). You certainly feel God, though.
The only time we can truly "know" Him, then, is when we are dead (on of many reasons I bring death into the discussion). But, conveniently, no one can report back. And if they could, then...what? Does that provide the definite proof that God does not want to exist (and if God does not want it to exist, can it exist? And God still be perfect?) Or will you also reject claims of "the tunnel of light", and psychics, and all the rest of the paranormal spectrum?
Or will you claim, as have so many before you, that I am manipulating your words. That your words do not mean what they say? That they are misty reflections of the beautiful reality of God? Either your words have value, or they don't. Especially since so many are "the words of God," one expects a certain level of--shall we say--"perfection"?
Your turn.
[ August 08, 2004, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: But if God does not want to be "proven," then how do we know what "He has said He will do"?
You can't know. (At least at first, I will explain further below.) You have to have faith, trust. But since God is trustworthy, He follows through on His part. The nature of these things tend to be more intangible than your example of the girl in the well. As I mentioned before, many of the things that matter so very much to us are actually not important in the big picture. The things that do matter are the things that are not so easily measured. You can call it "convenient" or you can call it "the way things are".
quote: That's the first contradiction. Do you get it?
I don't see it so much as a contradiction as I see it as unprovable. I am not attempting to prove anything. I never will attempt to prove anything on this matter. But I will attempt to explain how I think that a universe with such a God is *not* less likely than a universe without. That is the only point I will try to make here. I am not proving, I am creating possibilities, uncertainties. The fact that I happen to have faith in it for reasons of my own is another matter entirely.
quote: The "God follows natural law" comes close to the "make a rock so big..." issue. I don't know what to make of that logical inconsistency!
I don't follow you here. My point is God *can't* make a rock so big He can't lift it. He would have to be illogical in order to do so. God is logical. If we do not understand Him it is not because He is illogical but because our minds are not yet able to wrap themselves around the logical, natural concepts.
quote: but was created at the same time as the Universe
My point was that both the natural universe (this extends beyond our perception of our own universe) is eternal as is God. (Or a race of Gods.) No beginning, no end, no limit in number. We already know the human brain cannot wrap its mind around the concept of infinity, we don't even try. That doesn't mean we can't put infinity into equations and make it work. God is eternal because there has always been Gods. The universe is eternal because there was never a time when there was no creation. No actual beginning, no actual end. Eternal in both directions, even if our particular Heavenly Father had a moment of spiritual birth (eternal intelligence to spirit body, spirit body to mortal body, eventually to exaltation.) It actually makes sense as long as you ignore the fact that we can't understand infinity.
quote: Secondly, you claim (in the e-mail) that "He is an exalted human being who once lived as a mortal" So God, created at the same time of the universe, has hair, gonads, teeth and an anus. Perhaps a belly button, but I'll leave that question for those much smarter than I. If He is human, then He must have those things. But if he is "eternal in the sense that he lives 'outside' time," and was born before the earth or any planets existed (having been created at the same time as the Universe), then how/why/what would He eat? Does this "perfect" being excrete? Does it even make any sense? Another contradiction / inconsistency.
I do not know the answers to some of these questions, but I will tell you this. According to LDS doctrine we do know that the mortal body and the ressurrected body have one important difference: blood. The mortal body has blood, the ressurrected does not. It has some other "essesnce" in it's place, I assume. There may be other fundamental differences as well. I personally do not worry that the fact that I do not know does not mean that there is not a sensible answer. If I do not know, it is because God has chosen not to say. I do, however, believe that a ressurrected body is capable of eating because of two accounts of the ressurrected Christ eating food. Also, we believe that exalted ressurrected bodies procreate. I am actually mildly amused at the disgust people tend to have, even the non-believers, at the idea of a God with gonads! We choose to rejoice at the prospect of keeping our gonads for eternity.
quote: You don't understand quantum physics too well, do you?
I concede that I am not an expert on physics. Feel free to educate me on whatever point I have misrepresented. From what I understand, particles move with a certain amount of randomness. We cannot know exactly where they are at any given time unless we give up knowing their velocity and visa versa. There is an equation that predicts where a certain particle will be at any given time. The probability of it being in a neighboring galaxy is extremely slight, but possible. Particles wink out of existance and another reappears somewhere else. Man speculates that he may one day be able to transport matter from one position to another almost instantaneously if not instantaneously. Then why couldn't God do so? That doesn't make sense that man could learn to do something that God cannot do!
quote: God is impossible to know, because he defies proof (rational analysis).
No, God *is* possible to know, but only inasmuch as He reveals Himself. He has not personally revealed His fullness to me, but I honestly believe that He has done so to certain individuals that He has called as prophets and I honestly believe their testimony of it.
quote: The only time we can truly "know" Him, then, is when we are dead
Again, not necessarily. I only said this is true of those who exercise no faith in Him.
quote: ). But, conveniently, no one can report back.
This does not concern me since I believe the living have reported back.
quote: Or will you also reject claims of "the tunnel of light", and psychics, and all the rest of the paranormal spectrum?
Do you speak of me denying other anomalous phenomenon? I do not deny them.
quote: Or will you claim, as have so many before you, that I am manipulating your words.
I don't believe I have claimed that here or ever. I have, however, tried to clarify where you may have misunderstood my words.
I understand that a lot of these are new concepts for you. The LDS understanding of God is probably nothing like anything you have encountered before. We reject the creed of a God without parts or passions, and few Christians would reject that ancient creed. Therefore, it will take some time for you and I to understand one another fully.
[ August 08, 2004, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*casts a skeptical eye over the assemblage of parts and pieces, does a few quick back-o-the-envelope calcs and proclaims...*
we can rebuild her!
*sets out to prepare a checklst...*
[ August 08, 2004, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Wow! How this thread has budded over the weekend! *reads with glee*
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
In light of some of the discussion here, I think Eve and the Parthenon is interesting. Can't say that I agree with the author's viewpoints on Adam, Eve, Salvation and the more theological observations. Other information relating to relationships is very tantilizing.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Do I dare?
All this talk of "God with Gonads" (after all, you can't spell "Gonads" without G-O-D), makes me wonder: WWJD?
But a brief moment of seriousness:
You do have some evidence, don't you, about the dead coming back with something other than blood in their veins? Something other than just one book?
And I do apologize about my earlier "pre-emptive" statements. So hard, sometimes, to have a conversation spread out over multiple Internet sessions...
--Steve
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Sure, we have two books and a few people. The Bible, Doctrine Covenants, and the statement of a few men who claim to have seen God and Angels on a regular basis. Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I think all of you are approaching the issue from the wrong direction. The first question to ask is -- why?
Why should you believe in God? Ignore all the wonderful explanations of how God can really exist, how free will really does exist. Instead ask why you should make that leap of faith in the first place.
After all, if someone walked up to you on the street and said the following:
"You must worship the bunny." "Why?" "It loves you. And if you don't you'll burn in hell."
Your next response is very unlikely to be "yes."
But, oddly enough, if the same conversation happens many times over your childhood, it becomes so ingrained in you that you never think to wonder about it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: "You must worship the bunny." "Why?" "It loves you. And if you don't you'll burn in hell."
Your next response is very unlikely to be "yes."
You know, that *does* sound remarkably similar to the way a lot of people go about sharing their beliefs. I know *I* wouldn't find it convincing.
But that is what I find interesting. Non-believers seem to think that that is all the evidence believers have. Many of those who *do* only have that much evidence are now non-believers.
I think the answer to that question of "why" is many and varied. For some of us it has a great deal to do with multiple "spiritual" experiences time and time again with great consistency. I know that it is always possible that this is all a big huge deception, but that "possibility" has remained in the background in the face of the evidence I do have.
[ August 09, 2004, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: All this talk of "God with Gonads" (after all, you can't spell "Gonads" without G-O-D), makes me wonder: WWJD?
You know, this is one of the reasons that the possibility of Christ being married doesn't really bother LDS. We don't have any evidence to know for sure one way or the other though.
As Occasional said, it is more evidence than "just one book".
In fact, a lot of people are surprised after learning of all the "wacked out" things that LDS believe that when they go and read The Book of Mormon, it is pretty darn basic. A lot of these "advanced" ideas come from a variety of different sources. The Pearl of Great Price is a book of scripture that contains a lot of them. The Doctrine and Covenants contains multiple visions and revelations received by modern-day prophets.
quote: And I do apologize about my earlier "pre-emptive" statements. So hard, sometimes, to have a conversation spread out over multiple Internet sessions...
No problem. I have enjoyed talking to you about this. I honestly want to understand your thoughts, reactions, whatnot. Don't be afraid of offending me, unless you are *trying* to be offensive and disrespectful to me as a person. I am not afraid of curiosity and questions. If I don't know the answer, I will tell you so.
[ August 09, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Occasional,
I should have been more specific. And so, by the way, should you.
Ooh, Ooh! Two books! I'm so sorry...How many different people were involved in writing these two Books of Mormon, then? Or, I should be more specific, in transcribing them.
What is it, if not blood, running through the veins of the resurrected? Are the angels you refer to also resurrected, or are they something different? I know in the Christian faiths, they are specifically not the resurrected. What is running through their veins is of no interest to me for this particular discussion.
Has this non-blood-substance been analysed? Or, at least, can some of its properties be stated so that I can feel comfortable (at a minimum) that the people examining this non-blood-like-substance actually knew what they were doing?
Sorry, I said "doing" again.
By the way, there's a building near me just full of people who claim to have seen God and angels on a regular basis. There's a lot of heavy-gauge wire over all the glass, for some strange reason. Not to say that all people who see God and angels on a regular basis are mad. But most are.
With regard for my inherent disregard of common authors. If you will note, in science, premises typicaly need to be supported by multiple, independent authors performing multiple, independent experiments. If Charles Darwin, for instance was the SOLE AUTHOR of EVERY book about evolution, I don't think I'd buy it any more than the modern evangelicals would. It's why the concept of "Cold Fusion" was initially rejected. You were saying about your two books, then...
[ August 09, 2004, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
So... you sound skeptical. That's fine, I don't mind you being skeptical.
You are interested in specific information about the authorship of these works of scripture. First of all, on a technicality, there is only one "Book of Mormon." Either it is what it claims to be or it isn't. If it is what it claims to be, it is a compilation of writings of different prophets over a period of time. The main compiler is named Mormon, thus the title of the book and the "nickname" for the LDS church. No other book goes by that name.
The Pearl of Great Price, again if you take it for what it claims to be, is in part a record from Abraham and a record from Moses. It also includes a brief account of Joseph Smith's first visions and an alternate translation of a selection from the New Testament book of Matthew received by revelation.
The Doctrine and Covenants is mostly revelations received through Joseph Smith (several of which involved a second witness present), and a few from prophets after him. The words of prophets since have been recorded, but are not included in these books. Many of their words are studied in church meetings.
As for your suggestion that the authors were delusional, I guess that is the problem with seeing angels. If I said I had seen and angel and I told you, you would think I was delusional, would you not? If you saw an angel you might start wondering if you were delusional.
Your question on angels being ressurrected beings: Yes and no. Some are ressurrected beings, some are "translated" beings (not ressurrected, but corporeal not having died--their mortal body having had it's life extended) some are spirits. And what if a ressurrected being did submit to an "essence" test? Would that convince you? Or would you be skeptical yet?
If they were delusional, I would expect there to be evidence of their delusion. You could also assume that they were lying to deceive and manipulate. Maybe a combination of the two? I certainly believe there have been such men, such men that others have had complete faith in.
God believes in having multiple witnesses, two or more. In fact, we believe that is one of the important purposes of The Book of Mormon. It is a second witness in addition to the Bible. (I'm sure you are well aware of the growing skepticism with which people view the Bible.) While the average person was not allowed to view the gold plates from which The Book of Mormon were translated, 11 witnesses were allowed to view and handle them under specific circumstances. In one of those circumstances, an angel was told to be present. While some of these witnesses later "fell away" from the church, breaking off all contact with it, to my knowledge they all kept to their testimony to their graves.
I don't know what you are trying to get out of me. I have already said that I am not trying to prove this to you. I do not expect what I have said to convince you. I am, however, trying to answer your questions. I know this is a lot to accept, a lot to digest.
Consider this: What would it take for you to be convinced? Would anything *really* convince you? Perhaps the only thing that could even begin would be to find yourself dead and yet existing. I'm sure there are those who would be skeptical even then. (Thinking of the stories of alternate realities/perceptions.)
You mentioned my physics being off, were you going to explain more about that?
[ August 09, 2004, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
The easy one first: Quantum Physics.
According to the laws of QP, it is possible for a particle to exist on the "other" side of an insulator, or a "forbidden energy" region, or on the other side of the universe.
1) A particle, and 2) The odds are non-zero, but incredibly small.
For an entire planet to suddenly shift from one position to another, with no "in-between time," or for an entire planet to veer from its orbit with no measurable forces applied to change its velocity vector, you are multiplying the probability of EVERY PARTICLE in, of, and on that planet, AT THE SAME TIME, moving in the same direction, or tunnelling to the same remote point in space.
The likelihood of that, while still theoretically non-zero, is orders of magnitude SMALLER than the probability of animate life sprouting from inanimate matter, or even the probability of intelligent self-aware beings evolving from that first animate life. And--if numbers could even be put to it--I would not hesitate to guess that the probability of the universe bursting out from a quantum inconsistency in the otherwise uniform pre-universe field of space-time is orders of magnitude greater than the probability of the sun naturally stopping in the sky, or the earth suddently stopping in its rotation for an hour, and then falling right back to where it left off.
If you're willing to allow for the earth "naturally" shifting from its orbit under the nudging request of God, then you are also allowing for the distinct (and far more likely) probability that the universe as we know it flowered from nothing, that life sprung from dead primordial ooze, and that intelligent beings evolved from that first, living slime.
Do we have a deal?
BTW, what it would take for me to be convinced would be for God or one of His angels to come down, and present a miracle before me and thousands of others, with full media coverage, and with me (and others) being able to "check behind the curtain" for wires, sticks, electromagnets and the like. I would probably like to have a couple of reliable debunkers present with me, such as Penn & Teller, and the Amazing Randi.
But you know what, if one of these resurrected beings were subject to a carefully controlled & debunked "essence test," well, that would go quite a long way towards convincing me.
But, since as you and countless others have stated, God does not perform parlor tricks, nor does He need to prove himself (unproveable faith having been raised to the level of unshakeable fact), I won't be holding my breath.
Noiw, the prophets that wrote the book of Mormon...were those including Joseph Smithm and writing since he first transcribed the Golden Tablets? Or were they prior to Joseph Smith, and their writings recorded on the Tablets for Joseph Smith to transcribe?
And I hate to say this, because I have promised myself to try and show respect for all religions (with obviously varying degrees of success), but it seems just a little bit too convenient that the Tablets have disappeared. In fact, their disappearance is part of the doctrine, isn't it? So questioning the disappearance is by its very nature disrespectful of the religion? I'm hoping I'm wrong in that last assumption, but if I'm not, then I apologize for the disrespect (but how else do I raise the point?).
I feel like I've just tracked two construction boots full of dog poop onto everyone's pretty white carpet.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Do we have a deal?
Nothing in your explaination of physics was new to me here. I am well aware of how infinitesimally the chance is of the earth moving of its own accord. I did, however, present the idea of particles possessing a will of their own and being able to respond to God. Therefore, I am proposing removing the randomness from their motion under that particular circumstance.
You have a fascinating point about such a God being perfectly capable of creating all things in 6 days or less. I have actually thought of that.
But I have my own ideas about why a God who could do that instantaneously would choose instead a creation following a natural way, a way that would be consistant with the workings of the universe around us. In fact, while I believe that God may be able to move the earth in such a shocking way, I do not necessarily think that He would choose to do it. As my husband likes to chant, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."
As I'm sure you've already figured out, if God liked to "throw His weight around" you would be more aware of it. But as for miracles on the scale of the Red Sea, there are tales of God's deliverance of His people in this day and age. I do not feel inclined, however, to try and use such miracles to prove anything. After all, skeptics can dismiss anything they choose to dismiss. It sounds to me that even if you were able to conduct your experiments on your terms, you would not be %100 convinced. If a time of "great signs and miracles" comes before Christ's return, so be it.
I still think that God can't make a rock so big that even He can't lift it. (I actually have doctrinal reasons behind all the things I say here. This is more than just "flippant thought".)
quote: Noiw, the prophets that wrote the book of Mormon...were those including Joseph Smithm and writing since he first transcribed the Golden Tablets? Or were they prior to Joseph Smith, and their writings recorded on the Tablets for Joseph Smith to transcribe?
The Book of Mormon is a record of civilizations on the American continent that took place from 600 BC to sometime after 400 AD, with another brief exerpt from a much earlier time the date of which is unknown. The man by the name of Mormon lived after 400 AD and compiled these writings from the large number of records kept by the people. While much history is included, it tends to focus on things Mormon felt inspired to include, things that would be most of value to our time. He died before completing it in the wars going on at the time, and his son, Moroni finished with a brief summary of the more ancient civilization and a few additional words he felt inspired to include. After doing so, he buried the record.
Moroni spoke to Joseph Smith in the early 1800's as a ressurrected being, an angel, describing the location of the plates. Joseph Smith translated them with the help of several different people as his scribes at different times. Most of them never saw the plates. A few did. After the translation, the plates were returned to Moroni.
While many were skeptical of Joseph's testimony of what was going on, many believed enough to try to relieve him of all that precious gold. There are many tales of the lengths to which he went to hide them and escape the persecutions and threats that he faced.
So while there is no remaining physical artifact for people to behold today, (though I imagine it would have been melted down and sold long before now had it been confiscated) we have the testimony of the witnesses and the words themselves. I appreciate being able to read and study this book of scripture myself, and I personally believe it to be ancient holy writ. It is not surprising at all to me that many do not.
There are many, many things I could tell you of this. There is much to tell! But I will keep it at this for now.
quote: So questioning the disappearance is by its very nature disrespectful of the religion?
I didn't think so. Sounds like a perfectly valid question to me.
quote: unproveable faith having been raised to the level of unshakeable fact
Can you explain this one to me? I am still pondering what you might have meant by it. Do you feel that my "unprovable faith" is being treated by me as "unshakable fact"? First, I like to believe that no facts are unshakable. We could all be in the Matrix for all we know. Secondly, I don't claim my faith to be anything but that: faith.
[ August 10, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Pssst, HRE, it looks like the thrust of the thread has changed yet again. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would have been more specific, but two things. First, Bev seems to be doing a pretty good job of discussing things with you. Second, and more rude of myself I fully admit, you don't sound like a person to waste my time on with the subject. Brick walls are fun to talk with for only so long.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Beverly, you are very classy. Thanks.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, I have to say that in the past few weeks, I have developed an enormous respect for both beverly's mind and her character (not that I had disrespect for either of them before, of course--I just didn't feel like I knew her well enough to have an opinion.) I'm incredibly glad that you're a part of this forum beverly.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Wow. I am overwhelmed. I can only think to say thank you. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Six days to make the Universe? I don't recall bringing that up.
quote:Nothing in your explaination of physics was new to me here. I am well aware of how infinitesimally the chance is of the earth moving of its own accord. I did, however, present the idea of particles possessing a will of their own and being able to respond to God. Therefore, I am proposing removing the randomness from their motion under that particular circumstance.
quote:I guess I believe that even the tiniest of particles have a sort of will and intelligence. Just no free-will.
quote:I do believe that God follows natural law. I also believe that God can command the elements and they obey. I do not think that particles need to go contrary to natural laws in order to obey the commands of God.
"particles possessing a will of their own and being able to respond to God"??? This makes no sense. Can you show any proof for this assumption? Do these particles have will, but not free will? What is will if not free? Can they make decisions? Do they have memory? Can they move on their own accord? This is a completely new branch of physics yo're proposing here. If it's mere conjecture on your part (or on the part of the Mormon Church) please let me know.
By "proposing to remove the randomness from their nature" you are, in point of fact, changing their nature. I thought we had agreed that God would be able to move a planet without violating the laws of physics. Proposing to change the nature of matter is, I'm afraid, a violation of the mutually agreed upon tenets.
What are we really discussing? If the earth moved on its own, out of orbit, then it would be proof of God's existence, or it wouldn't be proof of God's existence? I've lost track.
I think we're actually approaching the topic of this thread again: Science vs. Faith. Maybe we'll even get back to Evolution and Abiogenesis like we're supposed to. (I actually touched upon that one a few posts back! Points for me!)
You are manipulating the rules of science, logic, and evidence to prop up what I view as a very shaky case.
The writings of Mormon--have they been correlated with the "known" history of the time?
The golden plates--now you're focusing on their material value, how they were "threatened" because they had value as gold. I know I'm a skeptic (has anyone else here figured it out, I wonder?), but it sounds like the people who pursued Joseph Smith for his gold plates couldn't care less what was on them--only that they were gold. You won't find any "proof" of their value in that tale, I'm afraid. The "would have been melted down anyway" excuse is meaningless as proof. The fact is this: only JS and his select few ever actually "saw" the plates, and now they're gone (plates and men). If the plates never existed, the story would be the same, except for the claims of a few men. I understand that these guys are revered, but it's obviously possible that they just made the whole thing up.
WMD, anyone?
Comparing probabilities: Earth moving on its own .vs. Joeseph Smith and the Prophets making it up?
And, finally: "unproveable faith having been raised to the level of unshakeable fact"
Nothing I can say--nothing anyone can say--can stay you from your determined course. This is not just common to you. It is a response I have found to be typical with most deeply religious people. It is a faith so unshakeable that it is impossible to convince a person otherwise. The belief (unproveable, because "faith" is all that is required) has become tantamount to fact.
I know that within religious circles this is devoutly hoped for--this level of faith.
Unfortunately, outside of those circles, it's very nervous-making.
The physical world (the one we all live in) works by physical laws. Engineers and scientists spend their lives trying to figure out those laws to improve our knowledge of the world, and also our ability to manipulate it (supposedly--but not always--for the betterment of mankind).
I guess my goal is to have people look at the world (universe) from a physics POV, not from a mystical POV. Don't get me wrong--there are times when the mystical POV has value, and there are certainly times when the moral aspect of religion has helped greatly. But when faith and mysticism start addressing issues that should be purely the baliwick of the physical sciences, there are problems. Additionally, when a person's faith blinds or otherwise incapacitates them from understanding or using rational or logical thought, then the problem is compounded.
On P-Web, one of the newer members has as a part of his sig that "A liberal is someone whose mind is so open that their brains fall out." There is a similar risk to those who put their primary trust in "faith" as a way of understanding the physical world. Bev, as much as I enjoy our discussion/debate, you appear to have confused faith with proof.
Faith + Desire <> Proof
That's enough ranting for one person!
[ August 10, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I have faith because I have proof.
You do not because you have no proof.
The problem is when you tell me that what I have is NOT proof, because you haven't be able to obtain it.
The problem is when I tell you that what you have is not science because I haven't been able to reveal it.
Claro?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You're right, you didn't mention a 6 day creation. My mistake. But I do think that a God that can instantaneously move the earth could probably create all that is around us in 6 days. But we do have a great deal of evidence that it didn't happen in 6 days. God would have had to set it up to "look" as though it took millions or billions of years. And I'm not confident that such behavior is in line with what I know of the God I believe in. He is not a "deceiver".
quote: "particles possessing a will of their own and being able to respond to God"??? This makes no sense. Can you show any proof for this assumption? Do these particles have will, but not free will? What is will if not free? Can they make decisions? Do they have memory? Can they move on their own accord? This is a completely new branch of physics yo're proposing here. If it's mere conjecture on your part (or on the part of the Mormon Church) please let me know.
Proof, no. It is my own speculation based on statements in scripture. Can they make decisions? Probably not. Only respond to command. Memory, I don't know. Move of their own accord, not in any pattern but random, so no. It is mostly a conjecture on my part, but it does have some basis in LDS scripture. If you like, I can get more specific. Just ask.
quote: By "proposing to remove the randomness from their nature" you are, in point of fact, changing their nature. I thought we had agreed that God would be able to move a planet without violating the laws of physics. Proposing to change the nature of matter is, I'm afraid, a violation of the mutually agreed upon tenets.
Let's just say I put forth a theory of my own. I don't have scientific evidence of it, but I believe that I have scriptural evidence and that carries weight with me.
quote: What are we really discussing? If the earth moved on its own, out of orbit, then it would be proof of God's existence, or it wouldn't be proof of God's existence? I've lost track.
Actually, for me proof has never been an issue. If the earth suddenly jumped out of it's orbit for no reason science could find, that doesn't mean there might not be a perfectly logical (and non-God-originating) reason for it. We are discussing why God's existance is more or less likely than His non-existance.
quote: You are manipulating the rules of science, logic, and evidence to prop up what I view as a very shaky case.
I am? I am treating scripture as valid evidence, taking it into account, and putting forth theory based on that. Discounting all scripture as delusion is less scientific than that. How often does science just ignore anomolies just because it doesn't fit in with what specific humans wish to believe about the universe? Just saying that all scripture is a result of delusion, discounting the testimony of others, especially multiple concurring testimonies, is not very scientific. To be scientific, you have to come up with valid reasons for discounting those testimonies, and you can't do that until you have studied them. So while it is very "convenient" to discount all scripture in order to argue for a "less-likely-to-include-God-universe", I will not do so myself.
quote: The writings of Mormon--have they been correlated with the "known" history of the time?
The beginning correlates to recorded history in Jerusalem, since the people of the history originated there. The things that happened on the American continent are a bit more difficult because of the dirth of other records and exact dates.
quote:You won't find any "proof" of their value in that tale, I'm afraid. The "would have been melted down anyway" excuse is meaningless as proof. The fact is this: only JS and his select few ever actually "saw" the plates, and now they're gone (plates and men). If the plates never existed, the story would be the same, except for the claims of a few men. I understand that these guys are revered, but it's obviously possible that they just made the whole thing up.
I won't find any "proof" of their value in that tale? Please explain because I don't follow. Of course the men are gone now. People die. Obviously possible that they made it up, of course. We all have thought of that, it isn't difficult. But they proclaimed their testimony to the grave dispite disassociation with the church. Can you explain that behavior?
quote: Comparing probabilities: Earth moving on its own .vs. Joeseph Smith and the Prophets making it up?
We don't have any scientific record of the earth moving in strange ways (though the scriptures do contain multiple accounts) and if you are going to propose they made it all up, you probably need to know more about what exactly they "made up" first. Being skeptical is fine, but you don't have enough evidence yet to proclaim one more likely than the other.
quote: Nothing I can say--nothing anyone can say--can stay you from your determined course.
You don't know that. Obviously people lose their faith every day. And people are converted to faith every day. How does that happen? People say things, people seek, people search. People decide what they believe based on that. But the important thing is, it shouldn't be because someone "talked them into it", it needs to be their own decision, something that happens inside them.
Things that you say effect me just as much as things I say effect you. You could just as well turn around your statement and say that nothing I could possibly say could change your way of thinking. But I am not entirely sure that is the case either way.
quote: Unfortunately, outside of those circles, it's very nervous-making.
I must admit being somewhat amused at how threatening believers are to non-believers. Granted, there are some very small-minded believers out there as there are amongst any category of thinkers. But still.... I wish I understood it better.
quote: But when faith and mysticism start addressing issues that should be purely the baliwick of the physical sciences, there are problems.
Do tell. More specifically, tell me how LDS believers might be problematic.
quote: you appear to have confused faith with proof.
No, from what I have seen, you are the only one in this discussion who has confused faith with proof. I have never claimed my faith to be fact, and yet you claim to know "for a fact" things that you cannot know. Particles with no will. Fact or your faith? Prophets making it up. Fact or your faith? This is the crux of the issue. I want everyone to be more aware of the incredibly crucial role faith plays in their own perceptions and paradigms. Faith is not unique to religion.
[ August 10, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oh, Occassional, no one is a brickwall. Not me, not you, not anyone. We are all just people. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Where's TomDavidson when you need him?
BTW, as I read my previous response, I realized that I have become the pig on the Internet that we've all been warned not to wrestle with.
Bev, I'm afraid that so have you.
Occasional: I think that, at times, we can all be each other's "Brick Walls."
quote:No, from what I have seen, you are the only one in this discussion who has confused faith with proof. I have never claimed my faith to be fact, and yet you claim to know "for a fact" things that you cannot know. Particles with no will. Fact or your faith? Prophets making it up. Fact or your faith? This is the crux of the issue. I want everyone to be more aware of the incredibly crucial role faith plays in their own perceptions and paradigms. Faith is not unique to religion.
quote:Let's just say I put forth a theory of my own [particles having intelligence and will]. I don't have scientific evidence of it, but I believe that I have scriptural evidence and that carries weight with me.
First, a couple of points: I never claimed "The Prophets made it up" was a fact. I merely presented it as a possibility to consider. You, however, toss around your belief that particles have will (not "free will", but some-kind-of-will). Am I to entertain a belief in every half-thought-out, completely unsupported theory as if it were as valid as F=m*a? You provide me with little evidence (hmm...actually: NO evidence) for your theory, and start talking about it as if it had some validity. Your response of "Scriptural Evidence" being good enough for you is certainly not good enough for me. This would fall under the heading of "a mind so open that one's brains fall out."
You also discuss Moroni as if he were fact, when (in fact) he is recounted by others (unverifiable hearsay), and has left no other evidence of his existence. He may have existed, just as Christ may have existed. It should be easier to present reasonable evidence for Moroni's existence (I don't believe that he has the extensive miracle-making requirement that falls on those trying to verify the existence of Christ as the Son-of-God), but it would seem that this evidence is not available.
This has been discussed dozens of times before. I thought we all knew: There are different types of "faith"
There is Religious Faith. Religious faith is based on scripture, and on doctrine. It provides no evidence except for the ancient accounts of typically biased witnesses (in a court of law, this would be considered "hearsay"), and offers very little corroboration from remote, though contemporary sources (Roman records of Christ's miracles; archeological support of Moroni's claims on the American Indians, etc.). It prides itself on its inherent "unproveability," though it usually claims to be "the truth."
"Scriptural Evidence"? It's third party evidence, and unverifiable. Hearsay. Or, to put it another way, "were you there?"
Opposed to "Religious Faith" is Pragmatic Faith (I just made that phrase up...I think. There must a better phrase for it.) This "faith" is supported by a large backlog of scientific evidence and proof.
I have experienced the sun rising, every day, for the last 43 years. I have "faith" that it will rise tomorrow.
I have performed the derivations of Newton's laws of motion back in High School and College. I have experience in using them, enough to know that objects in motion actually do follow Newton's laws (at least in a non-relatavistic observational framework). I have "faith" that Newton's laws of motion will continue to function as I expect them to do, for non-relativistic applications.
Pragmatic faith says: "We can prove it. We have proved it. Do you want us to prove it again?"
[ August 10, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I understand that you feel this discussion has become unproductive. Several of the things I have said you have chosen not to respond to. Well, to go back to the begining, here is what kicked the whole thing off:
quote: So, is this the part that non-believers find hard to swallow? Or is it something else about God that seems unlikely?
We've had this discussion before. Tell me what God is, and I'll tell you what about Him seems so unlikely.
I'm not sure we have really stayed on topic. I told you what I believe God is. Did you tell me what about Him you find so unlikely?
To reply to your previous post:
I never expected my "particles with a will" theory to be taken as fact by you or even by others of the LDS faith. I was presenting an idea. I certainly believe it is possible, but I myself don't necessarily have "faith" in it.
I am not convinced that there are two different kinds of "faith". It doesn't take very much faith at all to believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning or that you can predict the motion of celestial bodies according to Newton's equations. These are repeatable phenomenon that happen with regularity and perfection. That they will happen repeatably does indeed appear to be fact.
But you do rely on faith everyday to dictate what you believe is the best way to go about being successful in your career, how to have a successful marriage, the best way to raise a child, or how to be happy and at peace with yourself. Faith is believing in something enough that you act on it, regardless of how much "proof" you have. That is all it is.
You have decided that you believe that there is no God and live your life quite confidently believing that to be true. That takes a certain amount of faith. Not as much as it takes to believe in God, being the path of least resistance, but it requires it nevertheless.
These more nebulous examples of faith that believers and non-believers alike experience are the result of reptition for reinforcement also. But they are more difficult to pin down, more personal, more based on our own experience, more prone to different views and perspectives. And yet these are about things that are indeed real. Human beings cannot function in society without faith.
Perhaps you have trouble believing in the possibility of the things I believe in because they seem "far out", unlike anything you have seen or experienced. But from my perspective, it doesn't seem any less likely than the universe arising spontaneously without any help at all. (Even if it were only one out of out of the first 257,308 universes) Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: You have decided that you believe that there is no God and live your life quite confidently believing that to be true. That takes a certain amount of faith. Not as much as it takes to believe in God, being the path of least resistance, but it requires it nevertheless.
You make it sound so dramatic. I'm not going to attack the analogy directly, becuase it is defendable (many weird statements are), but it is poor, imo.
To my mind, the same amount of faith one uses in not believing in God is the same amount of faith ones uses in not believing that a big duck living in space wants to kill everybody on earth.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: To my mind, the same amount of faith one uses in not believing in God is the same amount of faith ones uses in not believing that a big duck living in space wants to kill everybody on earth.
Hmmmm, I disagree. The way I see it, there is more evidence for God than a big duck. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: Hmmmm, I disagree. The way I see it, there is more evidence for God than a big duck.
There are some texts that claim God exists, yes. At the same time as there are texts that claim Three Thousand Spirits rule the world, or that Raa is the sun lord, or that in the year one thousand aliens came and trashed the planet.
Unfortuantly, a few texts do not a compelling arguement make.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:I am not convinced that there are two different kinds of "faith". It doesn't take very much faith at all to believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning or that you can predict the motion of celestial bodies according to Newton's equations. These are repeatable phenomenon that happen with regularity and perfection. That they will happen repeatably does indeed appear to be fact.
(I added the bold font---not the word "not", that's yours)
And please compare that minimal level of faith to the substantially larger amount of faith required to "believe" in God as "fact".
Sometimes, you can see the sometimes, you can see the difference you can smell the difference sometimes
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:To my mind, the same amount of faith one uses in not believing in God is the same amount of faith ones uses in not believing that a big duck living in space wants to kill everybody on earth.
You'll regret that comment when The Drake of Heaven descends from the skies in His flaming glory and lets forth the Quack of Doom, infidel!
[ August 11, 2004, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
"Quack!"
Phanto, if all I had was the Bible, I might be more tempted to agree with you. But for me, it is far more than that. And they are not things I personally feel I can discount.
I am not trying to compare the apparent evidence of the rising of the sun to the apparent evidence of God, because, as I said, that really doesn't take much faith at all. I am trying to compare it to the other things that I mentioned, the things that we as humans believe without repeated scientific experiment.
And I also add to that that I believe God will reveal Himself to those who have made an effort to know Him and grow close to Him. While I believe that God requires faith and trust from us, I also believe that He rewards that trust and faith, gradually replacing faith with knowledge. I believe that there are those whose knowledge of God is every bit as sure as their knowledge of the rising of the sun.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: It prides itself on its inherent "unproveability," though it usually claims to be "the truth."
Ssywak, this is something I have not seen or heard of except from atheists, agnostics, and very rarely a pro-faith mystic. Most of us are not mystics, and do not pride ourselves on the unproveability (supposed or otherwise) of our beliefs.
That said, very few historical events are proveable in a scientific sense, as history is not repeatable. Try duplicating the Civil War sometime.
quote:"Scriptural Evidence"? It's third party evidence, and unverifiable. Hearsay. Or, to put it another way, "were you there?"
You say (earlier) that hearsay is not admissible evidence in court. You're right, and there's good reason for it. But the fact is that in our everyday lives we trust hearsay all the time--depending, of course, on how reliable we think the source is. If I tell you that Eddie says OSC has written another despicably conservative essay and it'll be on the site in a couple of days, that's hearsay (and just where did Eddie get it from, anyway?). But Eddie is usually a trustworthy guy, and we know that's the sort of thing Scott does, so in practice I doubt you would tell me, "That's hearsay! I don't believe it!"
Moreover (and I should get someone to confirm--Dag, you out there?), I believe there are certain kinds of evidence that, even though they are the same kind of phenomenon as hearsay, are admissible in court because bringing in the third party is impossible but the source is credible. The "dying declaration" is one such, I believe, on the grounds that a dying person can expect to gain nothing by lying.
quote:Opposed to "Religious Faith" is Pragmatic Faith (I just made that phrase up...I think. There must a better phrase for it.) This "faith" is supported by a large backlog of scientific evidence and proof.
I have experienced the sun rising, every day, for the last 43 years. I have "faith" that it will rise tomorrow.
I could get into Kant and Hume here, but I assume you have probably read them, at least in some digested form. I will refrain.
quote:I have performed the derivations of Newton's laws of motion back in High School and College. I have experience in using them, enough to know that objects in motion actually do follow Newton's laws (at least in a non-relatavistic observational framework). I have "faith" that Newton's laws of motion will continue to function as I expect them to do, for non-relativistic applications.
Have you performed the same derivations of relativity? Electromagnetic phenomena? Chemical reactions of phosphorus? Have you gone out and dissected owls, chimps, and ambystomatid salamanders to check their anatomy against the books? Taken collections of rabbit species to verify their geographical distribution?
Some of us have verified some of the data we read in our scientific texts. None of us have verified all of it, and some of us have verified none of it. Yet we feel quite secure in believing it (despite past experience assuring us that a fraction will prove to be wrong, eventually--Mercury does not always keep one face to the sun as I read when a small child). Such data is, in effect, hearsay--scientist X says phenomena Y behaves in manner Z--and there is no way that one person can personally check it all.
Should we call belief in science texts "religious faith"?
[ August 11, 2004, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Mabus, no, because other people HAVE verified that info, independent of the initial discover. Including dissection.
-Bok
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
That's right, Bokonon-- they have. But not you.
I'm not sure you're seeing the point here--unless you are doing it yourself, you're still relying on information given to you by someone else.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Ah, I can sense the idea of "Evolution" off in the distance, getting ready to come back to the thread where we all know it belongs!
Mabus,
Are you intentionally trying to confuse the issue, or are you unaware of the illogic of your claims?
quote:
quote:It prides itself on its inherent "unproveability," though it usually claims to be "the truth."
Ssywak, this is something I have not seen or heard of except from atheists, agnostics, and very rarely a pro-faith mystic. Most of us are not mystics, and do not pride ourselves on the unproveability (supposed or otherwise) of our beliefs.
That said, very few historical events are proveable in a scientific sense, as history is not repeatable. Try duplicating the Civil War sometime.
I can go to Gettysburgh and, in the dark of night, dig up plenty of evidence of the Civil War. Hundreds, if not thousands, have unearthed archeological evidence of the war; ther are photographs, ther are multiple, cross-substantiated eye-witness accounts, histories, etc.
I know you'll complain about the veracity of these "histories." We'll get back to that later.
Regarding the unproveability vs. truth issue. We must travel in very different circles. I am always coming accross "The Bible is the Truth"-type references: on television, on the Internet, and in personal (f2f) discussions. Even Bev refers to her stuff as if she believes it to be true (Moroni wrote this. Jesus said that. Maybe I'm being too picky. But maybe what she means is "Jesus is purported to have said that"?)
But, if you want, I'll acquiesce: Unless its substantiated by extensive and reliable eyewitnesses, archeological evidence, references from other historical accounts, etc., then I'll accept it all as being not true.
And regarding the "pride" aspect...every theological discussion I've had here eventually devolves into some derivative of "but you can't prove it--you're not supposed to prove it--it's about faith. God wants us to have faith. If we had proof, we wouldn't have or need faith."
(And now, I admit that I need to put in more info...but I've got to log out!)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Even Bev refers to her stuff as if she believes it to be true (Moroni wrote this. Jesus said that. Maybe I'm being too picky. But maybe what she means is "Jesus is purported to have said that"?)
Might I point out that you asked the question as though it were a fact and I answered in kind. I try to condition all my statements as "I believe" or "if we assume this to be true" and every so often a statement gets by me without it. Maybe it just gets old after awhile. I do think about Moroni as being a real person who lived and not a fictional character. It is not surprising I would talk of him that way.
quote: But, if you want, I'll acquiesce: Unless its substantiated by extensive and reliable eyewitnesses, archeological evidence, references from other historical accounts, etc., then I'll accept it all as being not true.
I just want to state that my beliefs are not without such evidence. Though perhaps not enough to be considered "proof" by you.
quote: "but you can't prove it--you're not supposed to prove it--it's about faith. God wants us to have faith. If we had proof, we wouldn't have or need faith."
Devolves? Um, it started out that way. I was more asking *you* to defend *your* position that God is unlikely to exist.
[ August 11, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
The point, Mabus, is that I believe you could verify any scientific principle if you wanted to. It may take some study and some money, but you could do it. And, more likely than not, your findings will agree with those previously reported. On the other hand, I believe I could devote my life to verifying the findings in any holy book but never find anything and never convince myself of anything.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
beverly: Could you give me a summary of the points that you made? Also, perhaps, pointers to the posts where I can find that info?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Phanto, some key points of the discussion actually took place in email between ssywak and I. Would you like me to include that? Also, is there any particular kind info that you wish included?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Bev,
What more do you want than that there is no reliable proof that He does exist?
We have a few books. Most of them contradict each other.
We have your statements:
quote:What I believe God is: I believe that He is an exalted human being who once lived as a mortal just as we do (3). I believe that He is eternal (1) in the sense that he lives "outside" time, at least, outside "our" time. (2)
quote:For even God follows the natural laws of the universe. He did not create them. Gods and the universe have always existed (1). (Not the universe in the scientific sense of what was started at "The Big Bang", but the universe of existance beyond that.) (2)
Only those who were valiant in their faith and therefore their obedience to God's laws will have proven themselves worthy--trustworthy, for receiving the responsibility, the power, the glory, of becoming Gods themselves, Creators in their own right. (5) Creating worlds, filling them with their children, allowing them to learn and grow and perhaps reach their full potential someday also.
God *is* loving. He is perfectly just and merciful (4).
quote:If there is a God (as I believe) and He is intelligent and aware of us, He could easily prove His existence, right? So if He exists and is intelligent and aware, then He must choose not to. I accept fully that I cannot prove any of my beliefs to be true. And yet I believe them. Enough to live by what I believe. And I feel that great things have come to me because of that. I guess that is faith."
(from your e-mails to me)
God has always existed (1). God exists "outside of time" (2). God is a human being who was once mortal (3).
On its face: FALSE. Premise Rejected. God cannot both be a "human being" and have existed before human beings existed. Human beings are a recognized species, with specific traits. One of those traits is that we live "within the boundaries of time." Another trait is that we did not coexist with, let's say, the dinosaurs (please, oh, please--bring up Paluxy!). So, regardless of when the first proto-humans walked erect on this earth, there was nothing human at all 14 billion years ago. Therfore God = Human = Eternal (both directions) = FALSE!
Also, to "have been" mortal, and then to not be mortal is never to have been mortal at all. It's like a kid dancing on the edge of a precipice, but with a hidden safety line. Big Deal.
God is "perfectly just and merciful" (4)
You're going to have to redefine "perfectly" here. Maybe He is perfectly just & merciful in the afterlife (assuming...), but certainly not here on earth. I, personally, would assume that "perfectly" means "perfectly" everywhere, and everywhen. Otherwise, it's somewhat less than perfect, isn't it?
The whole "Becoming Gods themselves" routine (5)
Obviously, this can never be proven on earth. I'm not going to attempt to dis-prove it, because it would be fruitless. I'll chalk it up to another one of your conjectures (yes, I know that it is "supported by LDS Church Doctrine," and therefore you believe it), but still somewhere along the line of "subatomic particles have intelligence and will." If I spent one minute of my life trying to dis-prive every cocamamie conjecture that came along ("Invisible Pink Unicorns" immediately spring to mind), I'd never get anything done. But, by all means--go ahead and believe what you want.
I note your " I accept fully that I cannot prove any of my beliefs to be true." And on that note, I'll stop.
Oh, and THANKS, BtL. I definitely appreciate the help here.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: On its face: FALSE. Premise Rejected. God cannot both be a "human being" and have existed before human beings existed. Human beings are a recognized species, with specific traits. One of those traits is that we live "within the boundaries of time." Another trait is that we did not coexist with, let's say, the dinosaurs (please, oh, please--bring up Paluxy!). So, regardless of when the first proto-humans walked erect on this earth, there was nothing human at all 14 billion years ago. Therfore God = Human = Eternal (both directions) = FALSE!
False? As in it is a fact that it is false? Or is this another instance of your belief being put forth as fact? In order to say that God cannot be a human being before humans lived on this earth, you have to be able to prove that humans are unique to planet earth. How exactly do you propose to do that?
As for the "outside of time" bit, I said "outside our time". It is possible for someone to be existing in a different time frame of reference. Einstein said so.
When did I say we coexisted with dinosaurs? When I said God was once a man, I wasn't talking about on this planet. I am, however, putting forth the idea of human life on numberless worlds with no begining and no end.
I am baffled at how you have so completely misunderstood what I said. *shakes head* How can we have a conversation if you are not interested in understanding what I have already said?
quote:You're going to have to redefine "perfectly" here. Maybe He is perfectly just & merciful in the afterlife (assuming...), but certainly not here on earth. I, personally, would assume that "perfectly" means "perfectly" everywhere, and everywhen. Otherwise, it's somewhat less than perfect, isn't it?
Uhhhhhh, you lost me here. Are you saying that you don't see evidence of perfect mercy right now? Did I not already say that God views our free will as sacred and not to be tampered with?
I don't see any particular need to respond to your last comments.
[ August 11, 2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: Phanto, if all I had was the Bible, I might be more tempted to agree with you. But for me, it is far more than that. And they are not things I personally feel I can discount.
Bev:
I'd like in as much detail as you like, in point by point form, those things. Let me know .
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
bev, bev, bev,
Now you're just making stuff up. It's so sad.
quote:When I said God was once a man, I wasn't talking about on this planet.
(italics mine to make you look a little more more foolish)
Trick 1: Redefine "human beings" to include alien life forms.
BTW, I never said that you said humans "on earth" coexisted with dinosaurs. I put it up as a straw man, and quickly knocked it down.
Trick 2: Redefine "outside of our time" to somehow invoke Einstein's theory of relativity.
Einstein spoke of time appearing to stretch out differently for different people, depending on their refrerence frame. He never spoke of "infinite length" timelines being totally disconnected from each other. He may have spoken of discrete spans of time being unconnected, such as: a 5 year span in 63e6 BCE is not the same 5 years from 1995-2000. Wait a tick! If you get to the right place in the universe, IT IS! Nevermind. I'm right again (sorry), and you're just desperately making things up as you go.
quote:When I said God was once a man, I wasn't talking about on this planet. I am, however, putting forth the idea of human life on numberless worlds with no begining and no end
Oh, I'm sorry. I should have known.
NOT.
Please feel free to put forth as many ideas as you want. It's like throwing spaghetti against a wall until a strand sticks, eh?
(Not the best analogy I could come up with, but it's better than the one about underwear)
quote:I am baffled at how you have so completely misunderstood what I said. *shakes head* How can we have a conversation if you are not interested in understanding what I have already said?
Equally sad how you fail to understand what you say. More so how you change what you say in some desperate need to...jeez, I don't really know what it is you're shooting for here, Bev.
quote:Are you saying that you don't see evidence of perfect mercy right now?
Um....no. Not in the least. Read Hume. Something about "nasty, brutish and short" (like my first boyfriend).
[ August 11, 2004, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
If you look at what I said and read very carefully, you will understand what I have been trying to say. I am not makin' stuff up on the fly, I am explaining what you didn't understand in the first place. I don't understand why you feel the need to be rude about it.
I am willing to talk to you as long as you are trying to listen to what I am actually saying and understand it. I don't think that is happening anymore.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
For Phanto: A list of points I have made along this discussion, including things from the email to ssywak. Be warned, it is very long:
I believe in Evolution. I also believe in the Creation. I believe that God probably used evolution to make what we see today. It has never been an issue for me.
I am not trying to prove the existance of God. I don't think God wants to be proven, personally. I can see where someone can imagine a universe with no God. I just don't understand the statement that a universe with no God makes more sense than a universe with a God.
I believe in a perfect God. I believe that this perfect God values free will a great deal. I believe this God gives the universe its freedom to be chaotic and do what it wishes--except where His will requires otherwise.
Yes, I do believe in a "nudging" God rather than a "controlling" God. And yet, I believe because He is perfect, He is never out of control. If anything disobeys Him, it is to its own detriment, not God's.
To explain further, I believe that the elements *always* obey God. Without fail. Only we, his children, can choose to go against God's will. (Edit to add that I believe the animals have a certain amount of free will, but they are not given the laws from God that we have and therefore are not responsible for following what they have not been given.)
...we must recognize that we cannot perceive all of reality through science. We can only observe and continually revise our theories.
...disproving God isn't going to happen either. The universe will always stretch beyond the bounds of what we can perceive as mortals.
Miracles are not for the purpose of proving God. They only serve to strengthen the faith of those who already have put forth faith of their own. If God wanted to be proven, He would have done so. It's not like it's difficult. Or, of course, you can believe He doesn't exist.
Miracles are not for the purpose of proving God. They only serve to strengthen the faith of those who already have put forth faith of their own. If God wanted to be proven, He would have done so. It's not like it's difficult. Or, of course, you can believe He doesn't exist.
Miracles to me are any time that God intervenes in the natural flow of chaos in response to His purposes or the faith of another when it is in alignment with His purposes. It would be pretty much impossible to prove most of these. But I do believe there are times when God chooses to "make bare His arm" as the scripture says. But He has to have pretty good reason for it, because it has the potential to destroy the opportunity of others to develop faith. But I think God is pretty good at figuring out how not to work against His own purposes.
I believe that God uses natural laws to perform His "miracles". I do believe, though that He can do things that we can't. I believe that He can command particles to move and they obey Him. I guess I believe that even the tiniest of particles have a sort of will and intelligence. Just no free-will.
Quantum theory tells us that it is possible for my computer screen to wink out of existance and appear in Antarctica. Or the other side of the galaxy. It is *extremely* unlikely, but possible.
Now imagine that these particles each have a tiny bit of will. Not free will, but enough will to obey God.
Seems to leave some room for the tweaking of a Divine Being.
(The following is from the email)
I believe that He is an exalted human being who once lived as a mortal just as we do (Edit for ssywak: But not on this earth.) I believe that He is eternal in the sense that he lives "outside" time, at least, outside "our" time.
We lived before we were born as His spirit children. While we were His literal offspring, there is a spark within us that has always existed. Without it, we would have no free will. We progressed as far as we could in those circumstances. He had a plan for us in which we might be able to become like Him. Firstly, He had a physical body, something we as spirits did not have. Having a body allowed Him to experience and interact with the universe in a way we were not yet capable of. He also had, through His experiences as a mortal and His obedience to His Father, knowledge and wisdom that we could never have without passing through it and experiencing it for ourselves.
So you see, we believe that "God" is a concept that does not just cover one being. We only deal with the one, and that is all that matters for us. But we believe that we may become as He is now and that God's purpose is for as many as are willing to reach this state, exaltation to Godhood. God is a multitude, a family, eternal both in time and in number. (Edit for ssywak: But not all on this planet) Constantly growing. Not some conglomerate consciousness, but a host of individual minds in unity of purpose, wisdom, and love.
We are here to learn. We are here to experience opposition. Good and bad, hot and cold, pain and pleasure, light and darkness. Unfortunately, experiencing these things fully, we become "tainted" by our own wrong choices. Since we are left to our own free will, and our bodies bring us an animal side, we often act selfishly and hurt others. We are prideful, trusting in our own knowledge, reluctant to put our trust in a God who we cannot see, feel, hear. We can only experience the echos of His reality, His truth imprinted in the laws of the universe around us. We each have a piece of the divine within us, a sense of right and wrong. But we can ignore it also. We can lie to ourselves. And the more we do it, the easier it is to keep doing it. God wants to know what we will do when we are away from Him, alone, unknowing, having forgotten the glorious beings we once were. Will we listen to the quiet influence of that light within? Or will we rebell against it?
Of course, the atonement of Christ is a crucial and central part of this plan also. As I said, we will become tainted by our "sins" here, our hurting of others, our selfishness, and our rebellion against the light within us. God is perfect and cannot abide such behavior in ones who would be given all the power He has. And it is more than behavior. When we sin, we change, we are not as we were before. It is only through faith in Christ's atonement that this process can be reversed. If you want to know more of my thoughts specifically on the atonement of Christ and it's necessity, I will explain then.
Some it this life will choose to have faith in God, even though they have no memory of having existed under His care. Something inside them responds to Him, beyond just "believing what their mommies tell them". Others find they cannot put forth that faith into the darkness, trusting something so subtle. God is pleased with those who are able to have faith in Him without proof, but He is patient with those who do not. He can wait. He has all of eternity. He knows that when we die we will have some added understanding that at the very least, there is more to existance than what we could perceive during our mortal lives.
After death, our memory of our former existance will not return to us right away. But we will be aware of how our actions effected others, of the pain that we caused and the ways that we rebelled against goodness. It will be unbearable for us. Unless---we have faith in Christ's atonement and have done the things required of us to be blessed by it. It is our choice.
There will be plenty of "missionary work" going on in the afterlife. Plenty of people that knew nothing of Christ during this life or who did not have faith in Him despite knowing. They will be given a chance to accept Him then. They will be given every chance they need. Some will accept quickly, eagerly. Some will resist. Some will resist for thousands of years. Some will reject beyond all hope of reclaim. Each will be rewarded according to how much faith he or she put forth in trusting the goodness of God, not by some arbitrary act of God, but as a natural consequence of how the universe works. For even God follows the natural laws of the universe. He did not create them. Gods and the universe have always existed. (Not the universe in the scientific sense of what was started at "The Big Bang", but the universe of existance beyond that.)
Only those who were valiant in their faith and therefore their obedience to God's laws will have proven themselves worthy--trustworthy, for receiving the responsibility, the power, the glory, of becoming Gods themselves, Creators in their own right. Creating worlds, filling them with their children, allowing them to learn and grow and perhaps reach their full potential someday also.
God *is* loving. He is perfectly just and merciful. We will not doubt that when the time comes that we behold Him fully. No one will need to tell us, we will see for ourselves.
I believe these things were revealed to modern-day prophets in preparation for the Second Coming of Christ, to help the educated and inquisitive minds of this day accept God and believe. These are things that have been known on the earth before now, but the information was lost when the people fell away into apostacy. These ideas come from God, and when men try to understand them through their own earthly logic, these things become easily twisted into half-truths and confusion. These things are taught as doctrine in the LDS church. We also believe there is still much that God will yet reveal to us if we will exercise our faith in Him and prepare ourselves to accept it. The windows of heaven are always open to those who seek to know God, and He still has so much to share with us.
(end of email exerpt)
I believe that God is the perfect judge, that He does not make mistakes and that He is able to balance the unbalanced. I believe that if there is anything to be known, He knows it. I believe that He adheres to the underlying laws of reality by choice and does so without wavering. He can be trusted implicitly to follow through on the things He has said He will do.
(quote from ssywak) Third: A "nudging" God? Interesting concept. How does he "nudge"? How do we separate His "nudges" from random chance (if a cat runs across my path, and I go left instead of right, and therefore don't take the Staten Island ferry the day it smaches into the pier, is that a "nudge"? Why didn't God nudge the eleven people who died that day? Please tell their families that God didn't need to nudge them, or that they were too blind to see the nudge.) (end quote)
We cannot discern the difference. It is not God's intention that we discern. But it does allow Him to ensure that His purposes are fulfilled. Let us treat this like the laws of robotics created by Isaac Asimov. They have a heirarchy and structure, the first overriding the second and the second overriding the third.
First: He allows us our free will. He will not under any circumstances remove that or violate it. We are always free to choose.
Second: He responds to faith. The greater the faith, the greater the response. Faith is not about "getting what you want" like a spoiled child demanding candy, it is about trusting God and seeking to align yourself with His purposes. He will intervene (as long as His first purpose is still being served) when there is faith and the amount of intervention tends to (and is perhaps always) proportional to the faith involved.
For instance: I believe that God intervened to help save me from my awful situation described in my recent landmark because of the faith and faithfulness of those who loved me (particularly my parents) rather than on my own merits. I could have denied that intervention and help, but I believe an extra effort was made on their behalf rather than mine. God may have had His own purposes in mind also, but I do believe that their faith had an effect on how things happened.
I cannot prove this to you, but I tell you that I believe it with my whole soul. To me it was a miracle. To anyone else, it is only coincidence.
I find it interesting to note that you bring death into it. As though death is the worst thing that can happen to a person. If you believe in no afterlife, I can understand. But for those of us who do, me continuing on that terribly destructive path would have been far worse than death. Perhaps even to a non-believer's perspective it would have been worse than death.
We could perhaps put a third purpose of "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39) The first two purposes would have priority and thus govern how this third purpose is brought about.
(end of quote exerpts)
The rest was more response to ssywak's questions which may or may not be specific questions that you are interested in.
[ August 11, 2004, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Well, when you said
quote:Some of us look at our existance as pretty strong proof. See my above comment. As my husband said, it is not our only evidence, otherwise we would have let go of our faith a long time ago.
I was hoping for an expounding on what this evidence is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First post back from the honeymoon, and I decided to do it in this thread. I must still be delirious.
quote:The point, Mabus, is that I believe you could verify any scientific principle if you wanted to. It may take some study and some money, but you could do it. And, more likely than not, your findings will agree with those previously reported. On the other hand, I believe I could devote my life to verifying the findings in any holy book but never find anything and never convince myself of anything.
This is why I've never put much stock in science v. religion arguments. If the two are coming into conflict, then it means one or both are acting outside their appropriate bounds.
Science does not tell you anything about morality, right or wrong, or how one should live one's life. Knowing that humans evolved from "lower" life forms does not tell us anything about how human beings should treat each other. Similarly, science can tell us nothing about a Creator who is posited to be outside the laws of science. It cannot tell us such a being does or does not exist, nor can it tell us how that being exerts power in the natural world. Science can make our understunding of the natural world more complete than that which can be inferred from religious beliefs alone.
On the flip side, religion can never trump science. If a group of people believe that gravity exerts a force proportional to the distance between two objects, rather than the square of the distance, the strength of their belief will not make their rocket ships fly correctly. If God chooses to make their ships fly anyway, this doesn't disprove science, it means there has been a miracle. If God changes the laws of physics to match their beliefs, the same techniques of science that discovered Newtonian mechanics will work to discover the new laws.
ssywak has stated what would make him believe in God, but I don't think it actually would make him believe. His stated belief-inducing event could be accomplished by aliens using sufficiently advanced science that no amount of human inspection could uncover. Another way to say this is that his condition of sufficient opportunity to look for wires and the man behind the curtain could never be satisfied, because we could never be sure there isn't some scientific discovery that would allow us to perceive the "trick." The means of proof he accepts are simply not amenable to the facts to be proven.
The benefits of the scientific method are numerous, when applied to their proper sphere. As I've said before, science can tell us what results our actions are likely to achieve, but it cannot tell us which results we should desire. It can tell us how to transplant organs, but it cannot tell us whether it is morally correct to harvest organs from one human being to save 20 lives.
When God told Noah to build an ark, Noah used the science and engineering principles of the time to do so. When we're told to feed the hungry, it would behoove us to listen to biologists to figure out the best way to do it.
Science and religion are simply not incompatible.
Dagonee P.S., I have enjoyed the back and forth between Beverly and ssywak very much.
[ August 12, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So have I, Dag. The only other person on this forum that I've ever seen display the degree of even handed equanimity that bev has would be CT. Her approach to this has pretty much been the embodiment of what is best in Hatrack, I think.
quote:ssywak has stated what would make him believe in God, but I don't think it actually would make him believe. His stated belief-inducing event could be accomplished by aliens using sufficiently advanced science that no amount of human inspection could uncover. Another way to say this is that his condition of sufficient opportunity to look for wires and the man behind the curtain could never be satisfied, because we could never be sure there isn't some scientific discovery that would allow us to perceive the "trick." The means of proof he accepts are simply not amenable to the facts to be proven.
Very good point, and well said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I want to make one thing clear - I didn't write that part as a knock on ssywak. It's meant to be further commentary about the difference between science and religion. And it's not meant to be an accusation that he's not being truthful, but that the objections he's making about religion are simply not answerable through scientific analysis.
I would have edited it, but it got quoted too fast.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oh, you coulda just said so, Phanto.
Evidence, eh? Alright. I spoke of this a bit with ssywak, about the concept of multiple witnesses. There are those who testify of seeing the golden plates (upon which the original words of the Book of Mormon were written) and an angel and proclaiming such on to their very deathbeds dispite no longer being associated with the church at all for other reasons. There are the testimonies of Joseph himself that he also took to his grave (he was murdered.) There are the testimonies of those who were with him during heavenly visitations and visions who also took their testimonies to the grave.
I talked about having read and studied The Book of Mormon and being convinced that it is indeed an ancient record rather than a work of fiction by an 1800's writer. There are small pieces of evidence here and there supporting the idea of this specific civilization existing on this continent, but when it has been discussed before in detail, it has not been agreeable to our mods.
There are the writings of The Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. All of these books of scripture fit in beautifully with the Bible (in my opinion) to create a more complete image of the reality beyond what our mortal senses see.
I have done my best to live the principles of the gospel as I understand them and feel I have been greatly blessed for doing so, though in intangible ways. I believe that the teachings I have received are from God because of where they lead me and the harmony that they have when put together.
And yes, I have had miracles touch my life. Perhaps not to the grand scale of the parting of the Red Sea, but things that strengthen my faith. And there is the feelings in my heart about all of this.
I am well aware that none of the things I have stated here are sufficient evidence for the mind that will only accept things upon repeatable, consistent, empiracle evidence. Some people require more than others to believe in something as intangible as God is to us in this life. That really doesn't bother me. The only thing that bothers me is those who are dishonest in their own hearts, those who would rather be "right" than seek truth. If they have sought it here (the LDS faith) and not found it, I have no argument with them. But I wish to invite everyone to at least be aware of these things, to learn about them. That is why I am so willing to share feelings that I hold precious even at the possibility of ridicule.
But one thing I refuse to accept is the foolish belief that based on the present evidence the universe is less likely to have a God than it is to have a God. In my mind, such a belief comes from cynicism, from losing faith in humanity and life, from disillusionment. I wish more people were honest and upfront that that is the source of their belief, not scientific evidence.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Welcome back, Dags!
How's married life treatin' ya?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dagonee, I like the point you have made here. It rings true to me.
And thank you.
*smacks forehead*
Oh, and congrats!
[ August 12, 2004, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, I didn't take it as a knock on Steve. I actually have an enormous amount of respect for him, despite the fact that he can get snarky when he's talking about something that's important to him. I don't really see how that could have been construed as an attack on him, but honestly it's a little too late for me to be up, given what time I got up this morning, and what time I'll be getting up tomorrow, but maybe it will be clear tomorrow.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Married life is great, rivka. I keep looking over at Eve and thinking, "How on Earth did I get so lucky." I'll make a thread with all the sappy details and pictures soon, but I'll just say here that when I saw her walking down the aisle I thought my heart was going to burst, I was so happy.
Thanks, Bev!
And Noemon, I didn't think you took it that way, but I reread it and realized it would be easy to interpret it as my calling him a liar, so I thought I'd clarify.
Dagonee
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
That's a fair enough arguement. Why it won't work for me personally is because of the following:
a) I have not experienced any such miracles b) Even if I did, it would be no clear indication of anything c) And I don't take the scraps of evidence as being compelling enough. - Why don't I?
Well, you have to take my problem from the start. Which is why should I believe your theory.
"Believe in the Duck." "Why?" "Because otherwise you'll burn in hell otherwise. The Duck loves you, you see, and if you don't love it, then you are denying its power." "Ummm...no thanks." "Wait! We have several books. Oh, and several people over there also believe in the Duck and have seen it themselves." "No thanks." "Wait! Look at this book! It has some historical truth--no one can disagree that there are some subtle refrences that are true!"
And the answer still is..."no thanks."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fair 'nuff, Phanto. ^_^
Though I might take some issues with the way you worded the last line since I have never uttered anything like "no one can disagree". People can disagree with anything they want to.
[ August 12, 2004, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
First: Welcome back!
Second: You picked a heck of a topic to come back to.
Third: Thanks. I didn't see the "knock," anyhow.
Fourth: You may be right. There may be no proof sufficient to make me believe in a being that is defined as defying all known science (and by "known," I mean "known by human beings--regardless of what planet they're from")
quote:Science does not tell you anything about morality, right or wrong, or how one should live one's life
Since your comparing religion to science, I am reading into your paragraph the implication that religion and faith are required for morality. I may be wrong. But my interpretation of your paragraph is right or wrong: They aren't. Religion and faith...required for morality.
In fact, as you continue your paragraph, and move into the next, you do not make any further implications of any link between morality and religion. I may have read too much into it.
But, OK. I know that morality can and does exist independent of religion. Religion can help develop moral codes, but it can also lead to violations of those same moral codes, such as (mis)leading its followers into believing that they are not bound to hold to those moral codes when people outside their own "group" are involved.
And I apologize for the snarkiness. That's why, when I'm saner, I stay out of these arguments. If you look back--I gave Bev the chance! I told her I shouldn't get involved! But did she listen? Oh, no...!
[ August 12, 2004, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: So, based on that, and based on what else you said--why do we need religion again? Why do we need God?
Many agnostics and athiests believe that we don't. Though, I know some have a lot of respect for the positive effects that organized religion can have on a society.
For those who believe in these religions, many believe that "God knows best" and that if we try to abandon God and find our own code of morality, we will stumble in spite of our efforts.
quote: And I apologize for the snarkiness. That's why, when I'm saner, I stay out of these arguments. If you look back--I gave Bev the chance! I told her I shouldn't get involved! But did she listen? Oh, no...!
Um, are you suggesting that your snarkiness is my fault?
[ August 12, 2004, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
(Bev, sorry: you quoted me correctly, but I just edited that line out because I felt it was "too snarky")
But I do agree with its sentiments, regardless.
You've also opened up the next issue: what horrors have been wrought in the name of religion? Intifadas, jihads, crusades, holy wars, the massacres that your own religion is guilty of. The holocaust.
I wonder, some times, if the world wouldn't have been better off developing a pragmatic morality (no, not like the Greek morality of letting babies die on the sides of mountains--some left-wing, liberal, tree-hugging, everybody-gets-a-certificate sort of morality!) and never had religion at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know you didn't state it, but your quote implies that religion and faith are required for morality. They aren't.
I don't think that religion and faith are required for morality in the abstract. I happen to believe that even in non-believers, morality is derived in a real sense from God, but I know you disagree with that.
quote:In fact, as you continue your paragraph, and move into the next, you do not make any further implications of any link between morality and religion.
Again, that is fine by me. I know that morality can and does exist independent of religion. Religion can help develop moral codes, but it can also lead to violations of those same moral codes, such as (mis)leading its followers into believing that they are not bound to hold to those moral codes when people outside their own "group" are involved.
You can substitute moral reasoning for religion if you wish; it doesn't really change my view on the matter. Anything that takes you from "X causes Y" to "therefore we should do X" is something other than science, although science is the necessary base for the premise. That's really my whole point.
quote:So, based on that, and based on what else you said--why do we need religion again? Why do we need God?
If I thought religion was just about morality, I might come up with a long answer for this. But in my beliefs, which are fairly irreconcilable with yours, religion is ultimately about fact. If God exists, and created humans in such a way that to be truly fulfilled and happy we require a relationship with Him, then religion is far more important than anything else. If humans have the possibility for an eternity of joyful bliss, then the means of achieving this are pretty important to us.
None of this is meant to convince you, but rather to explain the underpinnings of my own faith.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
And, no...I do not blame you for my snarkiness.
I was kidding around. A little.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: You've also opened up the next issue: what horrors have been wrought in the name of religion? Intifadas, jihads, crusades, holy wars, the massacres that your own religion is guilty of. The holocaust.
I have no problem believing that people will find ways to commit atrocities with or without religion. I don't understand why religion is blamed just because it was their tool of choice.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: what horrors have been wrought in the name of religion? Intifadas, jihads, crusades, holy wars, the massacres that your own religion is guilty of. The holocaust.
How about a better question: just because something is done in the name of religion, does that make the religion the cause of it?
*makes rude noises in the name of ssywak*
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I happen to believe that even in non-believers, morality is derived in a real sense from God, but I know you disagree with that.
This is actually my personal belief also, though there is no way I could prove it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You've also opened up the next issue: what horrors have been wrought in the name of religion? Intifadas, jihads, crusades, holy wars, the massacres that your own religion is guilty of. The holocaust.
OK, we probably shouldn't go off on this tangent at all. We'll argue about whether the holocaust was perpetrated in the name of religion, then someone will bring up the communist mass murders, then someone will say communism is kind of like a religion, and no one will be happy. Humans have been slaughtering each other since the beginning. Religion has been used as one excuse for doing so, but is hardly unique.
quote:I wonder, some times, if the world wouldn't have been better off developing a pragmatic morality (no, not like the Greek morality of letting babies die on the sides of mountains--some left-wing, liberal, tree-hugging, everybody-gets-a-certificate sort of morality!) and never had religion at all.
If you thought that the problem was people didn't know, in general, what was good and what was bad, then this might help. But as far as I can tell, it's not been the knowing but the doing that's caused the problems.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hmm... I always thought the only way most non believers would believe is if they felt the presence of God. I don't and never have and as a consequence I don't have any real faith in his/her existence.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
BtL, I think that is too "touchy feely" for some people. But, yeah, I imagine that sort of experience would make a difference to some non-believers.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
*totally off topic* Bev, are we getting together tomorrow?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BtL, I think you're right. I also think that "feeling the presence of God" is pretty much as far removed from the scientific method as possible. If you or ssywak ever do believe, it won't be because of a repeatable experiment. If I ever stop believing, it won't be because of scientific proof of any kind.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ifn' ya wanna. I sent you an email about it. Would it just be us?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hmm. I didn't get anything in my email. Check the Galactic Cactus thread. I'm thinking my plans might have to change.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
My point with bringing up the "atrocities" is that I wonder some times if the world with religion is any better than it would be without religion.
If "religion" is not required for morality, then why do we need religion?
If "religion" can create horrors equal to what the secular world can create, then what's the benefit there?
If religion allows for the concentration of sexually frustrated men who like preying on young boys, and then fails to protect those victims once it knows about them, then what's the benefit? I know that similar things go on in public and private schools, but I wonder if it's to the same degree, and what the typical administration response is in those other organizations? Is it a cover-up, as we've typically seen in the RC Church?
And I realize that there is an idealized religion: what religion is "supposed" to be, and that differs greatly from what a practiced religion is. Communism, according to Marx, wasn't supposed to have pogroms, either. But since mankind made both of them up, all we have are their earthly incarnations, and that's all we can compare. In their "idealized" forms, all these various systems are supposed to work "perfectly."
But, if religion is a comfort to people when they stare into the abyss (moreso when it starts to stare back), then let's at least admit that.
But therre are other, non-theistic philosophical systems that try to deal with that situation, too.
But religion doesn't really help us understand this world (unless, you're trying to figure out how religion figures in to this world). I guess it tries to help us understand the "after" world, and that's where it stops making sense to me. Unfortunately, that's right where it's supposed to start....
--Steve
[No critical or snarky phrases were removed during this edit]
[ August 12, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(still off topic) Actually, my plans are back to a state of non change. But I hope we can figure out the email problem. Maybe I need to turn off my junk mail filter.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
ssywak, I will share my own thoughts on this since I cannot speak for anyone but myself. You ask some good questions here. And I am sure there are many that feel just as you do.
Any organization that allows children to be abused and go unpunished is making a grave mistake. I cannot speak for the Catholic church because I don't know enough. Any organization that exists just to make people "feel better" isn't doing all that much good either. But an organization that requires it's members to search their hearts and souls and improve themselves is doing a great service to the world, IMO. And I think there are plenty of religious organizations that do just that.
While secular humanism might have some mighty fine ideals, this world is chalk full of subtle and not so sublte messages of "if it feels good, do it", and "if you want it you can have it." Organized religion counters such messages with expectations of self discipline and sacrifice for the good of others. And, if you want to look at it from your non-believer POV, having faith in God has a great deal of power to unify people in those efforts.
But from my POV, God is very much real, and helps His children in their efforts to be better. He also knows the best way to go about doing it and exactly what we need to have lasting happiness.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
ssywak -- society is not some nebulous thing out there. It's just people. I think an important question to ask is "Does religion help people become better or worse people?"
I am a better person because of my religion. I am as sure of this fact as I am about anything.
I'm also happier.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
MPH,
Agreed.
I'm also a better person because of my family. I am also happier.
I'm also a better person because of my salary. I am also happier.
I'm also a better person because of my %variable%. I am also happier.
If that's what religion is, that's great. But it's always been sold as something much, much more. You've reduced it to its pragmatic value. At that point, it doesn't matter if it's made up or not, it has a value as a "thing." "Belief in God" has a value in and of itself, then, and does not require the existence of God to have that value.
Damn!
I was really hoping I'd find God this time! I'll just have to keep looking.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll agree that just because a religion is good for its members does not make its teachings true.
edit: But you were postulating that religion makes things worse, and that was what I was referring to.
Also, I doubt that you have become a better person because you make more money. Not because of anything about you specifically -- I just don't see anybody becoming a better person because they have more money.
[ August 12, 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
And what if all good things come from God? What if you having a family comes from values and civilization built upon God's principles? What if without God, you would see no reason to come down out of the wild and commit yourself to anything? What if your excellent salary is just as dependant upon the society based on God's laws?
Just because religion produces goodness does not somehow rule out God being the reason for it. It wouldn't matter what the net output of religion is, you will find a way to see it as not being because of God.
Religion=bad Must not be from God since God is good.
Religion=neutral Must not be from God because it makes no difference
Religion=good Must not be from God because it is good by itself.
It's just a no-win situation because no matter what the result, you will choose not to see God there. But just as you choose to see God nowhere, I can choose to see him everywhere.
Actually, Porter, the way I look at it is that inasmuch as the teachings do bring good into the lives of the members, they are true, at least in essence.
[ August 12, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But religion doesn't really help us understand this world (unless, you're trying to figure out how religion figures in to this world). I guess it tries to help us understand the "after" world, and that's where it stops making sense to me. Unfortunately, that's right where it's supposed to start....
If religion reveals the purpose of existence, I'd say it helps us understand the world a lot more than knowing the thrust needed for a satellite to achieve escape velocity.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
What, then, is the purpose of existence?
Seriously.
According to Bev, the purpose is to become a God. Then to make worlds. Then to make people. Those people can then become Gods. And so on.
Why is this so important? What makes this a great "purpose?" Bev, and the LDS Church, may think this is the greatest thing since sliced bread---but why?
What do other religions have to say about the purpose of existence?
How are they any better (or worse) than an atheist's "purpose".
All I can offer is mine:
quote:It *is* difficult to wrest meaning from "life" with an atheistic POV. There's no denying that we all end in death. The atheist believes that the sense of self (self-awareness) also fades at the moment of death (through disease and other causes, it can actually fade well before death. Think delusion, think coma).
But here's the gift of atheism: if this life is all you have, then you are free to make of it what you will. You get to determine what is important in your life. You get to decide what you want to achieve.
Money/wealth/power/fame? There is no reason why this is not a worthy pursuit.
Helping people in need (a la Mother Theresa)? Equally worthy.
And, there's always Bill Gates (not a personal hero, mind you), who may even be trying to do both.
Instead of creating a worthwhile "everlasting soul" that will meet with the approval of God (however that approval is defined, however "He" is defined, by whatever religious group is seeking to define him), you get to create a worthwhile life. Your legacy is the memory of yourself and your acts that you leave behind. Your legacy is the family which you may desire to create. Your legacy is whatever large or small way your life has conributed to the improvement of the state of the world you were born into.
For myself, my legacy also includes the inventions and creations I have developed and built (I am an engineer), as well as the others. But, since my designs have typically led to the joy of others (I have designed technical effects for Broadway musicals, among other things), I feel that's covered under the heading of "small-scale improvements to the world."
But the next question an atheist would probably ask is: "Why does any of that matter?" It matters because it's all that we have. This life, this world, this universe. Life is a gift (not from God, of course; it's a gift of random natural mutations--but didn't your parents teach you never to look a gift horse in the mouth?!?). Life is an opportunity to live! It's an adventure!
The dark side to watch out for is: not to use it up too quickly. Jumping out of a plane without a parachute is really exciting for the first 30 seconds or so, but then, all of a sudden, it really sucks. There are enough books out there illustrating this live fast/die young aproach, but I, myself, am really opposed to this approach.
Again, being an engineer, I look at the "integral" of joy; the area under the curve. Plot a curve of joy vs. time. Measure the area under that curve. The "no parachute" approach leads to a high peak, but a short duration. The area under the curve is small. I've maintained a reasonably high "joy" factor (with the ocassional dips below the zero-mark, too) for a reasonably long time (forty-some-odd years). So, my "area under the curve" is nice and big. And my "joy" curve is still continuing, and should for at least another forty years.
1) Enjoy Life 2) Do good
Wow. I think that's it!
--Steve
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Why is this so important? What makes this a great "purpose?
Because this is the reason why we exist on earth in the first place.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
People are that they might have joy. That is the ultimate purpose of existance. I know you were looking for something more practical, but . . . maybe existance itself is impractical.
[ August 12, 2004, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
That seems a bit circular to me...
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Considering the LDS belief in the Circularity of Existance (i.e. One Eternal Round and What was is, and what is will be), I am not surprised by your assessment.
[ August 12, 2004, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Fine, but circular reasoning is not generally considered a valid argument...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The circle isn't circular if you add "Because God said so" to it, but for some reason a lot of people find this unsatisfying.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
In the LDS belief there is hope of more than what this brief life has to offer. There is the hope of all the same things that bring us the most joy in this life continuing forever. Let me define what "joy" means to an LDS. Joy to an LDS is distinctly different than temporary, self-serving pleasure. Yet we believe both pleasure and pain are part of joy. The pain I speak of is the pain felt when your child makes foolish choices that will cause them pain. It is a pain borne out of love for others.
This is why becoming a parent is so highly valued to LDS. We believe that becoming a parent is the best way to emulate God and learn to become more like Him. In trying to raise our children with love, the joy of seeing them grow and learn and become functioning, fulfilled adults, and then their children and grandchildren, expanding forever and ever, that is the joy that the LDS glories in most and has great hope in continuing beyond the bounds of this mortal life. And developing perfect love for all of God's children, a love that scripture calls charity, is crucial to being able to fulfill this capacity and great responsibility.
Those who see no joy in parenting will see little value in this vision of eternity. But many who have chosen to be parents will catch glimpses of what we believe to be God's plan for us.
[ August 13, 2004, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Does the LDS faith really offer anything to people who do not want kids?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That is a very interesting question. It is one I have never really thought about before. As several people on the forum here have mentioned, unmarried members of the church tend to feel "left out" because of the importance placed upon marriage and parenting.
But the LDS church offers the same basic gospel of Jesus Christ that most Christian churches offer: The hope of forgiveness and healing through Christ, and yes, the promise of eternal happiness even if one does not receive what we believe is the highest blessings God has to offer. The church teaches what a person must do to have peace and joy in both this life and the next, ways to draw nearer to God. We do believe that part of becoming like God is becoming a parent though, since according to LDS belief God is, literally, a (married) Father.
The LDS view of the afterlife includes different kingdoms of glory. The highest kingdom includes those who are married eternally and able to continue to progress and become as God is, and those who are unmarried and serve as angels but receive the glory and presence of God. I imagine that those who fit the second description will be there because that is what they most desired for themselves and it was the thing that would make them the most happy.
That is an interesting part of LDS doctrine, the belief that the final state of the soul will be to receive as much of God's gifts as they were willing to receive. God does not give gifts to those who would not enjoy and appreciate them. The idea is we eventually end up where we desired to be.
[ August 13, 2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:While secular humanism might have some mighty fine ideals, this world is chalk full of subtle and not so sublte messages of "if it feels good, do it", and "if you want it you can have it." Organized religion counters such messages with expectations of self discipline and sacrifice for the good of others
quote:In the LDS belief there is hope of more than what this brief life has to offer. There is the hope of all the same things that bring us the most joy in this life continuing forever. Let me define what "joy" means to an LDS. Joy to an LDS is distinctly different than temporary, self-serving pleasure. Yet we believe both pleasure and pain are part of joy. The pain I speak of is the pain felt when your child makes foolish choices that will cause them pain. It is a pain borne out of love for others.
So the difference between the secular humanist "if it feels good, do it" and the religious (in this case: LDS) approach to "the things that bring us joy in this life continuing forever" would be....the fact that you defined "joy" for deep-thinking peoples as including both pleasure and pain (and, yes: I understand the joy that can be found in some pain, even though I'm a secular liberal bleeding-heart pinko commie tree-hugging sensitive wuss)?
Something in there...secularists (apparently) just want to feel good for the brief time they exist on earth, while religious peoples want to feel good forever?
So the reason that secular humanism is wrong (as you implied: good ideals, bad execution...where have I heard that argument recently?), the reason it's wrong would be...?
So, just to double check, Bev. The reason we're here is to find a way to feel good for all eternity. That's what you said, right? This reminds me of the scene with that older engineer in "Brainstorm," who makes that special tape loop for himself...
MPH,
quote:
quote: Why is this so important? What makes this a great "purpose"?
Because this is the reason why we exist on earth in the first place.
We've been disagreeing here a little bit, so I'm not sure about this next question: "You're kidding, right?"
[ August 13, 2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I didn't say that the "if it feels good do it" sentiment came from secular humanism. I meant it was the subtle and not-so-subtle messages sent out regularly in the media and the trends of society. (I didn't specify before) I actually think that secular humanism tries to be a bit wiser than that, actually tries to follow "the golden rule" which takes others into account. "If it feels good do it" takes no one into account but yourself. It is a selfish, and ultimately hurtful, sentiment. Hurtful to society, and hurtful to self. Selfishness may bring instant gratification, but it does not bring about my above definition of joy.
But I think religion often does a better job at convincing large numbers of people to actually follow "the golden rule". I think part of that is "the promise of eternal reward", but I think another important part of it is the influence of the goodness of God in the hearts of those seeking Him.
ssywak, your points would come across much better sans snarkiness. Snarkiness has no place in intelligent, civil conversation.
[ August 13, 2004, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Purpose, hon; "purpose."
The "Purpose" of religion is...
1) To find a way to feel good ("Joy") for all eternity.
2) To get the masses to obey the "Golden Rule." (Oh, Karl! Karl! There's a phone call for you!)
3) To better understand the physical universe
4) To posit a non-physical universe, and to better understand that universe. (Sounds like science fiction to me! Oh, wait! That's why we're here! Here as in "on Hatrack," not anything metaphysical)
My last post (except for the "Brainstorm" reference) scored pretty low on my snark scale. I'd have given it a 2 out of 10. The "Brainstorm" reference probably added 3 snark-points, though (so you're right). I will admit, though, there have been some posts where I'm up to 11, or higher. This one is a 3.5.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
BTW, Bev, you "close-coupled" that "Secular Humanist" reference and the "If it feels good, do it" reference. It's a reasonable assumption that you meant for the first to imply the second.
I do appreciate your clearing it up, though. At (on) that point, we're agreed.
SSR (Sywak Snark Rating): 1.0
[edited to add, not subtract]
[ August 13, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I would change #1 to be have peace and joy in this life and the next.
Maybe it is just the way that you have sounded to me, but it sounds more like you are trying to "shut me (and others) down" than you are actually interested in what I have to say. But it is difficult to communitcate through writing without all the subtle cues we normally depend on to "read" one another.
[ August 13, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: We've been disagreeing here a little bit, so I'm not sure about this next question: "You're kidding, right?"
Absolutely not. I was completely serious.
Bev shared her views on the purpose of life (become more like God, and progress eternally). You said
quote: "Why is this so important? What makes this a great "purpose?"
I was saying that this is important because this is the way things are. The whole reason why the earth was created and we were placed on it was to do these things.
I don't say this to try to convince you. I thought you were asking why anybody should care about these ideas. I was just trying to help you understand why they are important to us -- because we believe they are true.
Can you at least admit that if these ideas are true, then they are pretty important and should make a difference in how we live?
edit: to clarify
[ August 13, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Nothing substantive to add, but I have to say that I love the idea of posts being stamped with a snarkometer reading.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
SSR: 1.0
MPH,
"I was saying that this is important because this is the way things are. The whole reason why the earth was created and we were placed on it was to do these things."
I assume you mean "become more like God, and progress eternally", correct? Those were the only "things" you reference in your post.
"If they are true, then they are important" Yes, of course. If it is true that God put us here to "become more like God, and progress eternally" then it's incredibly important.
But asides from that?! Is it important on its own? Is it a worthy goal, a worthy purpose? Or is it just an aspect of "how to feel good for as long as possible and not hurt anybody doing it"? Is it good because God made it that way, or did God make it that way because it would have been good (in essence, 'independent of God')." Or something like that--you know the line.
If it's true that 1) there is a God, and 2) that's why He put us here, then I'll vote for that in a second! But there's no "proof" for either (in my mind). Without "proof," "truth" is a difficult thing to acquire. And, to quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" (which I wholeheartedly agree with).
And we arrive back at the beginning of the whole discussion.
--Steve
[ August 13, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Noemon,
Pronounced "snark-a-meter" (like "kilometer") or "Snark-OH-meeter"?
This is important.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Important on its own, i.e., independent of whether or not it's true?
I don't know. If it's not true, then to me it doesn't have much value.
Why whould you care about it? The only response I have to that is that if you really care about whether or not you should care, then you should try to find out for yourself if they are true.
off-topic: Is it possible to have a negative score on the snark-o-meter?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Is it good because God made it that way, or did God make it that way because it would have been good (in essence, 'independent of God').
We believe the two concepts coexist, neither causing the other but both required for the other to exist. We believe that nothing from God is arbitrary, but it is "the way things are".
So while secular humanism attempts to remove God from morality, an LDS (or other religious-minded person) looks upon the attempt as doomed to fail eventually. The idea is that if man attempts to cut themselves off from God and rely on their own judgements and interpretations, they are doomed to go astray from true, innate, eternal goodness.
I look at it like my 5 year old son taking over the parental authority for himself and his two sisters. It is a lot easier to see in this example of how things could go wrong, but I think it is a decent analogy considering my beliefs on God's view and understanding in comparison to ours.
Hmmm, you know, I honestly don't find my LDS belief's claims all that much more extrodinary than a universe with no God. I think it is a matter of perspective. And science sure hasn't offered me any proof of God's non-existance.
[ August 13, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:We believe the two concepts coexist, neither causing the other but both required for the other to exist.
So the chicken and the egg both came into being at the same time?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
They have both always been.
*moment of silence*
Aaaaaooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It's pronounced snarKHAMuhtur. So...like kilometer.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Seriously, though. If God is indeed eternal (retroactively as well), what the heck was He doing before He made this universe?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah Porter, it is. If a post has a snarkometer reading of 3 or higher, and the post that responds to it contains absolutely no snarkosity whatsoever, then a negative reading is possible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So the chicken and the egg both came into being at the same time?
Eternity is confusing, ain't it?
If you believe in evolution, by the way, it's not hard to determine which came first.
1) An egg is defined by what comes out of it - a chicken egg is a chicken egg because what hatches out of it is a chicken. 2) According to ET, the species we know as chickens had a chicken-like ancestor that was not a chicken. 3) At some point, one of these CLAs laid an egg from which hatched a chicken. 4) Since a a chicken hatched from the egg, it was a chicken egg. 5) Therefore the egg existed before the chicken.
Dagonee
[ August 13, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: So the chicken and the egg both came into being at the same time?
I've never seen it put that way, but that's pretty good. Not perfect -- the concept of time doesn't really fit, but still pretty good.
There is no chicken without the egg, and no egg without the chicken, and it is meaningless to ask which came first.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
SSR: 1.5
Bev,
"if man attempts to cut themselves off from God "
That presumes that there is a God to cut oneself off from. If there is no God (if I was being snarky again, I would have said "Since"), then mankind pretty much had better come up with a sense of morality on his/her own, hadn't we? An atheist view is that the "religious" morality is just morality put forth by a select group of human (my definition) individuals, who then use the concept of God to help them impose their belief system--hopefully (but obviously not always) for the betterment of their own clan/tribe/state/country/world/etc. It's just like your "enforcing the Golden Rule" statement from before.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
20 points for Dag for actually bringing this thread back on-track!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: That presumes that there is a God to cut oneself off from. If there is no God (if I was being snarky again, I would have said "Since"), then mankind pretty much had better come up with a sense of morality on his/her own, hadn't we? An atheist view is that the "religious" morality is just morality put forth by a select group of human (my definition) individuals, who then use the concept of God to help them impose their belief system--hopefully (but obviously not always) for the betterment of their own clan/tribe/state/country/world/etc. It's just like your "enforcing the Golden Rule" statement from before.
Yup, I was just stating things from the believer's POV. I understand this is how things look from the non-believers POV. I would much rather have them trying to do their best than to throw morality to the wind! So from your POV, it appears that religion is trying to enforce "the Golen Rule" through a grand deception.
The practical question for the athiest is then, are they doing a better job of it? Some non-believers may think they are doing a better job. Some may think they are actually doing a worse job. Some may see a combination of the two. For example, the idea that organized religion is doing some good, but it is also harming people in a different sort of way. If you look at it as a deception, well, no one likes to imagine masses of people being deceived. The idea is unsettling.
I think I understand yours and other's discomfort at the idea of religion. But I can't say for sure, since that POV is not my own.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dag -- is a chicken egg a chicken egg because a chicken comes out of it, or because a chicken laid it?
I could engineer a chicken to lay eggs that hatchec in to ducks, would those eggs be chicken eggs or duck eggs?
edit: If it's a chicken egg because a chicken comes out of it, like you said, then what about un-fertilized eggs? What makes them chicken eggs?
And do they even deserve to be eggs if they cannot play part in procreation? (Everything has to refer to gay marriage eventually. )
[ August 13, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Obviously, chuck eggs. Or...well, nevermind.
[ August 13, 2004, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
PSI: Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
SSR: -1.0
Bev,
Exactly! Well done! (Not the eggs, the comment).
I can't comment more, because I;ve got to get back to work.
Later!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Hey! It's a "Friends" reference!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:20 points for Dag for actually bringing this thread back on-track!
Does this mean I have 20 snarky points to use?
quote:I could engineer a chicken to lay eggs that hatchec in to ducks, would those eggs be chicken eggs or duck eggs?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I was merely stating the fact... Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first post.
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)