Do you believe in God?

[TankAss95]

I don't agree that science is reliant on faith. You can have faith in science and choose to trust it and believe in what it can do, but that doesn't mean that science is a faith based thing. Say to yourself with real, genuine conviction;

"I don't believe in gravity. It is a fallacy and an illusion."

Do things start floating in front of you? No they do not. Gravity is not reliant on you believing that it is true.

Science is based on faith, because in order to do science you first have to have faith.

 

[Liquid]

Science is based on faith, because in order to do science you first have to have faith.

But that doesn't mean that science can't exist without it. You could go and do an experiment not believing that it will work, without faith that it will work. That experiment could still be successful, regardless of your faith whether it will or it won't.

"I don't believe that this car will reach 250mph"
"Don't you?"
"No I don't. This test run I'm about to do will not work"

The car reaches 253mph. Is that not an experiment conducted without the faith that it will work?

 

[TankAss95]

Meaning is all about interpretation. Just because something did have a beginning, that is not proof that there is a meaning to it. Where is the proof that there is a meaning to it? The fact that something has a beginning therefore it must have meaning is your assumption and your interpretation.

What's the meaning of Stonehenge? That certainly had a beginning and for historical reasons we don't know why it's there or indeed how it was constructed (In before 'Aliens!'). We interpret what it could mean but there's no absolute certainty that it means anything. The blokes who built it could have just done it randomly. I stress could have.

What we are talking about here is different, it's the first effect (considering you agree that the universe/multiverse had a beginning).

And when I do something randomly, I do it for the sake of being random, therefore the act I performed did have a meaning behind it (my own desire).

 

[Liquid]

(considering you agree that the universe/multiverse had a beginning).

Actually, I don't believe that the universe had/has a beginning. It could have been running for infinity, sure. I find that more plausable than it suddenly appearing out of nothing.

And when I do something randomly, I do it for the sake of being random, therefore the act I performed did have a meaning behind it (my own desire).

Fair point. But do you see my point about Stonehenge? What the meaning of that is is all down to interpretation. There is no one, strict, definitive meaning. We can't know.

 

[TankAss95]

But that doesn't mean that science can't exist without it. You could go and do an experiment not believing that it will work, without faith that it will work. That experiment could still be successful, regardless of your faith whether it will or it won't.

"I don't believe that this car will reach 250mph"
"Don't you?"
"No I don't. This test run I'm about to do will not work"

The car reaches 253mph. Is that not an experiment conducted without the faith that it will work?

I don't think you understand what I meant before.

In order to do anything you have to have faith. If our brains are nothing but atoms performing mindless processes, how can I trust myself? And how do you know that I am real?

Assuming you believe these things (I always try to avoid that word) you have faith.

 

[Exorcet]

Science is based on faith, because in order to do science you first have to have faith.

That's not how it works at all. You trust things because they work repeatedly. When they fail to work, you don't trust them. There is no faith involved.

Could your entire perception of the universe be wrong? Yes, everyone admits that. So what we do is use science on our perception.

In order to do anything you have to have faith. If our brains are nothing but atoms performing mindless processes, how can I trust myself? And how do you know that I am real?

These questions mean nothing.

 

[Liquid]

In order to do anything you have to have faith. If our brains are nothing but atoms performing mindless processes, how can I trust myself? And how do you know that I am real?

Welcome to the question of existance. A meaningless, trivial observation that has plagued mankind like an itch that just can't be scratched ever since it was first pondered.

 

[TankAss95]

Actually, I don't believe that the universe had/has a beginning. It could have been running for infinity, sure. I find that more plausable than it suddenly appearing out of nothing.

Fair point. But do you see my point about Stonehenge? What the meaning of that is is all down to interpretation. There is no one, strict, definitive meaning. We can't know.

The idea that universe/multiverse is eternal is quite mind boggling, but I think it is more acceptable than it just beginning with no interaction from a deity. May I add that the whole multiverse theory is very fragile. Scientists simply don't know enough yet about quantum mechanics.

 

[TankAss95]

Welcome to the question of existance. A meaningless, trivial observation that has plagued mankind like an itch that just can't be scratched ever since it was first pondered.

Wether you think the question is worthless, meaningless or futile to try and answer, it still remains, wether you like it or not.

EDIT: Sorry for double post.

 

[Liquid]

A universe that has been continuously existing since time immemorial/forever? Yes, I could believe that. Like I've said, there's no certainty that it is explainable or has a meaning. I believe the big bang happened. What was before that? I don't know. Something could have, who knows? I take a pretty lax opinion on the exact nature of the universe and its origin because it is not a topic that keeps me awake at night and looms over me like a dark cloud during the day.

Multiverse? Less convinced. Outside of crossing a time zone, I don't believe that time travel is possible so any extra dimensions, panes of existance and so forth are out of the equation for me. But I could be completely wrong. We just don't know at this point in time.

Question of Existance: Yes, the question of existance does exist (Ha-ha!) and I'm alright with it. I don't dislike it, in fact I hugely enjoy debating it with my friends because I like deep thought and reaching far into my own morality and psyche. But again, it's not something that has a definitive answer, so the fun is in the opinions and not in the posing of the question nor the search for 'the' answer. It shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

[niky]

In an uncaring Universe, man would have no 'purpose'. Purpose for man suggests the intentionality of a creator.

A man's purpose is whatever purpose he gives himself. You're telling me that those who wage war with the Church have been given purpose by the Creator?

That's the whole problem with the idea of a Creator who gives man driving purpose. Because men are often at cross-purposes with each other. Except the purposes which are dolphins.

But Mankind's purpose is simply dictated by natural law. Survival. And to survive as long as possible, it is necessary to understand our environment and the Universe as completely as possible to stave off the extinction of Mankind as long as possible.

I said science cannot provide absolute truth.

How many pages in a row are you going to bring up the same exact argument that's already been disproven. Science is concerned with truth and nothing but the truth. If you're referring to a philosophical truth, that's not science's purpose, so stop pretending it has anything to do with it.

I said that there are two main viewpoints, a naturalistic/materialistic viewpoint or the belief in a deity.

I've already disproved this. You have left no room for those who assign spiritual meaning to the cosmos without deity, those who believe that there is more out there than what we can see without out believing in a deity and those who believe that other universes exist beyond what we consider nature.

Scientist: I am here, I exist and can trust my consciousness, and I believe that the universe is intelligible and can be studied.

So scientists are all men of faith.

You assign a value of true or false to what you experience and observe. If the illusion is pervading enough that you will always obtain the same results for your experiments and observations, then that is your reality. It doesn't matter what the underlying structure is.

There's a very simple test for what is real and what is illusion. Real can kill you. Illusion cannot.

There is no faith required in observing the observable, but there's a lot of it required in believing that which cannot be observed and which is not only not supported by observable evidence, but contradicted by it.

-

If you believe the Universe is unintelligible and cannot be studied, then you're obviously not typing this on a computer built from centuries of research into electricity and decades of research into electronics, with operations founded on principles of quantum physics and supported by a network of communication satellites that maintain orbit and synchronicity by taking into account general relativity.

Of course... all that's illusion, now, isn't it?

 

[Sach]

Things taken out of context, and/or with prejudice = Life.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Anything will happen with enough time so long as there is a non zero probability of the event in question. Again, this is math.

No, it will not. And that is not math, it's utter hogwash. To stick with my example - I don't care how many times you strike a rock with lightning, it will never become a functional Formula 1 car.

Saying that a rock can turn into a person spontaneously and on it's own isn't really a bold claim, but claiming that it will happen anytime soon is.

It's a claim with no examples to back it up, which makes it bold.

Now you're just making it easier. A rock turning into a life form is unlikely, but a rock exposed to energy? Simple chemistry. Rocks are atoms. Life is atoms. All you need to do is change the arrangement.

How silly is that? There is more to life than an arrangement of atoms. Again, you will never turn a rock into a Formula 1 car by striking it with lightning/energy.

I think you're misunderstanding a few things here. Science doesn't operate on faith.

I never said it does. However, people's theories do, and those theories are taken on faith when they're based on open-ended scientific theories concerning the origins of the universe.

 

[Exorcet]

No, it will not. And that is not math, it's utter hogwash. To stick with my example - I don't care how many times you strike a rock with lightning, it will never become a functional Formula 1 car.

Any non zero probability event has a 100% chance of occurring with infinite time.

We're using rock and lighting in very loose terms (or at least I'm interpreting them that way). You really cannot argue that it is impossible that energy + matter =/= life. And based on evidence, it seems highly likely.

It's a claim with no examples to back it up, which makes it bold.

I don't need examples. I'm using the best of human knowledge, and what it says is that atoms can spontaneously arrange themselves in very specific manners, though with a low probability.

How silly is that? There is more to life than an arrangement of atoms. Again, you will never turn a rock into a Formula 1 car by striking it with lightning/energy.

Yes you could. This is basically how everything works. It's a matter of probability though. Lightning having enough energy and hitting some matter in the correct way to form an F1 car? Slim chances, though technically possible. Humans evolving from inanimate matter and channeling burned fossil fuels to manufacturing plants to make F1 cars? That's happening now.




EDIT

The whole point of bringing up the oddities of quantum mechanics was not to claim that F1 cars will pop out of nothing in your driveway tomorrow. You can't study the universe with "common sense". You need to actually know what is going on. Common sense tells us that things don't just show up, but we base that on our lives which only last on the order of 100 years or so. Technology and communication lets us see past that short time span where "unusual" things happens. Like organic molecules forming over 1000's of human generations.

Think about this, what chance do you have at winning the lotto as an individual? Compare that probability to the chance of someone, out of 6 billion people, winning the lottery. Given that there are multiple winners every week, you end up with a near 1 probability from something that has very little chance of actually occurring. It's just a matter of sample size.

 

[niky]

There is a finite but non-zero probability of a Formula One car spontaneously occuring. But that is orders of magnitudes less probable than life occuring. Simply because we've seen that organic materials do form in unlikely places and that the solar system is saturated with pre-organic and simple organic molecules.

We already have evidence of spontaneously occuring particles (part of the predictions of quantum physics) via experiments with the "Casimir Effect"... which means that yes, quarks and anti-quarks do spontaneously coalesce out of vacuum and then disappear after colliding with each other.

To create your Formula car, you would have to have a whole truckload of quarks appearing spontaneously in the right place to create a car... but you'd have to ensure that the F1 car and the anti-F1 car that will occupy the exact same space don't instantly annihiliate each other...

-

That's a far cry from creating life... which requires much less complex and much more discrete steps over a much longer period of time.

 

[TankAss95]

First of all, here's a video I found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO0QRUX4HGE&feature=youtube_gdata_player (May I add that the guy who made the video believes in Allah.)

A quite significantly flawed video, IMO, for several reasons.

Firstly, there's an interesting "mix" of terminology in the video. When the narrator says things like "not only are these forces finely tuned for our existence" (once again: life adapts to conditions, conditions aren't put there in order to support life) you can't take the video seriously.

Let's assume the common Atheist view. We don't properly understand how life began (abiogenesis?) so we don't know if life is totally adaptable to different conditions.

I certainly can't take "Philosopher of Science" at Messiah College seriously. Science isn't a philosophy. It ceases to become science. We've had this problem already in this thread, with people asking science to explain why the universe exists, when it can't. Mr. Philosopher of Science attempts to use science to support the theory of a higher power having designed the universe specifically so we can observe it, a theory I don't buy in the slightest. Not least because it's not "theory" in the scientific sense, more "theory" in the "in theory" type sense.

I agree that science isn't philosophy, but can you discuss the existence of a deity without using philosophy?

(...bearing in mind that we already know the big bang wasn't actually an explosion - a rather fundamental mistake for a scientist to make, don't you think?) the video and site are little more than ill-informed half-way houses between science and religion. And as a "scientist" he should probably be aware too that "The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power" is simple physics, rather than magic or design. A star with enormous mass (and therefore gravity) will also burn more violently and brightly, otherwise it wouldn't be a star - there has to be some form of equilibrium, just like there is with a smaller mass star, which burns less violently. It's never total equilibrium anyway, as eventually all stars expend all their energy and die.

It is rather alarming for a scientist to perform such a mistake, but maybe he used the explanation of 'explosion' to explain the theory to a non-enthusiast viewer more efficiently?

The things being said look accurate enough to seem suspiciously genuine, but inaccurate enough for much of what's included to be a pile of rubbish.

That's where I fail I'm afraid.

As I mentioned above, their statements that small variations in forces would immediately result in zero life are inaccurate. Earth's gravity varies constantly and depending on where you are on the planet, by several fractions of a percent in places. That already debunks the video's theory that the smallest of changes would result in no life, since there already are small changes. Likewise, small fluctuations in our distance from the sun might have caused life to develop differently from the way it has, but wouldn't have prevented it entirely (since we already know that life can live in the extremes of temperature on our planet).

With the video I provided above, along with the fact that we don't know how life began (or the probability of life beginning) we don't actually know wether this is true or not. I suppose the fine tuning argument is speculative.

There are other universal constants of course, but the fact we can view them "easily" is just an indication of how our species has developed to discover these things. We already know we don't know everything (so the universe can't be that easy to figure out), and there are places in the universe where the fundamental laws of physics fall apart - black holes, for example. If the universe was so easy for us to understand, why to black holes still stump us?

Often I have been accused for using 'the god of the gaps' in arguments, but maybe you are doing something similar with just saying 'evolution did it'. I admit evolution is a strong theory (I still have yet to make up my kind if I accept it or not) but perhaps you are ignoring fascinating topics such as consciousness itself and how or why we are conscious. I remember a scientist saying that nobody knows what consciousness, or energy actually is. I'm sorry I can't find any links about that at the moment.

I'm sorry, but all of that video is tosh.

I don't see why we keep coming back to this either. Why keep trying to bring up these "scientific" justifications for the supposed evidence of intelligent creation, when God's existence cannot be proven, neither by evidence nor by proxy?

Just in case you missed it again: The universe isn't finely tuned for life. Life finely tunes itself to work in the universe.

I have admitted that God's existence cannot be proven. I am attempting to use science (or the natural world) to make the idea of a deity more plausible (to the atheist).

I don't accept that last point. I hope I have explained why in this, along with other previous posts.

 

[Sach]

Any non zero probability event has a 100% chance of occurring with infinite time.

Source? And you do realize that if the universe is infinite then everything should have already happened?

Yes you could. This is basically how everything works. It's a matter of probability though. Lightning having enough energy and hitting some matter in the correct way to form an F1 car? Slim chances, though technically possible.

Elephant in the room...



You say that anything can happen due to quantum mechanics and the presence of lightning/energy, and most importantly... enough time.


Example: "It is possible that you could strike a rock with the right amount of lightning and it could turn into a functional Formula 1 car. This is highly improbable, but possible through the theory of quantum mechanics and the possibility of enough time."

Example: (summary) "Though it is highly improbable that the theory of life originating from a primordial soup in an environment full of lightning would be true, it did in fact happen because there was enough time for the right scenarios to come together for it to happen, due to the age of the universe."





The problem is that you are making the 2nd claim so boldly, when you have also made the statement concerning quantum theory and particles reassembling themselves to form anything. What was the issue there again? Improbability.



Contradiction: The universe is supposedly old enough that these improbabilities are not a stumbling block. We should then see evidences throughout the universe of quantum mechanics at work on the broader scale (Yet we only now are scratching the surface?). In fact, with the 'anything-goes' approach to reality set forth by theories of quantum mechanics, the universe should be a train wreck. However, we see quite the opposite. What we actually find is an incredibly old universe that has been so stable that we can be so bold as to make inferences to many things within it concerning their extremely dated origins.


You are picking and choosing what is too improbable and what isn't.

 

[Exorcet]

Source? And you do realize that if the universe is infinite then everything should have already happened?

The universe is 13 billion years old, not infinite years old. The source for the math is any probability book or person with a math degree.

Example: "It is possible that you could strike a rock with the right amount of lightning and it could turn into a functional Formula 1 car. This is highly improbable, but possible through the theory of quantum mechanics and the possibility of enough time."

Yes.

Example: (summary) "Though it is highly improbable that the theory of life originating from a primordial soup in an environment full of lightning would be true, it did in fact happen because there was enough time for the right scenarios to come together for it to happen, due to the age of the universe."

No

Example: (summary) "It is highly improbable that the theory of life originating from a primordial soup in an environment full of lightning (more generally, energy and lack of thermal equilibrium) would be true, since models using chemistry do predict the development of life, and the age of the universe allow processes like those modeled to have happened in the past."

This is more like it

Contradiction: The universe is supposedly old enough that these improbabilities are not a stumbling block. We should then see evidences throughout the universe of quantum mechanics at work on the broader scale (Yet we only now are scratching the surface?). In fact, with the 'anything-goes' approach to reality set forth by theories of quantum mechanics, the universe should be a train wreck. However, we see quite the opposite. What we actually find is an incredibly old universe that has been so stable that we can be so bold as to make inferences to many things within it concerning their extremely dated origins.


You are picking and choosing what is too improbable and what isn't.

There is no contradiction, there is no picking and choosing. F1 cars are not life. That's where you're getting yourself mixed up.

 

[Dapper]

Any non zero probability event has a 100% chance of occurring with infinite time.

Speaking hypothetically, right? Because time isn't infinite, time is a construct.

 

[Sach]

The universe is 13 billion years old, not infinite years old. The source for the math is any probability book or person with a math degree.


There is no contradiction, there is no picking and choosing. F1 cars are not life. That's where you're getting yourself mixed up.

I'm not saying they are, and I'm not mixed up in the slightest. You did not understand my post if this is truly your response to it.




And to put a date on the origin of the universe opens a whole other can of worms for another thread. Also, it is only a matter of your opinion that life came from a primordial ooze. Edit the post however you want, it doesn't add anything to it's validity. It is merely a theory, despite the popularity it has among those who want to do whatever they want.

 

[niky]

I agree that science isn't philosophy, but can you discuss the existence of a deity without using philosophy?

Yes, you can. If that deity has a physical manifestation, science can be used to study that manifestation.

Often I have been accused for using 'the god of the gaps' in arguments, but maybe you are doing something similar with just saying 'evolution did it'. I admit evolution is a strong theory (I still have yet to make up my kind if I accept it or not) but perhaps you are ignoring fascinating topics such as consciousness itself and how or why we are conscious. I remember a scientist saying that nobody knows what consciousness, or energy actually is. I'm sorry I can't find any links about that at the moment.

Again, wrong thread for Evolution.

And we know what energy is, and what the carrier particles for energy are. You're talking about consciousness. Yes, we don't entirely understand consciousness, though we know the physical processes (chemical, hormonal, neural) that go into it. But that is simply a gap in the knowledge that is being worked on. It's very difficult to study a purely subjective phenomenon.

I have admitted that God's existence cannot be proven. I am attempting to use science (or the natural world) to make the idea of a deity more plausible (to the atheist).

I don't accept that last point. I hope I have explained why in this, along with other previous posts.

You can't use science to make a Deity more plausible any more than you can use science to make the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster more plausible.

-

You haven't sufficiently explained why you believe the Universe is fine-tuned for life instead of the other way around.

Here's the problem. The Universe is perfect for life-as-we-know-it. But we don't know what other conditions could produce some form of life.

It's the same here on Earth. The Earth is perfectly suited for our form of life. But that is because our form of life developed on Earth. We don't know if it's possible for life to have developed on the moon Europa, for example... or if there is evidence of fossilized bacteria waiting for us somewhere on Mars.

You are picking and choosing what is too improbable and what isn't.

You're misunderstanding levels of improbability.

You're trying to simplify a process that took billions of years, followed logical chains of chemical processes and interactions, ocurring within ideal conditions for those processes to occur, to life springing whole from an inanimate object whose constituent particles (again, mostly silicone) don't actually occur in living organisms in large amounts.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm not saying they are, and I'm not mixed up in the slightest. You did not understand my post if this is truly your response to it.

You are, clearly, because you compared F1 cars to life. Maybe it's my fault for wording it as I did. But here's the issue:

You're trying to simplify a process that took billions of years, followed logical chains of chemical processes and interactions, ocurring within ideal conditions for those processes to occur, to life springing whole from an inanimate object whose constituent particles (again, mostly silicone) don't actually occur in living organisms in large amounts.

And to put a date on the origin of the universe opens a whole other can of worms for another thread. Also, it is only a matter of your opinion that life came from a primordial ooze. Edit the post however you want, it doesn't add anything to it's validity. It is merely a theory, despite the popularity it has among those who want to do whatever they want.

Well, ignore the date, but I never claimed the universe to be infinitely old, though it may be even if its current form isn't. Abiogenesis is a "mere" theory yes. That does not make it weak though. It's still the closest to the truth we've come.

 

[Sach]

Someone in this thread claimed they believed the universe to be infinitely old, I thought was Exorcet.


Either way, 13 billion years is enough time to make the comparison with quantum mechanics.


Thirteen... billion... years. We should have observed something larger than particles on the quark-level displaying these attributes.


I'm not denying the existence of quantum mechanics. In fact, I believe they point toward the truth that you will never get to the bottom of it, you will never comprehend God, it's an infinite wild-goose chase, literally.

 

[TankAss95]

I'm not denying the existence of quantum mechanics. In fact, I believe they point toward the truth that you will never get to the bottom of it, you will never comprehend God, it's an infinite wild-goose chase, literally.

The more we understand the harder it gets.

And I don't think God is observable, but he is either infinitely simple or infinitely complex, either way we cannot understand him.

 

[niky]

Thirteen... billion... years. We should have observed something larger than particles on the quark-level displaying these attributes.

Unfortunately, quantum physics says no. Such interactions always occur on the subatomic level. Matter and anti-matter particle spontaneously generate, then spontaneously annihilate.

I'm not denying the existence of quantum mechanics. In fact, I believe they point toward the truth that you will never get to the bottom of it, you will never comprehend God, it's an infinite wild-goose chase, literally.

Unfortunately, it points towards the possibility that reality is not only stranger than we believe, but stranger than we can believe.

 

[CSLACR]

There is a finite but non-zero probability of a Formula One car spontaneously occuring.

I'd like to know how there is higher then a zero probability of this.

To my limited knowledge in this subject, the particles that spontaneously generate are of a single type,(at a time) whereas an F1 car is made up of many different things.
So assuming I'm correct, that particles don't generate spontaneously into things made up of all kinds of different materials, it would not be possible for any particles group to spontaneously turn into an F1 car. (made of metals, rubber, etc)

Speaking hypothetically, right? Because time isn't infinite, time is a construct.

When does time stop?

 

[jtv90069]

There are many God's. Everyday millions of people around the world wake up believing that their God is real in their hearts and minds. Their belief that they are being guided by their God gives that God actions.
A single person that truly believes in Aphrodite (she's hot) gives the goddess her existence and actions on our world.
If everyone stopped believing then they would become just another part of history and have no existence.

 

[CSLACR]

I agree.

 

[Sach]

Unfortunately, it points towards the possibility that reality is not only stranger than we believe, but stranger than we can believe.

Not unfortunate at all, my friend.


Also, I did not say this (from your previous post). I believe it was TankAss?

Scientist: I am here, I exist and can trust my consciousness, and I believe that the universe is intelligible and can be studied.

So scientists are all men of faith.

 

[Sach]

Their belief that they are being guided by their God gives that God actions.

Source?

A single person that truly believes in Aphrodite (she's hot) gives the goddess her existence and actions on our world.
If everyone stopped believing then they would become just another part of history and have no existence.

People don't believe in her anymore (generalization), but she still 'exists'.


*sorry for double-post

 

[jtv90069]

No, it will not. And that is not math, it's utter hogwash. To stick with my example - I don't care how many times you strike a rock with lightning, it will never become a functional Formula 1 car.

I agree, however expose a Formula 1 car to the elements(wind,water) for long enough it will evolve into a rock.

no source sach, just my perceptions. Although you could even pick someone finding a dollar on the footpath and believing their god led them to find it.