Before the bang

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by Porkchop Avenger

With that in mind, what have you perceived in the material word that has no purpose?

Purposeless in what sense? Like vestigial organs? Or the man in India that was born with an extra finger on his left hand? The word purpose is too vague, and like I said before, unscientific. That wasn't even my point, my point is that when we get to thinking about things on a cosmic level, human intuition is no longer very useful. So arguments that contain "seems like" and "makes more sense" are much less effective that agruments created from scientific data and observation that DO operate on a cosmic level.


What I'm trying to say is, common sense by itself is not a useful tool for discussing things so far outside the normal human experience.

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Purposeless in what sense? Like vestigial organs? Or the man in India that was born with an extra finger on his left hand? The word purpose is too vague, and like I said before, unscientific. That wasn't even my point, my point is that when we get to thinking about things on a cosmic level, human intuition is no longer very useful. So arguments that contain "seems like" and "makes more sense" are much less effective that agruments created from scientific data and observation that DO operate on a cosmic level.


What I'm trying to say is, common sense by itself is not a useful tool for discussing things so far outside the normal human experience.

What a difference an explanation makes

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Purposeless in what sense? Like vestigial organs? Or the man in India that was born with an extra finger on his left hand? The word purpose is too vague, and like I said before, unscientific. That wasn't even my point, my point is that when we get to thinking about things on a cosmic level, human intuition is no longer very useful. So arguments that contain "seems like" and "makes more sense" are much less effective that agruments created from scientific data and observation that DO operate on a cosmic level.

What I'm trying to say is, common sense by itself is not a useful tool for discussing things so far outside the normal human experience.

Your problem is that you're trying to use scientific methods to solve a completely unscientific question. Belief in God is based on faith, and faith is by definition belief without proof. Trying to prove something to somebody who believes an idea without any proof is ultimately futile, just as somebody trying to use philosophy to debunk a believer in science is futile. If you are going to persuade someone that there is no God, you have to use their language to do it. It's like trying to win an argument with a Chinese farm worker by screaming at him in English; no matter how many times you say it, it won't penetrate.

[transplant]

I kept seeing this thread and thought that it was about the abuses both, mentally and physically, suffered by female fluffers on porn sets.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

The short version is that rather than attribute the things we don't understand to God,

But I am not doing that and many others are not either - the argument isn't "hmm - I don't understand this - must be god" rather it is "there is too much order here to have been a product of random chance it suggests design" obviously more complicated when fully fleshed out but that's the thumbnail

Originally Posted by Dionysos

I simply leave them as unknown. Where you see the lack of an explanation as evidence of a supernatural presence,

I don't though - I see it as unknown

Originally Posted by Dionysos

I see a question with no answer(yet). I don't rule out God as a possibility, but I don't default to a deity simply because there isn't an alternative explanation out there.

again - you're attributing a god of the gaps notion to me that I do not hold...

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Yes, exactly! With the limits of our perception and knowedge, trying to argue someting like "everything has to have been created with a purpose, because it makes more sense or seems more right" is like a blind guy arguing about the color of the sky.

I didn't say everything has to be created with a purpose - hell - look at the Arizona Cardinals for refutation of that notion.

another simple way of saying what I'm saying is that order doesn't materialize out of chaos without help - that doesn't preclude randomness from happening

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

I didn't say everything has to be created with a purpose - hell - look at the Arizona Cardinals for refutation of that notion.

The Cardinals have a purpose: God hates Matt Leinart and wants him to suffer.

Originally Posted by xian

another simple way of saying what I'm saying is that order doesn't materialize out of chaos without help - that doesn't preclude randomness from happening

Is it really possible for it to be random if there's an order, especially if you think it was helped along? And are you sure it's random instead of there being an order you simply can't comprehend?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

The Cardinals have a purpose: God hates Matt Leinart and wants him to suffer.

Sucks to be Matt

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Is it really possible for it to be random if there's an order, especially if you think it was helped along? And are you sure it's random instead of there being an order you simply can't comprehend?

1) why not? A roulette wheel generates a random result w/in a closed system. Maybe it works like that? I don't know. I'm just not ruling anything out.

2) sure it is possible but that's part of what science does - it explains the order in chaos and I'm relying on them doing so to support my argument. You still have it in reverse. I'm not saying that the lack of order is explainable by pointing at God. I'm saying the lack of order needs explanation. I'm saying complex order arising out of apparent chaos suggests design or intent. The argument is self-fulfilling Jonny. If everything is order then God. If no order then no God.. The more order the more likely God.

[SmoothHeavy]

http://www.junjan.org/weblog/images/...ster-thumb.jpg

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Your problem is that you're trying to use scientific methods to solve a completely unscientific question. Belief in God is based on faith, and faith is by definition belief without proof. Trying to prove something to somebody who believes an idea without any proof is ultimately futile, just as somebody trying to use philosophy to debunk a believer in science is futile. If you are going to persuade someone that there is no God, you have to use their language to do it. It's like trying to win an argument with a Chinese farm worker by screaming at him in English; no matter how many times you say it, it won't penetrate.

Hey!..wait...what? What are you talking about? When did I say there was no God?

The problem is not that I am trying to convince someone that their leap of faith is incorrect according to science, (I wouldn't do that, though I would argue that is both irresponsible and ultimately immoral, but that's another issue altogether) if its truly a LEAP of faith, it needs no justifiication. The problem is that some try and justify their leap of faith by attempting to defend it in pseudo-scientific or philosphical terms where I feel it does not hold weight.

Leave it to xian to open up a can of worms by bringing up intelligent design. : ) Actually, it's probably my fault for mentioing creationism in the first place.

To me, the notion that all order comes from conscious design is not self-evident. In fact, as far as i can tell, no order comes from conscious design, because of the law of entropy. For example, if I alphabatize a set of books, the energy I expend to move the books, think about them, the wear and tear of the books, the dissipation of heat around me, etc, results in there being less overall order in the universe than there was before I started. Human beings cannot actually create order, at best they can slightly lesson ( and I mean almost immeasurably lesson) the degree to which the universe seems to be spiraling OUT of order, a trend as old as the big bang.


But..most importantly..this stuff is fun to argue about!

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Leave it to xian to open up a can of worms by bringing up intelligent design. : ) Actually, it's probably my fault for mentioing creationism in the first place.

yup your fault

ID is a theory - it is a suggestion offered to explain something. It is not fact. It is interesting to talk about but we're not about to demonstrate the truth of it... ever.

As you noted - faith is faith and it requires no justification. Quite rather demanding proof mitigates faith. I would agree that justyifying faith by pointing to ID or an archeological find etc etc is a demand of proof.

Originally Posted by Xodiac

To me, the notion that all order comes from conscious design is not self-evident. In fact, as far as i can tell, no order comes from conscious design, because of the law of entropy.

Well, the paper airplane I just folded came from concious design and I've yet to see one evolve on my desk out of tree branches... or out of anything else for that matter.

Yes, entropy tells us that things fall apart which is precisely why the existence of complicated structures suggests design or cause.

Life is complex. DNA is complex. etc etc

Originally Posted by Xodiac

For example, if I alphabatize a set of books, the energy I expend to move the books, think about them, the wear and tear of the books, the dissipation of heat around me, etc, results in there being less overall order in the universe than there was before I started. Human beings cannot actually create order, at best they can slightly lesson ( and I mean almost immeasurably lesson) the degree to which the universe seems to be spiraling OUT of order, a trend as old as the big bang.

blah blah blah

Originally Posted by Xodiac

But..most importantly..this stuff is fun to argue about!

yes - yes it is

[Xodiac]

Well, the paper airplane I just folded came from concious design and I've yet to see one evolve on my desk out of tree branches... or out of anything else for that matter.

Yes, but in expending the energy to fold the plane, the universe became more disorderly, so in the end all you did was contribute to the chaos and loss of information.

You are on to someting though, you're right, the plane did not "fold itself", it is the result of a process that YOU folded it, and for the happen you had to have been born, ancestors to have evolved from more primitive life, and so on and so forth. So I'll concede that there is sort of an information undercurrent of life set against this backdrop of entropy, a chain reaction that maybe we can call the result of life to which we humans attach significance. But this process extends all the way back to microbes and single celled organisms, who have no "intent " to speak of, or perhaps no consciousness, depending on how one defines it. Would asexual reproduction of single celled organisms fit into the definition of intelligent design? I'm honestly not sure either way.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

Yes, but in expending the energy to fold the plane, the universe became more disorderly, so in the end all you did was contribute to the chaos and loss of information.

Or maybe slow it an inconsequential amount?

Isn't it true that the airplane is still more complicated than the original piece of paper - even if the universe as a whole still progressed toward complete chaos?

If the universe is traveling towards complete chaos doesn't that permit us to look backward and suggest that therefore more order existed in the past - of such a complicated degree that it couldn;'t have simply been the product of chance?

Originally Posted by Xodiac

You are on to someting though, you're right, the plane did not "fold itself", it is the result of a process that YOU folded it, and for the happen you had to have been born, ancestors to have evolved from more primitive life, and so on and so forth. So I'll concede that there is sort of an information undercurrent of life set against this backdrop of entropy, a chain reaction that maybe we can call the result of life to which we humans attach significance. But this process extends all the way back to microbes and single celled organisms, who have no "intent " to speak of, or perhaps no consciousness, depending on how one defines it. Would asexual reproduction of single celled organisms fit into the definition of intelligent design? I'm honestly not sure either way.

How about this... how did those single celled organisms that just popped into existence with full blow DNA know that they needed to 1) eat 2) poop 3) make babies etc for life to continue?

Is there any evidence of 'life" that sprung into existence that forgot a step in that list such that they failed?

Where is the evidence of those things not yet life but between clearly not life and life? Ditto DNA. Further, did it only happen that one time and all life evolved from there? If not, where is the evidence of those other failed attempts - even conjectural evidence or purely theoretical evidence... I don't even need concrete evidence - just a working theory. Is there one? I'm not asking rhetorical questions - I've really no frigging clue. However, I am suggesting evolution explains how life changed but does not speak to how it originated. The question of how/why life is not simple. It would seem to me a greater leap to suggest that DNA/life randomly materialized (or was the product of amino acid soup getting hit with lightning) than to suggest that some one did it on purpose.

[Xodiac]

Originally Posted by xian

Or maybe slow it an inconsequential amount?

Isn't it true that the airplane is still more complicated than the original piece of paper - even if the universe as a whole still progressed toward complete chaos?

If the universe is traveling towards complete chaos doesn't that permit us to look backward and suggest that therefore more order existed in the past - of such a complicated degree that it couldn;'t have simply been the product of chance?



How about this... how did those single celled organisms that just popped into existence with full blow DNA know that they needed to 1) eat 2) poop 3) make babies etc for life to continue?

Is there any evidence of 'life" that sprung into existence that forgot a step in that list such that they failed?

Where is the evidence of those things not yet life but between clearly not life and life? Ditto DNA. Further, did it only happen that one time and all life evolved from there? If not, where is the evidence of those other failed attempts - even conjectural evidence or purely theoretical evidence... I don't even need concrete evidence - just a working theory. Is there one? I'm not asking rhetorical questions - I've really no frigging clue. However, I am suggesting evolution explains how life changed but does not speak to how it originated. The question of how/why life is not simple. It would seem to me a greater leap to suggest that DNA/life randomly materialized (or was the product of amino acid soup getting hit with lightning) than to suggest that some one did it on purpose.

That's actually a great question. I remember in my historical geology class, my prof was beginning to talk about evolution, and the beginning of DNA. He said there were four baisc steps to create life from non-living things. I wish I could remember what the four steps were, but first several involved the creation of protein chains and DNA, but he said "the only one we don't understand yet is the fourth step" which had to do with actualy genetic coding and reproduction. He made it seem like it was just one little step, but I couldn't help but think...you know..that's a pretty big LEAP.

But, don't you think assuming saying it's either random or somebody did it on purpose is a bit closed minded? I just say that life is some kind of miracle, and don't try to get any more specific than that.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Xodiac

That's actually a great question. I remember in my historical geology class, my prof was beginning to talk about evolution, and the beginning of DNA. He said there were four baisc steps to create life from non-living things. I wish I could remember what the four steps were, but first several involved the creation of protein chains and DNA, but he said "the only one we don't understand yet is the fourth step" which had to do with actualy genetic coding and reproduction. He made it seem like it was just one little step, but I couldn't help but think...you know..that's a pretty big LEAP.

The experiment that create the amino acids in the vat of goo have been pretty much a dead end. I recall reading that the guy that started that line of research as backed off from suggesting that it shows any promise of demonstrating how DNA was formed.

That last step though - that's the real kicker - information xodiac - information. How does a chemcical become a memory or a data packet or an instruction or recipe step?

But, like Jonny said, there may well be some nmatural process that we don't understand that lead to this - we just don't have any evidence of it and the awfully big leap suggests to me that some one did it rarther than it just happened is a more likely. But again, as I keep conceeding - that suggestion can never be proven.

Originally Posted by Xodiac

But, don't you think assuming saying it's either random or somebody did it on purpose is a bit closed minded? I just say that life is some kind of miracle, and don't try to get any more specific than that.

Well, is there an option other than 1) on purpose 2) not on purpose?

I think you may be right that its greedy to demand an answer that it is either 1 or 2 but I don't see it as close minded unless you can offer alternative choices.

[Xmuzik]

they cover some of this on the dvd " Elegant Universe " which is pretty much about string theory, relativity, electromagnetism, the theory of everything, etc.

all in all they cover a wide range of interesting topics, you should check it out

Originally Posted by Porkchop Avenger

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-04/cover/

Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a radical idea that could wipe away these mysteries. They theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. What we think of as the Big Bang, they contend, was the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from ours—right next to us, and yet displaced in a way that renders it invisible. Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew. The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this endless expanse of time.