TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- God and Evolution..
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 The problem is just that there is a limit to science. What are subatomic particles made of? Wouldn't you say that there is a point, where science does not have the answers - yet? That is where belief begins and that is where god belongs, imho.

Is there? Of course there is a limit to what we'll likely know in our lifetime, but I would never place any limits as to what science can ultimately determine given enough time. Do you think there will ever be a day when the scientists simply run out of things to study or know and become laborers?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Of course there is a limit to what we'll likely know in our lifetime

that is what i am talking about. There are things that we do not know at this point, and for those things, we have religion to help us. I guess.

quote:

, but I would never place any limits as to what science can ultimately determine given enough time.

that is a question. Maybe there is something that is just plain indeterminable?

quote:

Do you think there will ever be a day when the scientists simply run out of things to study or know and become laborers?

not really, but i think there might be things that just cannot be explained. at some point, there might be a limit to what you can explain?

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 well, isn't that the scientific method. One tries deduce rules about behavior. These based on observations and verified using repeatable experiments. Nowadays one might have to add that these experiements are repeatable within the same reference frame (remembering that tunnel/ train question a while ago), but that doesn't change the underlying principle. The problem is just that there is a limit to science. What are subatomic particles made of? Wouldn't you say that there is a point, where science does not have the answers - yet? That is where belief begins and that is where god belongs, imho.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're asking me. If it was just a general question, then yes, there is a point where science does not have the answers yet, and that is where your belief comes into play. That doesn't mean that there is no objective truth, though, it just means we don't know it yet.

Even if there's a bearded old man in the sky calling the shots and making particles move, it would still be an objective truth if it could ever be proven. I don't think existentialism would hold up too well as a defense in court...

I've never tried to say that there's no place in this world for faith or religious beliefs. I just think that organized religion is a sham - and besides, "God" throughout history has been used to describe phenomena that are now commonly understood but weren't in ancient times, so I would be very hesitant to try and use that explanation for currently unexplainable phenomena.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Don't want to be pissing anyone off here, but I've always thought of existentialism as a lot of bollocks. I mean, the idea itself has some merit, but it's been twisted and distorted far too often in order to qualify unprovable theories or notions using the relativist fallacy.

Well I was speaking more of postmodernism/poststructuralism

quote:

The word "table" may be a human creation, but no matter what you call it, it's still a table in the physical sense. Changing its name doesn't change what it is.

I was suggesting it was constantly undergoing construction, rather than "created". A table to you is slightly different to a table to me. Of course there must be some consensus other wise communication would be impossible/pointless.

quote:

Science may be full of "subjective" definitions and terms, but it's still based on observable behaviour, and that behaviour doesn't change no matter how the science is applied. One might say that the birth of quantum physics proved classical physics "wrong", but that's not correct; classical physics still perfectly explains physical behaviour on a macro scale, which is exactly what the science was intended to do. Quantum mechanics just explains how classical mechanics work on a subatomic level, it doesn't show up classical mechanics as "subjective" or prove it to be any less "true."

Scientific discourse is far less objective than it first appears. I had some great material on this I'll dig it up later

quote:

Maybe that example seems irrelevant, but my point is, it's easy to get caught up in semantics about truth, but simply stated, the difference between objective and subjective truth is exactly what you'd expect: objective truth is based on the object, subjective truth is based on the subject (i.e. yourself). I think it's stretching it a bit to say that only the most ignorant people think an objective truth exists.

But objects don't exist in a vacuum and when we observe them we inevitably impose our own definitions on them and construct them.

quote:

Deeply philosophical topics are supposed to be debated with accepted logical principles, not used to trivialize them. Unfortunately, certain topics seem to exist for the sole purpose of defying common logic...

Just to play devil's advocate... are you sugesting science can be used to asess philosophy, yet philosophy can't be used to analyse science?


Again... I highly value logic and science and usually approach arguments from that direction... but i have recently begun to see some value in the postmodern paradigm.... Just provoking some thought (aka stirring up shit)

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I don't think existentialism would hold up too well as a defense in court...

To a true existentialist it wouldn't matter, as long as he didn't act in bad faith (read Camus' The Outsider).

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy Scientific discourse is far less objective than it first appears. I had some great material on this I'll dig it up later

Well it all depends what research you are talking about. If you mean stuff like "Why Windows is cheaper to run than Linux - sponsored by Microsoft Corp." then yes, there is BAD science, but in its essence science research is bound to be objective, because the observations need to be repeatable.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy I was suggesting it was constantly undergoing construction, rather than "created". A table to you is slightly different to a table to me. Of course there must be some consensus other wise communication would be impossible/pointless.

Are we talking about this in the cognitive science sense? Yes, we both have a different mental image when someone says or writes "table". But in terms of scientific laws, the principles and mathematics used to describe them either model the behaviour correctly or they don't, and there's a limit to how subjective you can say this is. Are you going to tell me that gravity works in reverse for some people, and that falling objects aren't an objective truth?

quote:

But objects don't exist in a vacuum and when we observe them we inevitably impose our own definitions on them and construct them.

Actually, objects do exist in a vaccuum.

quote:

Empty space, when examined with quantum theory on a sufficiently small distance scale, is not empty at all. Even at nuclear dimensions (10-13 cm) empty space is filled with particle-antiparticle pairs that are continually flashing into a brief existence, bankrolled on the credit of borrowed mass-energy, only to wink out of existence again as the law of conservation of energy reasserts itself. If the length-scale is contracted to a size appropriate to quantum gravity (10-33 cm) this quantum fireworks intensifies to a "quantum foam" of violent fluctuations in the topology and geometry of space itself.

Courtesy of Google and John G. Cramer. This is just a theory, but there's lots of info available on it and a fair bit of supporting evidence.

As for imposing definitions, again, there's a difference between imposing definitions (which religion often does), and extracting definitions (i.e. creating them from repeatably observable behaviour).

quote:

Just to play devil's advocate... are you sugesting science can be used to asess philosophy, yet philosophy can't be used to analyse science?

Don't associate logic with science - there's a world of difference between the two. And no, I do not believe that philosophy can be used to assess logic, because it depends on logic to exist. I'm sure that any philosophy course will introduce you to things like "how to construct a logical proof", and the many logical fallacies that are out there.

I hear what you're saying though, and nothing wrong with stirring up shit as long as you're prepared to have it shaken too.

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 Well it all depends what research you are talking about. If you mean stuff like "Why Windows is cheaper to run than Linux - sponsored by Microsoft Corp." then yes, there is BAD science, but in its essence science research is bound to be objective, because the observations need to be repeatable.

Exactly - and there's a popular term called "junk science" that's used to describe these things (also used to describe things like chocolate causing acne). Google "junk science" and you'll find some interesting stuff.

However, you can't use this to reflect on science as a whole, otherwise you're committing the composition fallacy (read above).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Actually, objects do exist in a vaccuum.

I think I didn't express myself clearly. Of course I realise that objects can physically exist in a vacuum. But I was speaking figuratively. I meant a conceptual (?) vacuum. In the sense that.. if you see a knee-high boot you may instantly think "only a slut would wear that"... your concept of the boot has been constructed by culture, society and your upbringing. A person from a different culture might see it as something "classy" or elegant. A shoemaker might see it as poorly made, a Masai tribesman might see it as impractical etc....
In the same way you don't define "table" by its physical description... you automatically have certain associations with it. In that sence it does not exist in a "vacuum" other things always surround it and affect its definition.

There are many philosophical works dealing with logic and various systems of logic... I'm not an expert on this but i think most of them are written by philosophers with a background in Mathematics.

PS - I stir up shit to have it shaken in return... as long as it is shaken by someone who has something worthwhile to say (which includes most members of this forum including yourself)

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut People should really be taught about logical fallacies in school. It occurred to me reading this thread that a lot of people haven't been educated on the topic (not knowing the meaning of straw man, ad hominem, etc.)

Agreed. Teaching people how to reason should be given much higher priority than teaching them facts...

In any case, not there was anything wrong with the list you posted, but here's a more complete resource on fallacious arguments:

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay.../arguments.html

quote:

Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion): the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect. For example, someone looked at a picture on one of my web pages, and made a complaint which showed that he hadn't even skimmed through the words on the page. When I pointed this out, he replied that I shouldn't have had such a confusing picture.

I never knew that this had a formal definition... how many times have I seen THIS!!!

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy I think I didn't express myself clearly. Of course I realise that objects can physically exist in a vacuum. But I was speaking figuratively. I meant a conceptual (?) vacuum.

I'm not sure what you mean by "conceptual" vacuum, but if you're talking about "absolute nothingness" where no matter or energy or anything else exists, then that's really a concept devised by religion - there is no such thing, and there is no evidence to support that there ever was. A vacuum may appear to be nothing on a macro scale, but as you've stated yourself, a person's observation of that vacuum is subject to a certain level of interpretation and may not be the complete objective truth. Using this to infer that there is no objective truth, however, is either incorrect or lacking a step in logic [we don't know the objective truth, therefore there is no objective truth].

quote:

In the sense that.. if you see a knee-high boot you may instantly think "only a slut would wear that"... your concept of the boot has been constructed by culture, society and your upbringing. A person from a different culture might see it as something "classy" or elegant. A shoemaker might see it as poorly made, a Masai tribesman might see it as impractical etc....

Yes, but again, you're talking about the subjective interpretation. "Impractical", "Classy", "slutty" etc. are all in the mind of the observer. However, it certainly has some objective properties: its colour, its height, its shape, the material it's made from, and so on.

Are you going to tell me that one person thinks it's 6" high and the other thinks it's 10" high, and both of them can be correct because its height is "subjective?" I think the value of existentialism is significantly diminished under such circumstances (i.e. when talking about observable or measurable behaviour).

Supporting the existentialist argument to claim the subjectivity of modern science is to commit the most egregious of generalizations: "Some things are subjective, therefore all things are subjective."

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Are you going to tell me that one person thinks it's 6" high and the other thinks it's 10" high, and both of them can be correct because its height is "subjective?" I think the value of existentialism is significantly diminished under such circumstances (i.e. when talking about observable or measurable behaviour). Supporting the existentialist argument to claim the subjectivity of modern science is to commit the most egregious of generalizations: "Some things are subjective, therefore all things are subjective."

Firstly I don't think existentialism deals with teh scientific discourse. It is more concerned with institutions that attempt to "objectivise" those things that are traditionally seen as subjective truths (eg. morality) - this leads people to act in "bad faith" by avoiding responsibility for their actions (ie. "the bible says that this was my only option therefore i had no choice in the matter, but to act the way i did"). Instead the existentialist realises that existence precedes essence for humans (unlike other objects) and that therefore there is always a choice... we are all "condemned to choose" and abandoned to carry teh responsibility for the consequences of our actions. In this sense existentialism in fact draws the line between objetive and subjective truths quite clearly. So I don't think discussing existentialism is relevant here.

Poststructuralism and postmodernism however question the very structure of language and ask whether it is possible to achieve any form of "objective" truth. The argument is clearly imperfect since if there was no such thing as meaning there would be no point writing treatises on meaning .

When I spoke of vacuum... I'm talking in terms of the concepts which shape our definitions of things - an abstract concept not related to phyics in any way... a vacuum of meaning. In fact the nature of language itself shapes your concept of the world. In some eastern languages, for example, there is a word for "younger sister" and another word for "older sister" but no word for simply "sister" or "sibling"; The Innuit allegedly have a plethora of words in common usage that describe "snow"; There are languages where brown and blue are considered teh same color etc...
While science is clearly more objective than philosophy, one does have to wonder how much of the scientific community's preconceptions determine which theories are accepted and which aren't.

PS - Back on te topic.. so far there has been a great deal of creationists on this board looking for holes in evolution. Since you have adopted Scientific methodology, your aim is not merely to show that evolution may have some holes, but to demonstrate that creationism is a superior theory... so far i have seen very little on this board or otherwise that addresses this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy Firstly I don't think existentialism deals with teh scientific discourse. It is more concerned with institutions that attempt to "objectivise" those things that are traditionally seen as subjective truths (eg. morality) - this leads people to act in "bad faith" by avoiding responsibility for their actions (ie. "the bible says that this was my only option therefore i had no choice in the matter, but to act the way i did"). Instead the existentialist realises that existence precedes essence for humans (unlike other objects) and that therefore there is always a choice... we are all "condemned to choose" and abandoned to carry teh responsibility for the consequences of our actions. In this sense existentialism in fact draws the line between objetive and subjective truths quite clearly. So I don't think discussing existentialism is relevant here.

Ah, I stand corrected. In this case I agree with you then, I don't believe that there is or ever can be an absolute moral standard, and organized religion has been the basis for much hypocrisy in that regard.

quote:

Poststructuralism and postmodernism however question the very structure of language and ask whether it is possible to achieve any form of "objective" truth. The argument is clearly imperfect since if there was no such thing as meaning there would be no point writing treatises on meaning .

Makes sense to me... again, don't want to piss anyone off, but I've always thought of poststructuralism as "junk philosophy" just like scientology is "junk science." It doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to provide a catchall argument for the ignorant (that may be true for you, but it's not true for me). Besides which, claiming the lack of any objective truth to be an objective truth is an inherently self-defeating argument.

quote:

While science is clearly more objective than philosophy, one does have to wonder how much of the scientific community's preconceptions determine which theories are accepted and which aren't.

While I do see where you're going with this, the scientific method tends to ensure that bias won't get in the way of those things. That's why there are formal methods of proof. Now, philosophy is supposed to follow a similar formal method of logical proof, but a lot of these undergrad "philosophy majors" and self-proclaimed experts must have skipped over that part of the course, because they can't seem to put together a coherent argument. And that applies to the next thing you say:

quote:

PS - Back on te topic.. so far there has been a great deal of creationists on this board looking for holes in evolution. Since you have adopted Scientific methodology, your aim is not merely to show that evolution may have some holes, but to demonstrate that creationism is a superior theory... so far i have seen very little on this board or otherwise that addresses this issue.

Which is exactly true. This is why many of us talk about "positive, testable, and falsifiable to the contrary" evidence. That's the scientific method. To "prove" a theory, any theory, you need evidence that's positive (i.e. supports your theory, not just attacks someone else's), testable (as in physically observable, not just rhetoric), and falsifiable to the contrary (the theory can't also be used to explain the exact opposite of what it's attempting to explain, otherwise it becomes a catchall argument). Creationists and evangelists love to misrepresent scienctific theories as mere philosophy, but the fact remains that even if they were mere philosophy, a neverending discourse composed of numerous logical fallacies is not sufficient to argue a philosophical standpoint. There are ways of presenting a logical argument, even when there is no scientific proof, and I haven't seen this done by any Creationist.

Back on topic, I've never known scientific american to be so harsh

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...umber=1&catID=2

interesting article, nothing really solid enough to change a creationists mind though Im still a firm believer in two things

1) God
2) That people believe what they believe because they want to hehe.

interesting read though, and yeah, that title is pretty rough haha.

I'm curious as to why some people think that belief in God automatically implies belief in Creationism. I mean, what's wrong with saying that God (whoever or whatever that is) was watching the Earth throughout history and maybe decided to take a particular interest in our species?

The article mentions that some teachers want to bring Creationism to the classroom in order to pave the way for discussions about God. I wonder if this is true in the general sense - hundreds of years ago, people didn't understand living phenomena too well, so Creationism would have been a great vehicle to move religion, providing "answers" to the masses.

Belief in God doesn't necessarily imply belief that "he" created everything... there are other religions out there that believe in God but don't tell any tall tales about the Origin of the Universe or the Fall of Man or the Son of God. I see Creationism used more often as a tool to convince people that their God exists, and I can see why they'd want to defend it - after all, how else could you "prove" to people that God exists and wants you to come to church every Sunday and donate $50 to your priest?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Belief in God doesn't necessarily imply belief that "he" created everything...

maybe he did. He said, well why don't I let E=mc^2 and create everything from strings.. that should boggle their minds a bit.

or maybe he said "rm -f *" way back when and then rebooted the universe (aka big bang)

ok ok.. i know 'bad jokes'

http://www.dc.uba.ar/people/profesores/becher/ns.html i stole this from another thread... i think it ties in some how ... who knows maybe im just crazy... i think it proves my point though debating this issue is pointless, because you can reason yourself around anything to prove or disprove your point.


...or im loony


oh well

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm curious as to why some people think that belief in God automatically implies belief in Creationism. I mean, what's wrong with saying that God (whoever or whatever that is) was watching the Earth throughout history and maybe decided to take a particular interest in our species? The article mentions that some teachers want to bring Creationism to the classroom in order to pave the way for discussions about God. I wonder if this is true in the general sense - hundreds of years ago, people didn't understand living phenomena too well, so Creationism would have been a great vehicle to move religion, providing "answers" to the masses. Belief in God doesn't necessarily imply belief that "he" created everything... there are other religions out there that believe in God but don't tell any tall tales about the Origin of the Universe or the Fall of Man or the Son of God. I see Creationism used more often as a tool to convince people that their God exists, and I can see why they'd want to defend it - after all, how else could you "prove" to people that God exists and wants you to come to church every Sunday and donate $50 to your priest?

Or indeed, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then could he not have created the laws of science and set actions in force at the start of the universe such that life would develop as it did, via evolution?

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 or maybe he said "rm -f *" way back when and then rebooted the universe (aka big bang)

LOL, for some reason I find that one very funny.

quote:

Originally posted by Bondor http://www.dc.uba.ar/people/profesores/becher/ns.html i stole this from another thread... i think it ties in some how ... who knows maybe im just crazy... i think it proves my point though debating this issue is pointless, because you can reason yourself around anything to prove or disprove your point.

Yes, indeed you stole it from me in another thread. I don't really think it ties in directly, it's just an interesting concept that shows how we don't possess the mathematical concepts to describe certain phenomena, as is often the case with scientific concepts. It's not the only thing that we haven't been able to figure out - try, for example, to integrate the normal (Gaussian) curve mathematically.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy Or indeed, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then could he not have created the laws of science

The laws are just there, so I'd have to say no to that.

quote:

...and set actions in force at the start of the universe such that life would develop as it did, via evolution?

That is something that many Deists and Agnostics entertain the possibility of, so I would say that perhaps it did happen that way, although there's no evidence to prove it. Also, it wouldn't necessarily require omniscience or omnipotence, just highly advanced knowledge and technology.

Everything has something to say and here's my two cents.

I've been exposed to many different religions, from science of the mind which believes that god is a a manifestation of the mind that we control with our thinking (go figure), to intense gospel baptists with the singing and shouting and sermons. What i've come up with is that if there is a god, he's doing a good fucking job cuz we havent completely destroyed ourselves yet and if not it doesnt really matter because people are gonna believe what they want to anyway. Saying there is or isnt a god isnt going to make you a genius cuz i really dont think anyone cares. As for myself, I do beleive there is some guy up there chillin and laughing his ass off at us and even though i have no set religion i try to do a little bit of everything. O and one more thing: you should always be a good person. You know whats right and wrong. Even if there is no god and we all just wasted enormous amounts of time, just be a good person for yourself. It feels good.

quote:

Originally posted by NomadaNare O and one more thing: you should always be a good person. You know whats right and wrong. Even if there is no god and we all just wasted enormous amounts of time, just be a good person for yourself. It feels good.

As do most forms of masturbation, no?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter As do most forms of masturbation, no?

i think we should end this thread on that good note

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God and Evolution..

Damn, I get busy and take a break from the boards and this thread explodes. Took me an hour to catch up.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Even when the argument is about God or Hitler? Oh and about that montie, I have a lot of questions about the story of Adam and Eve as well. Among them: - Why would Adam want a companion, when he was technically a hermaphrodite and had no concept of man or woman? - Why would God create Eve from Adam's rib, when he was an all-powerful being that could have created her instantly from dust? - Having given Adam and Eve the gift of Free Will, what was the purpose of making that tree? Simply to prove that they truly did have Free Will? If so, why the need for extravagance, why not just pick an ordinary "placebo" apple tree and watch the results? - How could Adam and Eve have understood that it would be wrong to disobey God's orders, prior to them having any knowledge of what right or wrong was? Following that, how could God have logically expected them to obey those orders? - According to the story, Adam and Eve hide their privates in fig leaves after discovering right and wrong. Considering that they were the only two humans on the planet and that clothes hadn't been invented yet, how was their nakedness shameful? - Where was the Garden of Eden - surely we must have some vague info on its geographical location? - Doesn't an eternity of damnation for all humanity seem a bit harsh when they didn't understand the rule they were breaking? How can God call himself forgiving under these circumstances? - Through what medium did God communicate with Adam and Eve? - Why should we be forever grateful to a God that has punished us for all eternity because of the mistakes our 50,000-year-old ancestors made?

anyway, Diginut you posted this awhile ago and since I can't answer those all those questions from the Catholic perspective (Its been a couple years since I took theology), I sent them to one of my old teachers who is a theologan and monk and this is his response...

:lots of these questions are based on trying to read Genesis 2-4 in a historical mode
: thats basically not possible.
: the second creation account in genesis is an ancient myth that tries to make sense of the known reality of sin in the world.
dombedeprice: sin is the historical reality, the story in genesis is an attempt to describe how that reality came to be.
: therefore it has inconistencies and things which don't make sense in a strictly historical sense.
: Only protestant fundamentalist believe that genesis represents actual history.
: consider for instance, the fact that the first account of creation and the second account are different.
dombedeprice: genesis 1 was written by a different author than genesis 2-3.
: your last three questions are more interesting.
: first, the whole purpose of the genesis story is that God created all things from nothing. He is the creator of all things, time and space included.
: secondly, sin is a reality however you want to explain it. Its something which comes from us the creature and keeps us from fully understanding God our creator. God doesn't sit around in heaven looking for opportunities to punish us.
: our sins are the thing that causes us to see God as more and more distant. It is actually an illusion. God is just as close to us as he always has been. We are the ones who have turned away from him.
dombedeprice: the key text to understanding god's attitude toward us after the fall is in genesis 3:15. this is called the proto-evangelium
: even at the very moment of the fall, God is already working out a way to make things better again.
: Jesus is the offspring that Gen. 3:15 is talking about, which is one of the reasons that Mary is called the New Eve.

thought that would also be interesting for all the christians out there who hold onto creationism.


anyway theres alot i want to respond to but i'm tired and need to go to sleep.

but

quote:

Originally posted by moth Chew on this: When you are playing golf, you will look at the slopes around the path to the whole, and base how you hit the ball on those slopes to get your desired outcome. Say something out there did want to create the universe, with no mental limitations could you not agree that every desired event for all time could be calculated down to an interaction of subatomic particles? Would you agree that if you knew the exact stage of everything in the universe, you could predict every single event to come for all time? Some of these ideas are hard to comprehend. In simpler terms, you push a ball toward another ball straight on, on a frictionless surface, no angle of incline, air resistance ignored, you know exactly what is going to happen to the other ball when they come in contact. If the conditions never change, and the ball is always rolled the exact same, the result will never change. They ways an organism react due to a certain stimulus are vastly complex and are based one thousands of conditions. BUT, could you not agree it can be calculated? Every single thing in the universe can be traced back to its origin through calculation, possibly converging on a single point in time and space, to a single event on a molecular level? Such an event is 'god'.

excellent point. thats an idea of god i have been thinking about quite a bit. not sure if i necesarily believe in predetermination tho.
one of the concepts i consider as a god as the summation of all particles in the universe or all matter. just as we are made up of cells and particles and molecules and atoms and whatever, we are just a small particle which help make up the major being which is god. and the "big bang" was god creating itself. we are just of gods existance.

too tired to give a good thought out explanation or arguement now tho.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.