Why faith?

Ok, so let us assume that there is no such thing as "randomness". What do we gain? The idea that despite all odds, everything worked out so that life could form? So what's new?

Of course, the "what if" proposals have been "conjectures as to the nature of the universe. There have been numerous conjectures about our origins, and most have been based on observations, but that doesn't mean that they are any more credible. Likewise, many people have claimed to see angels or speak to God or have some form of supernatural experience, so any conjectures involving the supernatural are still based on observation. That doesn't mean they are credible. By creating an argument where there are an infinite number of universes, you are using pure fantasy with no observational evidence to circumvent a statistical analysis. Furthermore, you seem to be agreeing to some extent that randomness is a factor if you rely on an unlimited number of universes that all hold the same "life constants" in order to produce one that actually holds life. If randomness was not an issue, why would any of the universes differ from one another given they were created the same way, had the same starting material, and started with the same "life constants"? Ultimately, if the output isn't the same for every version that has exactly the same inputs, then randomness is a factor. Sure the different systems work together to produce a given output, but why would they not work together in the same way each time unless there was randomness?

And the wonderful "Chaos+Order= 1" lesson is fun, but doesn't add to or change anything that I said.

drgrady

The Chaos+Order=1 was in reference to entropy which you raised, and was to dismiss your attempt to cite that my claim "out of chaos comes order" as illogical. It was to show that your attempt was wrong.

The what if proposals have a framework that religion does not. Empiricism in light of General Relativity (and String Theory if it ever reaches fruition) which provides a basis to extend what we know to explain what we don't yet know. The what ifs are also not exhaustive as they leave out anything involving the 5th-10th dimension or 11th dimension with M-theory, or even two-time models of the universe.

Religious claims of supernatural angels or gods is an attempt to extend what you cannot prove to answer anything you don't know. Unlike empiricism, it uses intuition and revelation which has routinely been incorrect to the downfall of entire religions themselves.

The framework between science and religion differs greatly in terms of precision. Where has religion ever been as precises or as consistently correct? When weighed against each other, religion is an extremely poor and nearly contentless addition to define reality with. It doesn't ascribe to anything other than supernaturalism without first trying to prove that there exists a supernatural.

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Why do I believe in God? Because I don't have enough FAITH, and that's what it is, to not believe in Him. Atheism is a religionand nothing more. They like you to think it is just reason and science. Science can't prove God doesn't exist. Even if evolution were true, and there's no science to prove it is(NONE), that still doesn't prove God doesn't exist. And to be an atheist one still has to explain away the supernatural which is a fact. No matter what religion you are there IS supernatural things that reason can't explain.
dainjah1010

No science to prove evolution huh?

What about

1) fossil evidence

2) bio-geographical Evidence

3) anatomical evidence

a. Vestigial limbs and organs

b Morphology

c. Development 

4) Molecular evidence

a. Endogenous retroviruses

b. Protein functional redundancy

c. Human Chromosome #2

5) Thousands of Peer reviewed papers dealing with evolution.

6) Countless books published on the subject

7) Self funding applications based on evolutionary theory.

Shall I go on or be more specific?

How about you go educate yourself and try again...

I understand where you're coming from on this, but every bit of evidence that I've seen used to support evolution is incomplete and still open to interpretation.  This is primarily evident in fossil evidence, but it can also be seen in anatomical evidence very clearly.  Basically, similarities amongst species is often used to infer relationship, but that is simply an interpretation of the observations.  Also, evidence of speciation seems to hinge on which definition of species is used.  Regardless, the forms of micro-evolution that people have used to try to convince me of macro-evolution have all been mutations in which genetic information was lost (antibiotic resistance in bacteria, Round-up ready soybeans [even though that was genetically engineered], pesticide resistant insects, etc.).  Also, the loss of function in an organ or appendage (vestigial) does not seem to prove evolution.  Feel free to offer examples where I'm wrong, but I've not yet seen sufficient proof to convince me.

[QUOTE="drgrady"]

Ok, so let us assume that there is no such thing as "randomness". What do we gain? The idea that despite all odds, everything worked out so that life could form? So what's new?

Of course, the "what if" proposals have been "conjectures as to the nature of the universe. There have been numerous conjectures about our origins, and most have been based on observations, but that doesn't mean that they are any more credible. Likewise, many people have claimed to see angels or speak to God or have some form of supernatural experience, so any conjectures involving the supernatural are still based on observation. That doesn't mean they are credible. By creating an argument where there are an infinite number of universes, you are using pure fantasy with no observational evidence to circumvent a statistical analysis. Furthermore, you seem to be agreeing to some extent that randomness is a factor if you rely on an unlimited number of universes that all hold the same "life constants" in order to produce one that actually holds life. If randomness was not an issue, why would any of the universes differ from one another given they were created the same way, had the same starting material, and started with the same "life constants"? Ultimately, if the output isn't the same for every version that has exactly the same inputs, then randomness is a factor. Sure the different systems work together to produce a given output, but why would they not work together in the same way each time unless there was randomness?

And the wonderful "Chaos+Order= 1" lesson is fun, but doesn't add to or change anything that I said.

Atrus

The Chaos+Order=1 was in reference to entropy which you raised, and was to dismiss your attempt to cite that my claim "out of chaos comes order" as illogical. It was to show that your attempt was wrong.

The what if proposals have a framework that religion does not. Empiricism in light of General Relativity (and String Theory if it ever reaches fruition) which provides a basis to extend what we know to explain what we don't yet know. The what ifs are also not exhaustive as they leave out anything involving the 5th-10th dimension or 11th dimension with M-theory, or even two-time models of the universe.

Religious claims of supernatural angels or gods is an attempt to extend what you cannot prove to answer anything you don't know. Unlike empiricism, it uses intuition and revelation which has routinely been incorrect to the downfall of entire religions themselves.

The framework between science and religion differs greatly in terms of precision. Where has religion ever been as precises or as consistently correct? When weighed against each other, religion is an extremely poor and nearly contentless addition to define reality with. It doesn't ascribe to anything other than supernaturalism without first trying to prove that there exists a supernatural.

Well, I still hold to the fact that chaos does not come out of order, but a lack thereof.  However, it seems that we are both saying the same thing on that matter, and it is a technicality of wording.

Much of the theoretical physics today completely lacks any means of testing its validity.  That is not to say that it is unimportant, but that it still requires some faith to believe its validity.  And obviously, the list of "what ifs" could be longer, but that does nothing to give more credit to the strategy of using an unlimited number of universes to neglect statistics.  It also does nothing to prove the validity of any of the what if statements.  And in the end, even when they develop specific equations for string theory (assuming they do), there will be just as many unanswered questions about the origins of the universe.  Now, my belief in God does nothing to hinder such scientific progress, and apparently, other people working in the sciences also manage to believe in God while continuing their research.

If I remember correctly, our little dialogue started with the fact that the incomprehensible complexity of the universe leads some to believe in a divine creator and some to believe in the infallicy of science.  The two can coexist.  So on that note, I have to leave for the day, but hope to be back tomorrow.

Well, I still hold to the fact that chaos does not come out of order, but a lack thereof. However, it seems that we are both saying the same thing on that matter, and it is a technicality of wording.

Much of the theoretical physics today completely lacks any means of testing its validity. That is not to say that it is unimportant, but that it still requires some faith to believe its validity. And obviously, the list of "what ifs" could be longer, but that does nothing to give more credit to the strategy of using an unlimited number of universes to neglect statistics. It also does nothing to prove the validity of any of the what if statements. And in the end, even when they develop specific equations for string theory (assuming they do), there will be just as many unanswered questions about the origins of the universe. Now, my belief in God does nothing to hinder such scientific progress, and apparently, other people working in the sciences also manage to believe in God while continuing their research.

If I remember correctly, our little dialogue started with the fact that the incomprehensible complexity of the universe leads some to believe in a divine creator and some to believe in the infallicy of science. The two can coexist. So on that note, I have to leave for the day, but hope to be back tomorrow.

drgrady

Lack thereof? In an equation where there is only two variables, chaos and order, what is this "lack thereof" that produces order? Instead lets slight the equation then; let Chaos=1. Any change in such a system will be the result of a change to order because one cannot get more chaotic in a system that is already maximally chaotic. Order arises out of chaos.

While String Theory is a fringe theory, General Relativity has made hypotheses about the universe later shown to be in line with the evidence . It may be a theory but insofar as plate tectonics is a theory. However, General Relativity only takes us so far, the beginning of time. What we want to do is get to the beginning of the universe, which began before time itself and this is where newer theories will add to the precision of GR.

In fact calling it a "beginning" is a bias. Beginnings and endings are a human bias in the idea that all things are begun and ended. A universe may not be so distinct a mechanism to have needed a beginning, rather it could be a function of a larger mechanism, oscillating between existence and non-existence. 

While it's true that a persons belief in God doesn't hinder their ability in the sciences, it simply has to do with compartmentalization. Jean Meslier was both an Athiest and a Catholic priest. You'll find that the majority in the sciences (especially eminant ones) are able to use knowledge as a way of disputing what religion once had to say about reality.

The few who manage to do both are like Meslier, trying to do what they are comfortable with from religious tradition in the face of what they know is true. 

You have to love OT's quasi-intellectuals, you would think everyone here has a doctorate in theoretical science. KrayzieJ

You realize that you're just making a comparative statement about you're own intelligence right?

It's not a case where people are pretending to be smarter, it's that your standards for intellectualism are lower than reality. Jeff Foxworthy 'Are you smarter than a 5th grader' low. 

[QUOTE="KrayzieJ"]You have to love OT's quasi-intellectuals, you would think everyone here has a doctorate in theoretical science. Atrus

You realize that you're just making a comparative statement about you're own intelligence right? 

It's not a case where people are pretending to be smarter, it's that your standards for intellectualism are lower than reality. Jeff Foxworthy 'Are you smarter than a 5th grader' low.

My standards of intellectualism? It's good that you have such a profound understanding of my conception of what an intellectual is by my tiny little post.
KrayzieJ

Yet the small post was enough. You considered the so called quasi-intellectualism to be of a level where you'd think everyone had doctorates. This isn't doctorate level per se, though a lot of these arguments are derived from people who are doctorates or perhaps even eminent intellectuals.

So either you're right and people are pretending to be doctorate level intellectuals or that you're expectations are lower and doctorate level arguments are of an even higher standard. Given that they are the ones writing books from which many of these arguments are derived from, the standard is higher, and so your expectations of intellectualism are actually low.

Cory made another discussion thread...here's how it will likely turn out:

1)  Cory begins flaming.
2)  Discussion/argument ensues...Cory loses.
3)  Cory denies loss and flames everyone collectively.
4)  Cory tries playing it off as a joke.

That's just a prediction...I'll be standing by.  :)

[QUOTE="KrayzieJ"]My standards of intellectualism? It's good that you have such a profound understanding of my conception of what an intellectual is by my tiny little post.
Atrus

Yet the small post was enough. You considered the so called quasi-intellectualism to be of a level where you'd think everyone had doctorates. This isn't doctorate level per se, though a lot of these arguments are derived from people who are doctorates or perhaps even eminent intellectuals.

So either you're right and people are pretending to be doctorate level intellectuals or that you're expectations are lower and doctorate level arguments are of an even higher standard. Given that they are the ones writing books from which many of these arguments are derived from, the standard is higher, and so your expectations of intellectualism are actually low.

[QUOTE="dainjah1010"]

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Why do I believe in God? Because I don't have enough FAITH, and that's what it is, to not believe in Him. Atheism is a religionand nothing more. They like you to think it is just reason and science. Science can't prove God doesn't exist. Even if evolution were true, and there's no science to prove it is(NONE), that still doesn't prove God doesn't exist. And to be an atheist one still has to explain away the supernatural which is a fact. No matter what religion you are there IS supernatural things that reason can't explain.
drgrady

No science to prove evolution huh?

What about

1) fossil evidence

2) bio-geographical Evidence

3) anatomical evidence

a. Vestigial limbs and organs

b Morphology

c. Development

4) Molecular evidence

a. Endogenous retroviruses

b. Protein functional redundancy

c. Human Chromosome #2

5) Thousands of Peer reviewed papers dealing with evolution.

6) Countless books published on the subject

7) Self funding applications based on evolutionary theory.

Shall I go on or be more specific?

How about you go educate yourself and try again...

I understand where you're coming from on this, but every bit of evidence that I've seen used to support evolution is incomplete and still open to interpretation. This is primarily evident in fossil evidence, but it can also be seen in anatomical evidence very clearly. Basically, similarities amongst species is often used to infer relationship, but that is simply an interpretation of the observations. Also, evidence of speciation seems to hinge on which definition of species is used. Regardless, the forms of micro-evolution that people have used to try to convince me of macro-evolution have all been mutations in which genetic information was lost (antibiotic resistance in bacteria, Round-up ready soybeans [even though that was genetically engineered], pesticide resistant insects, etc.). Also, the loss of function in an organ or appendage (vestigial) does not seem to prove evolution. Feel free to offer examples where I'm wrong, but I've not yet seen sufficient proof to convince me.

I agree that individual lines of evidence can be interpreted in different ways. It happens all the time in science. However, looking at all the evidence together it seems to strongly point toward common decent.

I usually consider the fossil evidence for evolution to be the weakest since it is occasional ambiguous and has gaps due to the intrinsic nature of fossil formation. Even so, we have many fossils that appear to show gradual change over time. Evolution of the horse is a good example with a robust fossil record.

Anatomical evidence points to common ancestry with homologous structures (the pentadactyl limb in tetra-pods) and embryological development (chordates have pharyngeal slits, notochords, dorsal nerve chord, and a post anal tail at some point in life). As far a vestigial structures why would naked mole rats which are completely blind have eyes? Same with many fish and cave dwelling creatures.

Bio-geographical evidence further strengthens the theory.

Molecular evidence is the death blow however. Endogenous retroviruses, protein functional redundancy, Human chromosome #2 make no sense except when view trough the evolutionary lens. Why do we find ancient virus codes in the same places in our DNA and Chimp DNA if not for a common ancestor? In fact we find at-least seven different virus codes embedded in both species DNA. Same with the large cats and other carnivores. As far a protein functional redundancy... cytochrome c is a ubiquitous protein essential for life. The sequence for the protein is exactly the same between us and chimps and only differs up to 10 different amino acid when compared to other mammals. Our protein sequence has 50 different amino acids when compared to yeast, but if the our sequence is inserted into a yeast the protein will function fine. There is much more to functional redundancy for both proteins and DNA but you will have to research that yourself...

Chimps have 48 chromosomes and human have 46... well if we share a common ancestor like evolution predicts then the theory is in trouble if we don't find out why we have a different number of chromosomes. Ill let Dr. Ken Miller explain that one.

So given any of the evidence alone the data could be interpreted different but given it all together + plus the tons of other evidences I did not address the theory of evolution is one of the most robust and well supported theories in science.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

-Theodosius Dobzhansky

No idea why I typed all that... evolution deniers will find a way to reject it and I don't need to convince those that accept evolution.

Eh, I try to develop my arguments more originally.CptJSparrow

True, some create arguments entirely seperate from being influenced by source, but in many occasions we still go back to sourcing our statements to someone that has more esteem, if only not to come off as that guy on the forum who makes things up. 

In addition the way we address our arguments has usually been done by someone at least a few decades older. So that when we try to develop our ideas further we find out some dead guy a few decades if not centuries ago had already came up with it. What makes us different from the dead is that we can mold and evolve these arguments with the times and adapt to things they fail to address.

We're propagating the same meme, even if we're not directly influenced by particular peoples.

Cory made another discussion thread...here's how it will likely turn out:

1) Cory begins flaming.
2) Discussion/argument ensues...Cory loses.
3) Cory denies loss and flames everyone collectively.
4) Cory tries playing it off as a joke.

That's just a prediction...I'll be standing by. :)

GameFreak315

I cant loose against religious people 

[QUOTE="Eman5805"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]Religion is philosofy for the uneducated, faith is a form of insanity imo.cory4513

:|:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I agree with his statement 

Then my response for him goes for you too. But, what do I know...I'm insane. >_>

[QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="Eman5805"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]Religion is philosofy for the uneducated, faith is a form of insanity imo.Eman5805

:|:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I agree with his statement

Then my response for him goes for you too. But, what do I know...I'm insane. >_>

I agree you are insane