Thread: Hiyas!

Non-scientist here. I joined to ask a question, which I did.

I question the accuracy and validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection - so I'll probably be instantly unpopular! I think The Blind Watchmaker the most overrated book ever written and Richard Dawkins the most arrogant human being ever.

I'm no Christian but I'd sooner trust Jesus.

Anyway, that's enough controversy for now - if anyone has any input on the question I posed I'd be really interested to know some views - it's on the Biology board and asks about entropy in the context of evolution.

Given that this is a science forum and you're rejecting mainstream science and mentioning Jesus in your intro thread...yeah...I think "unpopular" is going to prove to be an accurate term.

For what it's worth, if you're open to the facts regarding evolution, you'll find a lot of good info here. If you're already decided upon only accepting that which supports your preconceptions, you probably won't have a good time.

Either way, welcome to the forum.

Thanks - I am very open minded - hence why the question occurred to me. Not from any agenda, just as enquiry.

Total nonsense. All you can trust is your own interpretation of Jesus based on what others have said somewhere. Why not trust in yourself instead?

You're ARE Christian if you'd "sooner trust Jesus". Why deny what you believe ? Unless you have an "agenda"...

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Non-scientist here. I joined to ask a question, which I did.

I question the accuracy and validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection

Hi simsmoot,
Just curious what your position might be. Do you also question the accuracy and validity that a god was responsible?

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Total nonsense. All you can trust is your own interpretation of Jesus based on what others have said somewhere. Why not trust in yourself instead?

I do try and think for myself, as far as I am capable. That's why, despite 3 or 4 pages of glowing and fawning reviews contained in the paperback edition of The Blind Watchmaker, I could come to my own conclusions about certain aspects of it and judge it to be not as good as they said it was. And for Jesus and the Bible I will also come to my own conclusions, among which is that Jesus existed and that he was written about in a way that reflected his life. I'd upset many Christians with my views - that Genesis, for example, is two books stitched together to make a coherent whole, is not a thought that would make many believers comfortable - but the truth is the truth.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

You're ARE Christian if you'd "sooner trust Jesus". Why deny what you believe ? Unless you have an "agenda"...

I was really making the point that I don't trust Dawkins.

Originally Posted by pineapples

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Non-scientist here. I joined to ask a question, which I did.

I question the accuracy and validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection

Hi simsmoot,
Just curious what your position might be. Do you also question the accuracy and validity that a god was responsible?

Yes, of course! Everything should be questioned. A creator seems quite a plausible explanation for the existence of everything when against the argument that it 'just happened'. The universe and its contents seem purposeful in some way, and if not guided by a superior force, may well have been set in motion by one. It's no less rational than that the universe 'just popped into existence'.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Yes, of course! Everything should be questioned. A creator seems quite a plausible explanation for the existence of everything when against the argument that it 'just happened'.

In what way is one mystery better than another? A created universe doesn't seem plausible because a creator doesn't seem plausible. The argument that the universe "just happened" is an insultingly oversimplified version of the scientific understanding of the origins of our universe. If you want something simplified, the children's story offered in the Biblical texts should be right up your alley. "God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light." Doesn't get any simpler than that.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The universe and its contents seem purposeful in some way, and if not guided by a superior force, may well have been set in motion by one. It's no less rational than that the universe 'just popped into existence'.

In what way does the universe "seem created"? From my perspective, there is nothing about the universe which indicates any kind of intelligent force behind it.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

A creator seems quite a plausible explanation for the existence of everything when against the argument that it 'just happened'.

As a non-scientist myself, I'd opt to say ‘I don’t know’, rather than ‘it just happened’ or ‘god did it’. I see god more a placeholder than an explanation.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Yes, of course! Everything should be questioned. A creator seems quite a plausible explanation for the existence of everything when against the argument that it 'just happened'.

In what way is one mystery better than another? A created universe doesn't seem plausible because a creator doesn't seem plausible. The argument that the universe "just happened" is an insultingly oversimplified version of the scientific understanding of the origins of our universe. If you want something simplified, the children's story offered in the Biblical texts should be right up your alley. "God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light." Doesn't get any simpler than that.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The universe and its contents seem purposeful in some way, and if not guided by a superior force, may well have been set in motion by one. It's no less rational than that the universe 'just popped into existence'.

In what way does the universe "seem created"? From my perspective, there is nothing about the universe which indicates any kind of intelligent force behind it.

I didn't say one mystery is better than the other - just that both views have merit. And I say that the universe seems purposeful. The fact that the matter in the universe can come up with two opposing views for its own origin, and that we can imagine ourselves 'making' a new universe in the style of a creator seems somewhat purposeful, especially when it's such a big deal to almost everyone. Why should anyone care? Where's the evolutionary advantage of a belief in a creator - or a belief in evolution, if it comes to that? Life, and especially human life, certainly acts in a purposeful way, and if always in a way which suits survival, why the distraction of caring about where we came from? In this day and age? Because some matter in the universe strives to discover its own origins it suggests to me that knowledge of our origins are important. If it was known there'd be no doubt whether it was a creator or a result of physics which couldn't have went any other way. The physics view heaps coincidence on top of coincidence as the method of arriving at where we are today, and due to these coincidences being highly unlikely it's credible that an alternative explanation exists.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I didn't say one mystery is better than the other - just that both views have merit.

Can you demonstrate the merit of a creationist universe? Can you give me one single example of data which point to a creator or some kind of purpose behind the origin of the universe?

I think you and I may award merit to an idea on different criteria.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

And I say that the universe seems purposeful. The fact that the matter in the universe can come up with two opposing views for its own origin, and that we can imagine ourselves 'making' a new universe in the style of a creator seems somewhat purposeful, especially when it's such a big deal to almost everyone.

None of that makes any sense to me. You're suggesting that an idea is given credence because we have it?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Why should anyone care? Where's the evolutionary advantage of a belief in a creator - or a belief in evolution, if it comes to that?

The evolutionary advantage was in the development of a brain capable of more advanced thought. Pondering origins is not a direct product of evolution, but a by product of a more advanced brain.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Life, and especially human life, certainly acts in a purposeful way,

Defining a purpose for our individual lives does not suggest a purpose in our origin. In fact, the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests nothing of a purposeful creation. The countless organisms that came before us with no ability to ponder their origins seems to suggest, at least to me, quite the opposite. For hundreds of millions of years, these creatures who lacked the ability to ask, "Why am I here?" dominated the Earth. What was the purpose behind their creation? To eventually lead to us? Sorry, I find that notion FAR to self-important to have any real credibility.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

and if always in a way which suits survival, why the distraction of caring about where we came from?

Why the distraction of caring about anything outside survival? Perhaps pondering our origins is just a product of a brain powerful enough to do what ours can do.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Because some matter in the universe strives to discover its own origins it suggests to me that knowledge of our origins are important. If it was known there'd be no doubt whether it was a creator or a result of physics which couldn't have went any other way. The physics view heaps coincidence on top of coincidence as the method of arriving at where we are today, and due to these coincidences being highly unlikely it's credible that an alternative explanation exists.

You'll need to elaborate on these "highly unlikely coincidences". Why is it so improbable that over the course of billions of years and under the influences of the forces inherent in the universe that interesting things could occur? Space dust collides and coalesces, building gravitational forces begin to form planets, planets take on the elements created during stellar nucleasynthesis, these elements undergo energetic processes and combine more complex forms over time. It seems like a pretty natural process. It's one we can even observe in a lab setting.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

You'll need to elaborate on these "highly unlikely coincidences"

I'll have a bash at this one for the moment: The sudden appearance of matter in a suitable form; the necessary rate of expansion of it; the necessary balance of elements; the necessary conditions for life to exist; the fact that life got started at all; the fact of life matter being able to conceive of its creation by a higher being (why should it?). I think we can all picture a man-made universe - the making of tiny energy ball seeded with all that is necessary to grow into something like the cosmos. If we can think of it, it could maybe be done - so if humans could conceivably do that, then why not another entity?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Why is it so improbable that over the course of billions of years and under the influences of the forces inherent in the universe that interesting things could occur? Space dust collides and coalesces, building gravitational forces begin to form planets, planets take on the elements created during stellar nucleasynthesis, these elements undergo energetic processes and combine more complex forms over time. It seems like a pretty natural process. It's one we can even observe in a lab setting.

Interesting things may happen, but evolution by natural selection to the point of matter conceiving its own origins, and being darned argumentative about it, strikes me as not being a necessary consequence of energetic processes.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I'll have a bash at this one for the moment: The sudden appearance of matter in a suitable form; the necessary rate of expansion of it; the necessary balance of elements; the necessary conditions for life to exist; the fact that life got started at all; the fact of life matter being able to conceive of its creation by a higher being (why should it?). I think we can all picture a man-made universe - the making of tiny energy ball seeded with all that is necessary to grow into something like the cosmos. If we can think of it, it could maybe be done - so if humans could conceivably do that, then why not another entity?

Because there is no evidence to suggest such a thing. Part of science is ruling out that which is improbable. There are an infinite number of possible scenarios for our origin, but we must rule out those which are the least probable.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Interesting things may happen, but evolution by natural selection to the point of matter conceiving its own origins, and being darned argumentative about it, strikes me as not being a necessary consequence of energetic processes.

Why not? There is evidence for evolution and clearly we are capable of pondering our origins. Evidence and logic suggest that natural processes indeed lead to an organism capable of debating its origin. Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise or is it just a gut feeling?

Once again I'd just like to add that I appreciate the efforts made to answer my posts. I like this forum and the people on it and I'll stick around.

My favourite science subject is quantum mechanics, and I'm sure I will find some good stuff on here. It's an incredibly mind blowing subject, or at least it was the last time I looked.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Part of science is ruling out that which is improbable. There are an infinite number of possible scenarios for our origin, but we must rule out those which are the least probable...

...Evidence and logic suggest that natural processes indeed lead to an organism capable of debating its origin.

How so? Sorry, but this is not at all apparent to me.

A creator, if being least probable, which scenario is most probable, would you say?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Evidence and logic suggest that natural processes indeed lead to an organism capable of debating its origin.

Inevitably? Or because it has done? This view supports the idea of life on other planets. Just saying.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

How so? Sorry, but this is not at all apparent to me.

A creator, if being least probable, which scenario is most probable, would you say?

The most probable scenario, within the boundaries of our understanding, does not include a creator. The most likely scenario would be the one for which there is the most evidence. In terms of the coalescence of our known universe, no creator is involved. Seeing as there is no evidence for a creator in the billions of years after our universe came into being, why should there be a creator in the fraction of a second for which we cannot yet account?

This is the God of the gaps fallacy wherein the role of God is an ever-shrinking corner of ignorance. There is no logic in attributing that which we do not understand to a God instead of simply admitting that we do not yet know enough to make a confident conclusion.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Inevitably? Or because it has done? This view supports the idea of life on other planets. Just saying.

Biologically, I don't think it is inevitable. It is simply a scenario which has played out. We and our life history are the evidence. I'm not sure what you mean about life on other planets, either.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Interesting things may happen, but evolution by natural selection to the point of matter conceiving its own origins, and being darned argumentative about it, strikes me as not being a necessary consequence of energetic processes.

Why not? There is evidence for evolution and clearly we are capable of pondering our origins. Evidence and logic suggest that natural processes indeed lead to an organism capable of debating its origin. Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise or is it just a gut feeling?

Very good and fair question. I think it comes down to gut feeling initially, then logic and evidence is invoked to see if it could be true or not (a creator). Many humans are driven to the idea of a creator for no apparent reason. I like truth and explanation but find it more difficult to deny a creator than to accept the explanations of the chance-upon-chance random turn of events that supposedly got us here.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Why not? There is evidence for evolution and clearly we are capable of pondering our origins. Evidence and logic suggest that natural processes indeed lead to an organism capable of debating its origin. Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise or is it just a gut feeling?

These organisms could exist elsewhere by this definition - hence my allusion to life on other planets. Maybe we should ask them.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Very good and fair question. I think it comes down to gut feeling initially, then logic and evidence is invoked to see if it could be true or not (a creator). Many humans are driven to the idea of a creator for no apparent reason. I like truth and explanation but find it more difficult to deny a creator than to accept the explanations of the chance-upon-chance random turn of events that supposedly got us here.

Strange. I find it quite easy. There is a plethora of evidence suggesting life coming from simple chemical interactions, but there is no evidence at all for a creator. The only reason to assume a creator, at least to me, is an inability to grasp the scientific processes involved in origin of life theories.

The fact that we don't know exactly how life arose doesn't bother me enough to insert a much more vast paradigm as a conclusion.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

These organisms could exist elsewhere by this definition - hence my allusion to life on other planets. Maybe we should ask them.

They could eventually or they could have at some point. Humans have been capable of sending transmissions into space for only a scant few decades. Why should we believe, in that almost incalculably small moment of time in regards to the life of our universe, that another life form on a planet close enough to contact us has evolved to at least our level and developed a technology we can recognize as an attempt to communicate?

Perhaps they existed hundreds of millions of years ago and wiped themselves out before even the dinosaurs walked our planet. If they did exist and they could communicate at the speed of light (assuming they obey the laws of physics), they could have sent a message thousands of years ago and we still might not have received it. There are any number of possible scenarios.

On a further note the issue of morality and where it comes from, or rather if it's a consequence of a creator or not, has been debated well by B. Russell and an archbishop and I thought the clergyman's arguments were better than Russell's. Not proof of anything, obviously, but it's a topic worthy of some consideration in an evolution/creation discussion perhaps.

No, creationism is not science and there is no debate to be had on a science forum, just debunking of creationist claims. There is no debate, on one side you have mountains of evidence on the other Goddidit and arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance and the worst kind of cherry picking pseudoscience coupled with either intellectual dishonesty or vast gullibility. The debate is over, and was over decades ago, the creationists are just too dumb to realise they lost and keep rehashing the same bollocks arguments that have been debunked over and over and over again.

Didn't dragons, according to the creationist museum, walk around with Eve and her boy toy in the Garden?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

On a further note the issue of morality and where it comes from, or rather if it's a consequence of a creator or not, has been debated well by B. Russell and an archbishop and I thought the clergyman's arguments were better than Russell's. Not proof of anything, obviously, but it's a topic worthy of some consideration in an evolution/creation discussion perhaps.

The simple answer about morality is that we are social animals with large brains. We evolve cultures based on various pressures, which includes a certain set of morals or behavioural ethics. It is just a more complicated version of that which we see with other social animals. These different pressures have enabled us to develop a varied set of morals and some we reserve for those we see as part of our group, others for enemies and still others for those we need to get along with in order to take advantage of something they might have.

I don't see why this is such a difficult thing to understand? It's pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Didn't dragons, according to the creationist museum, walk around with Eve and her boy toy in the Garden?

Dinosaurs, yes.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

On a further note the issue of morality and where it comes from, or rather if it's a consequence of a creator or not, has been debated well by B. Russell and an archbishop and I thought the clergyman's arguments were better than Russell's. Not proof of anything, obviously, but it's a topic worthy of some consideration in an evolution/creation discussion perhaps.

Kalster basically said it. Why is it hard to grasp the idea that a sense of morality would be a beneficial trait. If we lacked morals and killed and raped without a conscience, we might never have progressed as life forms. Our ability to get along in a group is what makes us social creatures and part of what has made us so successful.

I'd like to hear what the clergyman said that was more convincing to you than the evidence within evolution.

... and individual morality is dependent on perception of reality.

Santa is not real though.

I will get back to this thread in a while. A bit busy at moment. Thanks for all the input.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

On a further note the issue of morality and where it comes from, or rather if it's a consequence of a creator or not, has been debated well by B. Russell and an archbishop and I thought the clergyman's arguments were better than Russell's. Not proof of anything, obviously, but it's a topic worthy of some consideration in an evolution/creation discussion perhaps.

Kalster basically said it. Why is it hard to grasp the idea that a sense of morality would be a beneficial trait. If we lacked morals and killed and raped without a conscience, we might never have progressed as life forms. Our ability to get along in a group is what makes us social creatures and part of what has made us so successful.

I'd like to hear what the clergyman said that was more convincing to you than the evidence within evolution.

It was the clergyman's views in opposition to Russell's, specifically those on morality, that I found convincing. And Russell, being a sound thinker, might be considered incisive enough to know what he was talking about. As it is maybe 20+ years since reading the debate I can only say what impressed me at the time, but the clergyman's argument (as far as I remember) was that there is a 'necessary being' - God. Innate or 'objective' morality exists, he more or less said, whereas Russell said morality is dependent on contingency or situation. Any act can only be judged on what is acceptable at the time, without any intrinsic tendency to 'do the right thing'.

Ability to get along in a group is one thing, but human sympathy and empathy extends, in a non-evolutionarily beneficial way, I would suggest, to creatures we can't see or shouldn't even care about - such as endangered tigers or white rhinos or whatever. Bad things happening to random and irrelevant matter shouldn't be a cause for concern, but it is.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by samsmoot

On a further note the issue of morality and where it comes from, or rather if it's a consequence of a creator or not, has been debated well by B. Russell and an archbishop and I thought the clergyman's arguments were better than Russell's. Not proof of anything, obviously, but it's a topic worthy of some consideration in an evolution/creation discussion perhaps.

The simple answer about morality is that we are social animals with large brains. We evolve cultures based on various pressures, which includes a certain set of morals or behavioural ethics. It is just a more complicated version of that which we see with other social animals. These different pressures have enabled us to develop a varied set of morals and some we reserve for those we see as part of our group, others for enemies and still others for those we need to get along with in order to take advantage of something they might have.

I don't see why this is such a difficult thing to understand? It's pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Didn't dragons, according to the creationist museum, walk around with Eve and her boy toy in the Garden?

Dinosaurs, yes.

How about the (life) matter mentioned above? Why do we have morals in respect of that?

If God made man in his image, examination of man's mind and behaviour might shed light on God's mind and behaviour.

If scientists can accept the possibility of alternative universes, why not the possibility of something similar to an alternative universe in many ways, i.e. a creator in a different reality also outside of time and space as we know it?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Russell said morality is dependent on contingency or situation. Any act can only be judged on what is acceptable at the time, without any intrinsic tendency to 'do the right thing'.

I would agree with that. Killing is immoral (unless it is in defense of one's self or another). Slavery is immoral (unless it's the 1700's). Burning witches at the stake is immoral (unless you're a turn of the century Christian).

Morality is not only based upon the individual, but upon the time and the place. As our morality evolves we, as a society, set laws and standards that abide by those morals of the time. The American culture of the 50's would have decried homosexual unions because that was the code of the place and time. In ancient Greece, homosexuality was not even differentiated from sexuality.

Do you think the brainwashed radical terrorists who flew planes full of people into the WTC thought their actions were immoral? We may denounce them, but they were doing a just thing in the eyes of someone no matter how unspeakably horrible we may find it.

'Morality' is as loose as 'beauty' to me. It may be the measure by which we define our laws, but it is hardly an absolute.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Ability to get along in a group is one thing, but human sympathy and empathy extends, in a non-evolutionarily beneficial way, I would suggest, to creatures we can't see or shouldn't even care about - such as endangered tigers or white rhinos or whatever. Bad things happening to random and irrelevant matter shouldn't be a cause for concern, but it is.

I don't know why you would suggest that altruism doesn't offer evolutionary benefits. When one member of a social group dies and another takes over its offspring, that certainly has benefits. Clearly that mentality extends beyond humans. Apes like Koko became attached to other animals and, in that case, even expressed loss at the death of their friend. In fact, many animals in the wild, be it through altruism or some kind of biological confusion, take up completely unrelated species as their own.

It obviously doesn't extend to everyone. Putin, for instance, once had a tiger drugged and tied to a tree so he could kill it and pose next to it regardless of the threat to that species or the message his actions would send. He's not alone in his (what I would call) ignorance. Plenty of people have different ideas when it comes to how we should treat other species. Again, it's not an absolute.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

If scientists can accept the possibility of alternative universes, why not the possibility of something similar to an alternative universe in many ways, i.e. a creator in a different reality also outside of time and space as we know it?

Quite simply because there is evidence to suggest one and not the other. The idea of a multiverse fits into physics models in some interesting ways. God does not.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

If God made man in his image, examination of man's mind and behaviour might shed light on God's mind and behaviour.

Sigmund Freud is a saint!



Future of an illusion here we come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_an_Illusion

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Ability to get along in a group is one thing, but human sympathy and empathy extends, in a non-evolutionarily beneficial way, I would suggest, to creatures we can't see or shouldn't even care about - such as endangered tigers or white rhinos or whatever. Bad things happening to random and irrelevant matter shouldn't be a cause for concern, but it is.

I don't know why you would suggest that altruism doesn't offer evolutionary benefits. When one member of a social group dies and another takes over its offspring, that certainly has benefits. Clearly that mentality extends beyond humans. Apes like Koko became attached to other animals and, in that case, even expressed loss at the death of their friend. In fact, many animals in the wild, be it through altruism or some kind of biological confusion, take up completely unrelated species as their own.

It obviously doesn't extend to everyone. Putin, for instance, once had a tiger drugged and tied to a tree so he could kill it and pose next to it regardless of the threat to that species or the message his actions would send. He's not alone in his (what I would call) ignorance. Plenty of people have different ideas when it comes to how we should treat other species. Again, it's not an absolute.

But why should it extend to anyone? You give a good example, as there would have been outrage from some - a feeling of great loss - grief, even. For a piece of matter that we have never known? That the existence of or not make no difference to our lives? Some of us would care about suffering life forms in another galaxy. We have empathy for all living things, yet none for non-living things. There seems to be a large difference between attitudes for no apparent reason.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Ability to get along in a group is one thing, but human sympathy and empathy extends, in a non-evolutionarily beneficial way, I would suggest, to creatures we can't see or shouldn't even care about - such as endangered tigers or white rhinos or whatever. Bad things happening to random and irrelevant matter shouldn't be a cause for concern, but it is.

How did those tigers and rhinos get endangered in the first place? This moral is no more intrinsic or God given than any of the rest. In many cultures there is a respect for nature, which prevented over hunting and such. Others with no such cultural moral have gone around killing as much of whatever they like for short term gains. We (some of us) are now learning that we have the ability to destroy nature and in so doing we damn the generations to follow, as well as destroying the beauty of nature.

Also, we are starting to realize how similar we are to the rest of the animals and are recognizing real emotion in them, instead of being unfeeling automatons placed there for us to use. We share a kinship with them. I sure do love steak though...

If God made man in his image, examination of man's mind and behaviour might shed light on God's mind and behaviour.

If scientists can accept the possibility of alternative universes, why not the possibility of something similar to an alternative universe in many ways, i.e. a creator in a different reality also outside of time and space as we know it?

As Flick said, there is no real evidence for it, but the real issue here for me is how you define "God".

As our understanding and technology grows, it is becoming more and more conceivable that a sufficiently advanced being might be able to create a universe and/or manipulate DNA on the fly, maybe even being capable of copying our consciousness at the moment of death to live on in a paradise computer simulation.

But would you call such a being "God"? There is no guarantee that this being would be the God of the Bible or any of the other religions. We don't see any unambiguous evidence of such a being being involved anywhere. We don't know this being, if it exists. Why should we fall down and kneel before this being in any case? If he existed, I'd be grateful that he/she/it took the time to create all of this, but I certainly won't worship this being, even if it showed up and demanded it. A being that demands worship is no higher being in my book.

If it's an altruistic attitude to irrelevant matter... Well, it's not irrevant then.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

As our understanding and technology grows, it is becoming more and more conceivable that a sufficiently advanced being might be able to create a universe and/or manipulate DNA on the fly, maybe even being capable of copying our consciousness at the moment of death to live on in a paradise computer simulation.

Yes, it is at least conceivable. So a superior entity could probably do just as good a job. Creation, in one form or another is a driving force in man, and possibly a reflection of his maker.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

But would you call such a being "God"? There is no guarantee that this being would be the God of the Bible or any of the other religions. We don't see any unambiguous evidence of such a being being involved anywhere. We don't know this being, if it exists. Why should we fall down and kneel before this being in any case? If he existed, I'd be grateful that he/she/it took the time to create all of this, but I certainly won't worship this being, even if it showed up and demanded it. A being that demands worship is no higher being in my book.

Call me a Deist and we can avoid all that!

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

If it's an altruistic attitude to irrelevant matter... Well, it's not irrevant then.

How about 'apparently' irrelevant?

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

If it's an altruistic attitude to irrelevant matter... Well, it's not irrevant then.

How about 'apparently' irrelevant?

I can make up anything I want as a rebuttal, can't I? And then, you can always say; "God made it irrelevant."

But that would be in absence of any scientific method.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Call me a Deist and we can avoid all that!

Would it even be a deity though? This advanced alien would have to have come from somewhere and as it stands, the only possible origin would have to be that it had to evolve somewhere itself as well.

We built stuff, because we evolved brains that helped us make tools and shape our environment in order to increase our survivability. I don't see why that trait need to have been given to us, as, just as with a dizzying array of other evolved traits to be found in nature, our creativity fits very well into the mold of an advantageous, evolved trait.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

If it's an altruistic attitude to irrelevant matter... Well, it's not irrevant then.

How about 'apparently' irrelevant?

I can make up anything I want as a rebuttal, can't I? And then, you can always say; "God made it irrelevant."

But that would be in absence of any scientific method.

I said:

"But why should it extend to anyone? You give a good example, as there would have been outrage from some - a feeling of great loss - grief, even. For a piece of matter that we have never known? That the existence of or not make no difference to our lives? Some of us would care about suffering life forms in another galaxy. We have empathy for all living things, yet none for non-living things. There seems to be a large difference between attitudes for no apparent reason."

I'm unsure how your post addresses this.

Is Mathematics a living thing?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Call me a Deist and we can avoid all that!

Would it even be a deity though? This advanced alien would have to have come from somewhere and as it stands, the only possible origin would have to be that it had to evolve somewhere itself as well.

Not necessarily. Time and space is dependent on the existence of matter, so a creator might not be bound by either time or space - or matter.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Is Mathematics a living thing?

Er..no, and why do you ask?

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Is Mathematics a living thing?

Well yes, I think so.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Is Mathematics a living thing?

Well yes, I think so.

Mathematics is an abstract concept - living things are touchable cells. How is this relevant?

Well, we could use the scientific method to try and establish whether or not mathematics is beneficial to the individual and to humanity as a whole. But, still we must trust the scientific method first.

Sorry, still none the wiser.

OK, um...

Can we still use the scientic method and learn as to what constitutes morality?

We have empathy for all living things, yet none for non-living things.

I'm not so sure about that. Seeing a familiar rock formation collapsing under the onslaught of heavy seas, or a forest burned down for stupid boring plantations, or seeing glaciers disappear forever (in human terms anyway) or even buildings and/or shady trees knocked down to be replaced by an ugly carpark.

It may not be empathy, but it's certainly a sense of loss. Even worse when it's the deliberate act of people who really should know better. It can feel like a violation.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

OK, um...

Can we still use the scientic method and learn as to what constitutes morality?

Well, it exists so it should be amenable to discovering what it consists of. But things like morality, love, compassion are hard things to quantify, I would think.

As adelady implies above, we have an antipathy to the destruction of what has been created, however that may occur. The fact that we dislike the wanton destruction of life matter more than rocks suggests an innate tendency to care about its survival, even when it's not an evolutionary advantage to us.

How does morality exist then?

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

How does morality exist then?

Its existence is evidenced by the consequences of the application of its concepts. Or something like that. It exists as an innate tendency to empathy, sympathy and compassion in a way that is not apparently evolutionarily advantageous. And sometimes when it is evolutionarily disadvantageous - such as the woman on the bus who snatched a wasp up in a matchbox so it wouldn't get swatted by other passengers. The consequences of doing so might have been quite detrimental as she came very close my GF's nose in the process, and was lucky she didn't get decked (by the GF).

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Its existence is evidenced by the consequences of the application of its concepts. Or something like that.

Wasp on a bus?

OK. I'm not going to converse with you, but give you a link that you might find an interesting read:

http://www.social-sciences-and-human...d_selflove.pdf

Bye.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Its existence is evidenced by the consequences of the application of its concepts. Or something like that.

Wasp on a bus?

OK. I'm not going to converse with you, but give you a link that you might find an interesting read:

http://www.social-sciences-and-human...d_selflove.pdf

Bye.

Thanks - I will have a look at that.

Take care.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

OK. I'm not going to converse with you, but give you a link that you might find an interesting read:

http://www.social-sciences-and-human...d_selflove.pdf

I did find it an interesting read, though Fromm's style is a little bland, and his endorsement of Freud seeing clearly 'the role of conscience as the internalization of external authorities and as the bearer of deep seated hostility against oneself' seems immediately wrong to me. I'm off to look for some of that Mazi propaganda.

Oh for the love!

Here's the entire paragraph containing that quote. Bold mine.

The role of "conscience“ as the internalization of external authorities and as the bearer of deep seated hostility against oneself has been seen clearly by Freud in the formulation of his concept of the Super-Ego. He assumed that the Super-Ego contains a great deal of the basic destructiveness inherent in man and turns it against him in terms of duty and moral obligation. In spite of objections to Freud's Super-Ego theory, which cannot be presented here (see my discussion of the Super-Ego in E. Fromm, 1936a), Freud undoubtedly has sensed keenly the hostility and cruelty contained in the "conscience“ as it was conceived in the modern era.

That doesn't sound like an endorsement to me.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Oh for the love!

Here's the entire paragraph containing that quote. Bold mine.

The role of "conscience“ as the internalization of external authorities and as the bearer of deep seated hostility against oneself has been seen clearly by Freud in the formulation of his concept of the Super-Ego. He assumed that the Super-Ego contains a great deal of the basic destructiveness inherent in man and turns it against him in terms of duty and moral obligation. In spite of objections to Freud's Super-Ego theory, which cannot be presented here (see my discussion of the Super-Ego in E. Fromm, 1936a), Freud undoubtedly has sensed keenly the hostility and cruelty contained in the „conscience“ as it was conceived in the modern era.

That doesn't sound like an endorsement to me.

As you are going to converse with me after all I have to disagree with your take on it. Fromm says there objections to the theory, but that in the formulation of the concept of that theory Freud came to a correct understanding of what conscience is. So he endorses Freud's view of the role of conscience in the context of the formulation of the Super-Ego theory, but not the entire theory.

Do you even know Fromm's thesis, and can you compare and contrast that to Freud's theory on narcissism?


And no, I wasn't going to reply. But neither was I gong to reply to a mod until I read your post (relating to Freud as well.) But it miffed me off!!!!

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Do you even know Fromm's thesis, and can you compare and contrast that to Freud's theory on narcissism?


And no, I wasn't going to reply. But neither was I gong to reply to a mod until I read your post (relating to Freud as well.) But it miffed me off!!!!

Can you comment on the role of Freud's theory on narcissism in the context of unconstrained interpersonal dialogue in a forum setting? That would be much more interesting.

No.

I linked an article which should explain enough.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

No.

I linked an article which should explain enough.

It explains a lot.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Not necessarily. Time and space is dependent on the existence of matter, so a creator might not be bound by either time or space - or matter.

But if a creator has some kind of impact on our material universe, would not that creator leave some kind of imprint on that universe? There is no evidence of such an interaction.

To say that a creator is capable of living outside our universe's boundaries, can interact with our universe, and does not leave an afterimage is so far beyond reality that I can't accept it as plausible.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Not necessarily. Time and space is dependent on the existence of matter, so a creator might not be bound by either time or space - or matter.

But if a creator has some kind of impact on our material universe, would not that creator leave some kind of imprint on that universe? There is no evidence of such an interaction.

Very good question. Something makes us desire knowledge of our origins. That would be either because God put it in us or evolution did. We have the idea that there may be a Creator, again there because of God's influence or as a result of evolution. We also have an ability to be God in our minds to the extent that we can imagine creating a new universe, or imagine alternate universes. The Bible, if taken just as ancient knowledge, can be relied upon to gain an understanding of God - the idea of man being made in God's image being one thing that should help reveal God's mind. Compared to other 'imaginary' entities, the idea of a Creator pervades human life throughout history. It cannot be let go of, it's that compelling. I would say therefore that the imprint of God is to be found in the human mind.

The existence of the necessary conditions for the big bang, the rate of expansion, the right elements, the conditions for life, life starting, intelligent life arising from it - there's a lot to come together - many things may have been different - no moon, for instance, may have excluded the possibility of life forming on earth. The fact that it did happen could be taken as proof that the multiple events needed to get us where we are now must have coincided over time. Or that the whole thing was set in motion by a Creator - like a gardener might plant a seed. Or like a physicist might split an atom.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

To say that a creator is capable of living outside our universe's boundaries, can interact with our universe, and does not leave an afterimage is so far beyond reality that I can't accept it as plausible.

The environment in which God exists and operates is a mystery, for sure, but no more a mystery than the environment from which the universe sprang or how it ended up contemplating its own existence.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The environment in which God exists and operates is a mystery, for sure, but no more a mystery than the environment from which the universe sprang or how it ended up contemplating its own existence.

The big difference being that we can account, through physics models and even observation, for almost the entirety of the existence of our universe. So why insert a big mystery (God) which doesn't account for 99.9% of the rest of the universe in order to explain that 0.1%?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The environment in which God exists and operates is a mystery, for sure, but no more a mystery than the environment from which the universe sprang or how it ended up contemplating its own existence.

The big difference being that we can account, through physics models and even observation, for almost the entirety of the existence of our universe. So why insert a big mystery (God) which doesn't account for 99.9% of the rest of the universe in order to explain that 0.1%?

God would account for 100% of the universe, not just the unknown 0.1%. We can observe how the universe behaves to a great extent but that doesn't really go any way towards accounting for its existence, or its own contemplation of its birth.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The environment in which God exists and operates is a mystery, for sure, but no more a mystery than the environment from which the universe sprang or how it ended up contemplating its own existence.

The big difference being that we can account, through physics models and even observation, for almost the entirety of the existence of our universe. So why insert a big mystery (God) which doesn't account for 99.9% of the rest of the universe in order to explain that 0.1%?

God would account for 100% of the universe, not just the unknown 0.1%. We can observe how the universe behaves to a great extent but that doesn't really go any way towards accounting for its existence, or its own contemplation of its birth.

God may account for everything if you're willing to forgo evidence, logic, reason, observation, experimentation, etc. Unfortunately, not all of us can toss aside the facts and dismiss reality so easily simply because a myth is able to explain everything away.

There isn't a single thing in this universe for which God is the logical explanation.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I'm no Christian but I'd sooner trust Jesus.

Jesus didn't teach science, so I don't know why you brought it up or think it might contrast with what science teaches-- many Christians, including the largest denominations (e.g. Catholics) see no conflict. Most of the conflict between Christian thinking (Islam as well) and science are not by Jesus's teachings, but in the OT Hebrew mythologies.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I'm no Christian but I'd sooner trust Jesus.

Jesus didn't teach science, so I don't know why you brought it up or think it might contrast with what science teaches-- many Christians, including the largest denominations (e.g. Catholics) see no conflict. Most of the conflict between Christian thinking and science are not by Jesus's teachings, but in the OT mythologies.

Having read about the life of Jesus and what he had to say I have formed an opinion of the man, and it's a good opinion. I have read the works of Richard Dawkins and find him lacking as a reliable authority. I was just making an offhand comment as part of introducing myself rather than to promote a Christianity versus science debate.

Dawkins is more reliable than Jesus because we have evidence that Dawkins actually existed.

Comparing Dawkins to Jesus?

Yeah, I'm done here.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Having read about the life of Jesus and what he had to say I have formed an opinion of the man, and it's a good opinion. I have read the works of Richard Dawkins and find him lacking as a reliable authority. I was just making an offhand comment as part of introducing myself rather than to promote a Christianity versus science debate.

The context very much gave the impression you that were comparing their validity. My point is their teachings do not overlap. Jesus doesn't teach science, and Dawkins doesn't teach morals--though he is vocal about children's education at times.

I'm sorry you don't understand evolution. It is supported by multiple lines of evidence, successfully modelled and observed in real time. Only a ignorant and obstinate fool who's actually reviewed its concepts and evidence would reject it. Evolution is a fact.

But here's the good news--ignorance is curable, so long as there's an serious attempt and willingness to learn. And this forum is a reasonable place to do that learning, as long as you focus on learning and not turn it into or perceive it as a personal attack on one's values (there's really no reason to do so as a Christian)

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

The environment in which God exists and operates is a mystery, for sure, but no more a mystery than the environment from which the universe sprang or how it ended up contemplating its own existence.

The big difference being that we can account, through physics models and even observation, for almost the entirety of the existence of our universe. So why insert a big mystery (God) which doesn't account for 99.9% of the rest of the universe in order to explain that 0.1%?

God would account for 100% of the universe, not just the unknown 0.1%. We can observe how the universe behaves to a great extent but that doesn't really go any way towards accounting for its existence, or its own contemplation of its birth.

God may account for everything if you're willing to forgo evidence, logic, reason, observation, experimentation, etc. Unfortunately, not all of us can toss aside the facts and dismiss reality so easily simply because a myth is able to explain everything away.

There isn't a single thing in this universe for which God is the logical explanation.

I could easily be convinced that no God exists. I have no agenda or axe to grind. Like I said, it's a compelling idea - even for the non-religious. In post #66 I tried to show the possibility of a Creator, and tried to do so in a logical way; it included mention of observed behaviour; it contrasted the likelihood of God against the likelihood of cumulative coincidences/processes.

It's not that science doesn't have all the answers, it's that the important questions aren't answered adequately by science - how the universe came into existence, how life started, why the universe seeks to know its own origins etc. I have heard scientists discuss the possibility of creating a black hole. Which implies a singularity. If man could, even in theory, make a black hole with a singularity, then why could not the singularity from which the universe arose have been created by an entity? Seems to me to be a reasonable thing to enquire about.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Dawkins is more reliable than Jesus because we have evidence that Dawkins actually existed.

Even Dawkins acknowledges the existence of Jesus. I don't think he is in a minority on this one.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Having read about the life of Jesus and what he had to say I have formed an opinion of the man, and it's a good opinion. I have read the works of Richard Dawkins and find him lacking as a reliable authority. I was just making an offhand comment as part of introducing myself rather than to promote a Christianity versus science debate.

I'm sorry you don't understand evolution. It is supported by multiple lines of evidence, successfully modelled and observed in real time. Only a ignorant and obstinate fool who's actually reviewed its concepts and evidence would reject it. Evolution is a fact.

But here's the good news--ignorance is curable, so long as there's an serious attempt and willingness to learn. And this forum is a reasonable place to do that learning, as long as you focus on learning and not turn it into or perceive it as a personal attack on one's values (there's really no reason to do so as a Christian)

I have in the past read a lot of literature on 'evolution by natural selection' so have some understanding of the subject. I did read one book which I remember opposing that theory, saying that life may have evolved in fits and starts due to environmental changes, or something along those lines, and also an interesting concept. Willingness to learn is a virtue which I hope to retain whilst on this forum.The question that came to my mind was why evolution wasn't defeated by entropy, and now have a line of enquiry to follow up (2nd law of thermodynamics).

One reason why I question evolution by natural selection is that I haven't been totally convinced by its proponents. I'm really not trying to be dramatic or contentious when I say that The Blind Watchmaker was an awful book. I would have to read it again to be correctly critical but at the time I was dumbstruck at RD's explanation concerning the migration of a certain species of mammal. I was also nonplussed by his computer simulations. After hearing him complain about the accepted pronunciation of "compact disk" I couldn't help thinking how utterly ridiculous a writer he was. The fact that evolutionists have presented certain anatomical features as being indicative of evolving from something else (whale bones as legs, foetuses having fish-like gills etc) doesn't make evolution wrong but does make the explanations suspect.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

In post #66 I tried to show the possibility of a Creator, and tried to do so in a logical way; it included mention of observed behaviour; it contrasted the likelihood of God against the likelihood of cumulative coincidences/processes.

And it was clearly demonstrated that God was the inferior option.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

It's not that science doesn't have all the answers, it's that the important questions aren't answered adequately by science - how the universe came into existence, how life started, why the universe seeks to know its own origins etc.

Answered adequately for whom? Most science is not built on absolutes. Evolution will never be able to give us 100% certainty that it is the driving force behind the changing life on our planet. It's much easier to make something up (like God) if you demand the 100% that science cannot offer.

The entire point of science is simply to rule out the worst options and suggest that what remains is the best choice. God doesn't make it past round one.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I have heard scientists discuss the possibility of creating a black hole. Which implies a singularity. If man could, even in theory, make a black hole with a singularity, then why could not the singularity from which the universe arose have been created by an entity? Seems to me to be a reasonable thing to enquire about.

I have no idea what "scientists" you're referring to, but if they are seriously discussing making a black hole then they were either Time Lords or speaking theoretically. Humans are not yet anywhere near the point of being able to create planets or stars and we certainly cannot create an entire universe. The problem is that you're talking about a product of a universe creating the universe which it requires to exist. It's an illogical loop.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

In post #66 I tried to show the possibility of a Creator, and tried to do so in a logical way; it included mention of observed behaviour; it contrasted the likelihood of God against the likelihood of cumulative coincidences/processes.

And it was clearly demonstrated that God was the inferior option.

If it was I didn't notice.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

It's not that science doesn't have all the answers, it's that the important questions aren't answered adequately by science - how the universe came into existence, how life started, why the universe seeks to know its own origins etc.

Answered adequately for whom? Most science is not built on absolutes. Evolution will never be able to give us 100% certainty that it is the driving force behind the changing life on our planet. It's much easier to make something up (like God) if you demand the 100% that science cannot offer.

The entire point of science is simply to rule out the worst options and suggest that what remains is the best choice. God doesn't make it past round one.

On the above questions science offers 0% certainty.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I have heard scientists discuss the possibility of creating a black hole. Which implies a singularity. If man could, even in theory, make a black hole with a singularity, then why could not the singularity from which the universe arose have been created by an entity? Seems to me to be a reasonable thing to enquire about.

I have no idea what "scientists" you're referring to, but if they are seriously discussing making a black hole then they were either Time Lords or speaking theoretically. Humans are not yet anywhere near the point of being able to create planets or stars and we certainly cannot create an entire universe. The problem is that you're talking about a product of a universe creating the universe which it requires to exist. It's an illogical loop.

The "scientists" may or may not have included John Gribben or a contemporary, and yes, it was a theoretical idea. Unfortunately I cannot cite the source of my assertion but I don't think it's that much of an obscure proposition.

What this seems to suggest to me is that you are defining acceptable parameters globally based upon your personal preference.

To me, a scientific model which takes known science into account and extrapolates information based upon the notion that universal laws of physics do not change over time offers a substantially more acceptable explanation for phenomena than "God must have done it".

I'm sorry you feel differently.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

What this seems to suggest to me is that you are defining acceptable parameters globally based upon your personal preference.

To me, a scientific model which takes known science into account and extrapolates information based upon the notion that universal laws of physics do not change over time offers a substantially more acceptable explanation for phenomena than "God must have done it".

I'm sorry you feel differently.

But the universal laws of physics by definition don't apply to how the universe was created in the first place. And I am completely bereft of a reasonable explanation of how life started. Why the universe is 'self aware', in the form of the human mind, is a question which holds some interest for me and one which I haven't heard being addressed by scientists. My position is that God may have done it.

Which means I will take on board opposing views and give them fair consideration. If the default position is 'no God' it's correct to question that view. I do so not because I want to prove God's existence or because of any pre-existing indoctrination; it's a compulsion giving rise to intellectual examination.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

But the universal laws of physics by definition don't apply to how the universe was created in the first place.

Yet, they explain everything that has come after. So why suddenly deny the science which has been able to explain and predict everything up to a point? Why suddenly say that these scientists who could work out the complexity of billions upon billions of years of the life of our universe are not to be trusted in the fraction of a second leading up to that time? If you discount immediately, without reason, the work of those scientists in that brief moment which we cannot yet fully understand, then why not write off everything they have accomplished in regards to our current universe? Why not write off our understanding of physics and chemistry and mathematics entirely? Why choose that one brief moment?

My guess is that it is because you are looking for a weak spot in which you can insert God because we are starting to grow out of the idea that some supreme being is responsible for the sky being blue and babies being born. Find that last corner of scientific ignorance and squeeze God in there.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

And I am completely bereft of a reasonable explanation of how life started.

Yes. We're all painfully aware of that. I'm completely ignorant of how NASA was able to land a small mobile laboratory on Mars. Yet, I believe it happened and I trust the experts when they explain how they did it.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Why the universe is 'self aware', in the form of the human mind, is a question which holds some interest for me and one which I haven't heard being addressed by scientists. My position is that God may have done it.

Sure, your God may have done it. But it isn't fair to discount all of the other Gods throughout history, is it? While we're considering them, we should also make room for all of the Gods of all sentient races across the whole of the universe. Otherwise, we're not being "open minded."

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Which means I will take on board opposing views and give them fair consideration. If the default position is 'no God' it's correct to question that view. I do so not because I want to prove God's existence or because of any pre-existing indoctrination; it's a compulsion giving rise to intellectual examination.

Intellectual examination immediately discounts any idea of God. Given that there is zero evidence for God, she doesn't pass round one. She doesn't factor into the equation. She misses the bus. She gets the gong.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Why the universe is 'self aware', in the form of the human mind, is a question which holds some interest for me and one which I haven't heard being addressed by scientists.

Sorry, just me jumping in and out again with a question

But do you think humans are the only animals that are self aware in the universe?
Also, other than evolution, have you issues with any other scientific theory or does the theory of evolution just not sit well with certain preconceptions you may have with a god?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by samsmoot

But the universal laws of physics by definition don't apply to how the universe was created in the first place.

Yet, they explain everything that has come after. So why suddenly deny the science which has been able to explain and predict everything up to a point? I do not believe I have denied that science but have only questioned some things. Why suddenly say that these scientists who could work out the complexity of billions upon billions of years of the life of our universe are not to be trusted in the fraction of a second leading up to that time? I don't think I said that either. If you discount immediately, without reason, the work of those scientists in that brief moment which we cannot yet fully understand, then why not write off everything they have accomplished in regards to our current universe? Why not write off our understanding of physics and chemistry and mathematics entirely? Why choose that one brief moment? And again I have not written off any scientific explanation, and that brief moment is a vital one.

My guess is that it is because you are looking for a weak spot in which you can insert God because we are starting to grow out of the idea that some supreme being is responsible for the sky being blue and babies being born. Find that last corner of scientific ignorance and squeeze God in there. Not at all. My enquiry comes from no agenda to prove God, either to myself or anyone else. It comes from questions arising in my mind as to the possible existence of there being a Creator and how that might work.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

And I am completely bereft of a reasonable explanation of how life started.

Yes. We're all painfully aware of that. I'm completely ignorant of how NASA was able to land a small mobile laboratory on Mars. Yet, I believe it happened and I trust the experts when they explain how they did it. How life started is something for me to look into in more depth, and I will. At the moment I have yet to hear a coherent or convincing argument as to how life got started, and don't know who I should trust to listen to on this. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Why the universe is 'self aware', in the form of the human mind, is a question which holds some interest for me and one which I haven't heard being addressed by scientists. My position is that God may have done it.

Sure, your God may have done it. But it isn't fair to discount all of the other Gods throughout history, is it? While we're considering them, we should also make room for all of the Gods of all sentient races across the whole of the universe. Otherwise, we're not being "open minded." I posit a Creator, which excludes any gods that didn't make the universe.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Which means I will take on board opposing views and give them fair consideration. If the default position is 'no God' it's correct to question that view. I do so not because I want to prove God's existence or because of any pre-existing indoctrination; it's a compulsion giving rise to intellectual examination.

Intellectual examination immediately discounts any idea of God. Given that there is zero evidence for God, she doesn't pass round one. She doesn't factor into the equation. She misses the bus. She gets the gong.

Your intellectual examination may immediately discount any idea of God, mine so far hasn't. I have tried to keep my arguments strictly to reason and logic (as best I can), and have invoked no authority from religious writings or people, or from religious experience or 'feelings'. More capable minds than mine might present more robust reasons for the possibility of a Creator but I can only say what I think. I hope I have said it well enough and have explained why I think as I do.

So why suddenly deny the science which has been able to explain and predict everything up to a point? Why suddenly say that these scientists who could work out the complexity of billions upon billions of years of the life of our universe are not to be trusted in the fraction of a second leading up to that time? If you discount immediately, without reason, the work of those scientists in that brief moment which we cannot yet fully understand, then why not write off everything they have accomplished in regards to our current universe? Why not write off our understanding of physics and chemistry and mathematics entirely? Why choose that one brief moment?

I'm pretty sure this is yet another person who's trying to dislodge the base of a house of cards type of science so that it might possibly be reconstructed a different way.

In the meantime, scientists are working on the jigsaw puzzle of science. A 20000 piece, edgeless, doublesided monster of a jigsaw, but a jigsaw puzzle nevertheless. Large parts of the puzzle look pretty well completed. Big trouble with such a large and complex puzzle is that it's entirely possible that some of the pieces that look securely well-placed might turn out to be misplaced or reversed. What happens when that's discovered? Everyone says Aha! Finally. That looks better.

Which is no help at all to people who are unhappy with the picture that's emerging regardless of how the individual pieces fit in. They'd much rather a misplaced (or behind the couch) jigsaw puzzle piece had the same effect on the project as a misplaced card in a house of cards.

Originally Posted by pineapples

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Why the universe is 'self aware', in the form of the human mind, is a question which holds some interest for me and one which I haven't heard being addressed by scientists.

Sorry, just me jumping in and out again with a question

But do you think humans are the only animals that are self aware in the universe?
Also, other than evolution, have you issues with any other scientific theory or does the theory of evolution just not sit well with certain preconceptions you may have with a god?

Animals are somewhat self-aware, but the mind of man has an awareness not only of its own origins, but that of the universe itself. The universe has produced matter capable of contemplating its own creation - that matter being man.

I have no antipathy towards science whatsoever. I have tried to put aside, to the best of my ability, any preconceptions about God. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a subject I have read up on and am not thoroughly convinced at the moment. Some of its proponents have left me underwhelmed by their opinions.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by pineapples

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Why the universe is 'self aware', in the form of the human mind, is a question which holds some interest for me and one which I haven't heard being addressed by scientists.

Sorry, just me jumping in and out again with a question

But do you think humans are the only animals that are self aware in the universe?
Also, other than evolution, have you issues with any other scientific theory or does the theory of evolution just not sit well with certain preconceptions you may have with a god?

Animals are somewhat self-aware, but the mind of man has an awareness not only of its own origins, but that of the universe itself. The universe has produced matter capable of contemplating its own creation - that matter being man.

I have no antipathy towards science whatsoever. I have tried to put aside, to the best of my ability, any preconceptions about God. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a subject I have read up on and am not thoroughly convinced at the moment. Some of its proponents have left me underwhelmed by their opinions.

Evolution of humans and animals as physical species by natural selection is hard to argue against, but you do seem to have a point in that humans as far back as we know of do have conscious abilities that seem to have a greater awareness than the other species. Do you think our self awareness has progressed any since the days of Plato, Socrates, Buddha, Jesus, though?

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by pineapples

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Why the universe is 'self aware', in the form of the human mind, is a question which holds some interest for me and one which I haven't heard being addressed by scientists.

Sorry, just me jumping in and out again with a question

But do you think humans are the only animals that are self aware in the universe?
Also, other than evolution, have you issues with any other scientific theory or does the theory of evolution just not sit well with certain preconceptions you may have with a god?

Animals are somewhat self-aware, but the mind of man has an awareness not only of its own origins, but that of the universe itself. The universe has produced matter capable of contemplating its own creation - that matter being man.

I have no antipathy towards science whatsoever. I have tried to put aside, to the best of my ability, any preconceptions about God. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a subject I have read up on and am not thoroughly convinced at the moment. Some of its proponents have left me underwhelmed by their opinions.

Evolution of humans and animals as physical species by natural selection is hard to argue against, but you do seem to have a point in that humans as far back as we know of do have conscious abilities that seem to have a greater awareness than the other species. Do you think our self awareness has progressed any since the days of Plato, Socrates, Buddha, Jesus, though?

Very interesting question, Mayflow. The capacity for self-awareness seems to be the same, at first sight, but I'll have a think about it and let you know if I change my mind. Man's imagination has progressed [Edit: with the help of science!] in that he can imagine the whole of the universe in his head and contemplate the notion of different universes, so man has become more aware of his surroundings - which if not exactly 'self' awareness is an awareness which does affect the self.

I don't really understand why people think self-awareness is anymore special than say a bat which can use sonar and a well tuned brain to combat counter sonar and calculate the position and intercept a high speed insect. Or the fungus that can take over insect brains, make them climb and disperse their spores over a huge area. These are feats, which in their own way are much more impression than what humans can achieve. Humans are extraordinarily arrogant and narrow minded to think humans are really special as compared to the rest of the organisms on this planet. A complex brain is just one more adaptation in a sea of useful survival enhancing strategies.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I don't really understand why people think self-awareness is anymore special than say a bat which can use sonar and a well tuned brain to combat counter sonar and calculate the position and intercept a high speed insect. Or the fungus that can take over insect brains, make them climb and disperse their spores over a huge area. These are feats, which in their own way are much more impression than what humans can achieve. Humans are extraordinarily arrogant and narrow minded to think humans are really special as compared to the rest of the organisms on this planet. A complex brain is just one more adaptation in a sea of useful survival enhancing strategies.

I do think humans are different in that they have a much wider perception. The human mind can conceive of past, present and future and can contemplate its own origins and end. It can conceive the entire universe in its head, and can even imagine alternate universes. In the human mind the universe has constructed a means of knowing itself. Compared to a bat our self-awareness is, I would say, a lot more developed - and special.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I do think humans are different in that they have a much wider perception. The human mind can conceive of past, present and future and can contemplate its own origins and end. It can conceive the entire universe in its head, and can even imagine alternate universes.

I don't disrupt any of that, other than perhaps the arrogance of thinking we might be able to conceive of the entire universe with our severe limitations to observe it.

Compared to a bat our self-awareness is, I would say, a lot more developed - and special.

Special? Yes. More special? Not at all. It's just one more adaptation and no more special than others such as the bat, or the fungus. Arguably the "universe making" (is so odd a term I'm enjoying this) Rhizobia which can break nitrogen bonds is far more amazing and special than our species since they have made most other life on Earth possible.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I do think humans are different in that they have a much wider perception. The human mind can conceive of past, present and future and can contemplate its own origins and end. It can conceive the entire universe in its head, and can even imagine alternate universes.

I don't disrupt any of that, other than perhaps the arrogance of thinking we might be able to conceive of the entire universe with our severe limitations to observe it.

Maybe not the entire universe, but with telescopes and physics we are gaining an ever increasing awareness of it, and we can even imagine making one of our own. I don't think it's arrogant to think we can conceive the whole of the universe as it's already done to some extent and efforts continue to discover more. We are driven to achieve as complete an understanding of the universe as we can so we kind of do think we can conceive of its entirety.

Compared to a bat our self-awareness is, I would say, a lot more developed - and special.

Special? Yes. More special? Not at all. It's just one more adaptation and no more special than others such as the bat, or the fungus. Arguably the "universe making" (is so odd a term I'm enjoying this) Rhizobia which can break nitrogen bonds is far more amazing and special than our species since they have made most other life on Earth possible.

I will definitely take a look into Rhizobia - sounds very interesting.