Thread: Has Science Discovered God? -Requested by Cogito Ergo Sum

A kinda continuation of the 'living in the dark ages' thread.
Forum member Stargate provided a link (in that thread) to an article that tried to convince readers, basically that religion (an oddly particularly Christian Jesus Faith I guess) is on the right track, with its interpretation of Science VS religion.

The article does its best to convince the reader why the religious perspective is correct, with its interpretation of the world sciences.

This article however deserves a thread of it's own. So on forum member Cogito Ergo Sum's request... here is the article in its seperate thread.

The article consists of several webpages. Here are they with their specific title for easy reference:
Page 1 - Has Science Discovered God? Einstein didn’t believe it was possible. Stephen Hawking said it might be the greatest scientific discovery of all time.
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 2 - Has Science Discovered God? One-Time Beginning
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 3 - Has Science Discovered God? Everything from Nothing
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 4 - Has Science Discovered God? Finely-Tuned for Life
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 5 - Has Science Discovered God? Accident or Miracle?
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 6 - Has Science Discovered God? DNA: The Language of Life
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 7 -Has Science Discovered God? Fingerprints of a Creator
Has Science Discovered God?

I have not read all these pages specifically yet, but what I can make of it so far, is that it are exactly these kinds of web-based articles which religious people tend to read and use to make up their minds with.

This kind of online information provides compelling 'evidence' for the none initiated in science, to strenghten their religious viewpoint.

One specific thing I noticed on page 5 ... it reads:

But couldn’t this fine-tuning be attributed to chance? After all, odds-makers know that even long shots can eventually win at the racetrack. And, against heavy odds, lotteries are eventually won by someone. So, what are the odds against human life existing by chance from a random explosion in cosmic history?

For human life to be possible from a big bang defies the laws of probability. One astronomer calculates the odds at less than 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. [14] It would be far easier for a blind-folded person—in one try— to discover one specially marked grain of sand out of all the beaches of the world.

If you do not read carefully, you might miss it... but the writer of this article just nullified his own arguments, which was to support his viewpoint for a creator, be that God, Jesus or whatever. He said:

'After all, odds-makers know that even long shots can eventually win at the racetrack.'

Who cares the odds are slim to non existant? The writer of this article is assuming their is only one universe, and that only one universe has EVER been created.

He is negating the fact that time, as we understand it scientifically, is just one parameter of THIS universe. There have been many scientists already thinking of the idea of a Multiverse. Before the Big Bang... time did not exist. We can only study what we can observe and at this point in time we are only able to observe our own universe. However our scientific minds are already going much further.

In a Multiverse there might be numerous attempts to create Universes. Their may be many,... agreed, yes, whe do not know yet. Their might be just one, ours. The point is,... if creating Universes is a continuating event of whatever lies beyond our Universe,... then at some point a Universe like ours may be created. If a man and a woman want to make a baby,... having sex just one time,.. may not be enough.

Our Universe is evidence, that if such a process beyond our universe does indeed exists,... it got it 'right' atleast once.

Yes,... that is all theory,... but lets bring it down to simple Mother Earth then. That age old question:

Is their life in the Universe?

Yes,... mechanisms in our Universe atleast allowed life to sparkle up, against all the odds,... atleast once:

EARTH!

In our own Solar System, 3 attempts have been made:
- Venus - Too close to the Sun, the parameters made it too warm, and it is now a hell.
- Mars - To far away, it was too small to hold atmosphere and maintain a hot core for 'very long,'... the planet cooled, lost atmosphere... and died.
- Earth - Just right,... conditions on Terra Prime, allowing an atmosphere and conditions for atleast several billions of years,... long enough for life to evolve. This will change in the future. No doubt about that. Earth at some point will become inhabitable. It is one of my personal reasons I think science is so important. If we do no science... we will never be able to space travel... Earth will die,... and we will just be a footnote in the Universe's Legacy of awesomeness.

Anyway, I would need to read the rest of the 7 webpage article to argue on that other content it holds.

Enjoy forum member Cogito Ergo Sum.

This is not really an answer to the question but:

Regarding "God", I am not religious, and do not believe in a God. Having said that, if I had to design and build biological animals or humans, I would probably code the information in something very like DNA, which looks very like computer code, albeit quaternary instead of binary. It is incredible to me - (and I have a strongly evidence based scientific attitude and outlook) - that this simply evolved, but the evidence that scientists have discovered tells me that it did.

But I can understand why some people think there must be a "person" behind it all. Perhaps there is, or perhaps another race of beings designed us, and our life on Earth is their experiment?

The odds of something happening are: 1 minus the odds of that thing not happening. I don't know how one would calculate the odds of life not happening in the universe.

My own cynical view is that religion is perpetuated by people who want to control other people and society. Religious 'leaders' basically con their followers into believing a load of made up guff which contradicts itself and which CANNOT BE PROVEN OR DIS-PROVEN. Indeed there is not one shred of evidence to back up the existence of a 'God', only what people think they have seen or felt or experienced.

In the early years of pre - Homo sapien society, people did not know or understand how things such as the Sun or the solar system worked, so they tried to explain them in terms everyone could understand. I think this is how 'religion' started. For example; religious leaders told them that the Sun and all the planets circled the Earth, (a very arrogant view in itself). In later centuries, when astronomers studied this and said "er no actually, the Earth and all the planets are circling the Sun", they were branded as heretics by the religious leaders, who panicked because they saw their dominance over society threatened. However, in the face of mounting evidence, those leaders eventually shuffled their feet, looked embarrassed and conceded the point. The Bible says that the universe was created in 6 days. When scientists said "no, this is impossible, and how do you account for rocks which are millions of years old then?" religious leaders again looked embarrassed and said "Oh well the Bible doesn't actually mean 6 actual days, it is only an illustration".

They get caught out time and again by the results of their own fabrications - which vulnerable and less intelligent people believe.


OB



By the way, just for info:

There = there is a house.
Their = it is their house (possessive).
They're = they are going to live in it.

And:

To = I am going to the mall.
Too = I am coming too. or: Too much information !

Note; spell checkers will not flag up use of the wrong words, (which sound identical and are spelled correctly but are the wrong words). So for example: Is their life in the Universe? should be: 'Is there life in the Universe?'

Really sorry for being a pedant - I am a bad speller, but these common errors really stand out.

Originally Posted by One beer

This is not really an answer to the question but:

...
But I can understand why some people think there must be a "person" behind it all. Perhaps there is, or perhaps another race of beings designed us, and our life on Earth is their experiment?

The odds of something happening are: 1 minus the odds of that thing not happening. I don't know how one would calculate the odds of life not happening in the universe.

...

You seem to be totally ignoring my point here...

It has already happened, atleast once.

THIS Universe exists,... and in THIS Universe Life exists, ergo Earth!

You do not need to calculate the odds for 'Is it possible?', if this Universe and us living on this planet, mother Earth, are evidence that whatever the odds of creating Universes, and in this Universes capable of sustaining life, is possible,... yes it is possible.

It happened atleast once. Odds of gambling do not exclude ANY person from winning.

Why is it so impossible to believe, that if we, living in our Universe are a succesful 'attempt' by what ever mechanism (not meaning god) lies beyond our own Universe,... their may have been hunderds, thousands, billions, trillions attempts by this mechanism,... to make such a Universe.

Yeah, the fact we are able to contemplate this, is a miracle.... Or is it? For the Billions of years life has existed on THIS planet,... only a fraction of its time has their been life being able to question it all (us humans).

Ask the guy that won the lottery: 'What do you consider the change of you winning the lottery?'

He might reply 'oooh, I guess 1 in 15 million'... but those odds do not matter! He won.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

A kinda continuation of the 'living in the dark ages' thread.
Forum member Stargate provided a link (in that thread) to an article that tried to convince readers, basically that religion (an oddly particularly Christian Jesus Faith I guess) is on the right track, with its interpretation of Science VS religion.

The article does its best to convince the reader why the religious perspective is correct, with its interpretation of the world sciences.

This article however deserves a thread of it's own. So on forum member Cogito Ergo Sum's request... here is the article in its seperate thread.

I am surprised that anyone thought the article member Stargate provided in that thread (cf. post #50), was worth rebutting.
I do not know if it was necessary to make a separate thread about this, but given the fact that you have given an analysis of the article (in order to 'please' me), I can only applaud your efforts and provide my own analysis.


There are, as far as I am capable of analysing articles, at least 7 errors in the article:

1. The first error in the article is in this quote:

Originally Posted by Article

"Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the universe to begin. But some believe it clearly points to a Creator."

The latter might be believed by some scientists, but that does not make it true. It seems to be a combination of an argument from authority and an argument by assertion. No amount of belief makes something a fact, as James Randi once stated.


2. The initial condition of the Universe (a hot dense state) does not resemble the creatio ex nihilo as put forward in Gen 1:1.
In fact, the notion of creatio ex nihilo is not present in any model about the origin of the Universe, the origin of the Earth or the origin of life.


3. The third one is more or less the fine-tuning argument:

Originally Posted by Article

"Scientists who believe in God may have expected such fine-tuning, but atheists and agnostics were unable to explain the remarkable “coincidences.”"

Classic puddle-thinking. Member pavlos has already explained this kind of reasoning in another thread (post #781).
Furthermore, it is quite weird that a fine-tuned Universe for life does not seem to contain any form of life that differs from terrestrial life. And what is exactly the point of designing a star whose radiation causes skin cancer that kills over thousands of people each year?


4. Another error is throwing with vast numbers to demonstrate that the "odds against human life existing by chance from a random explosion in cosmic history" are astronomically low. The calculations are not given, thus they might as well made it all up.
For more information: Index of Creationist Claims, Claim CI301.


5. Next, the DNA part:

Originally Posted by Article

"Dawkins and other materialists believe that all this complexity originated through natural selection. Yet, as Crick remarked, natural selection could never have produced the first molecule. Many scientists believe that the coding within the DNA molecule points to an intelligence far exceeding what could have occurred by natural causes."

The appearance of DNA is not a matter of popping into existence (as opposed to ID), it is a matter of chemical reactions in an ever-changing and primordial environment (cf. Musgrove’s article). They seem to dismiss PNA and other XNAs, GMCs, autocatalytic cycles and ribozymes. There are plausible models to describe the appearance of DNA and its predecessors. The quote is basically a god-of-the-gaps argument: I cannot explain the appearance of DNA, therefore a god (and especially the deity I believe in).


6. Evoking a supernatural entity to address the design we seem to observe, begs the question who designed the designer. After all, given the fact that (the mind of) such a being must be more complex than the Universe and complexity requires design, it implies the existence of a Supercreator. However, if the designer does not need to be designed, then why does one assert intelligent design for something much simpler?


7. The last flaw is that it is unscientific thinking. The writer already assumes that the Bible is the word of God (the Intelligent Designer, Creator, etc.) and goes on to look for facts and quotes that support his view and dismiss those facts that do not agree with his worldview.
An example of cherry-picking, as pointed out by member Dywyddyr (cf. post #52).

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

A kinda continuation of the 'living in the dark ages' thread.
Forum member Stargate provided a link (in that thread) to an article that tried to convince readers, basically that religion (an oddly particularly Christian Jesus Faith I guess) is on the right track, with its interpretation of Science VS religion.

The article does its best to convince the reader why the religious perspective is correct, with its interpretation of the world sciences.

This article however deserves a thread of it's own. So on forum member Cogito Ergo Sum's request... here is the article in its seperate thread.

The article consists of several webpages. Here are they with their specific title for easy reference:
Page 1 - Has Science Discovered God? Einstein didn’t believe it was possible. Stephen Hawking said it might be the greatest scientific discovery of all time.
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 2 - Has Science Discovered God? One-Time Beginning
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 3 - Has Science Discovered God? Everything from Nothing
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 4 - Has Science Discovered God? Finely-Tuned for Life
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 5 - Has Science Discovered God? Accident or Miracle?
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 6 - Has Science Discovered God? DNA: The Language of Life
Has Science Discovered God?

Page 7 -Has Science Discovered God? Fingerprints of a Creator
Has Science Discovered God?

I have not read all these pages specifically yet, but what I can make of it so far, is that it are exactly these kinds of web-based articles which religious people tend to read and use to make up their minds with.

This kind of online information provides compelling 'evidence' for the none initiated in science, to strenghten their religious viewpoint.

One specific thing I noticed on page 5 ... it reads:

But couldn’t this fine-tuning be attributed to chance? After all, odds-makers know that even long shots can eventually win at the racetrack. And, against heavy odds, lotteries are eventually won by someone. So, what are the odds against human life existing by chance from a random explosion in cosmic history?

For human life to be possible from a big bang defies the laws of probability. One astronomer calculates the odds at less than 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. [14] It would be far easier for a blind-folded person—in one try— to discover one specially marked grain of sand out of all the beaches of the world.

If you do not read carefully, you might miss it... but the writer of this article just nullified his own arguments, which was to support his viewpoint for a creator, be that God, Jesus or whatever. He said:

'After all, odds-makers know that even long shots can eventually win at the racetrack.'

Who cares the odds are slim to non existant? The writer of this article is assuming their is only one universe, and that only one universe has EVER been created.

He is negating the fact that time, as we understand it scientifically, is just one parameter of THIS universe. There have been many scientists already thinking of the idea of a Multiverse. Before the Big Bang... time did not exist. We can only study what we can observe and at this point in time we are only able to observe our own universe. However our scientific minds are already going much further.

In a Multiverse there might be numerous attempts to create Universes. Their may be many,... agreed, yes, whe do not know yet. Their might be just one, ours. The point is,... if creating Universes is a continuating event of whatever lies beyond our Universe,... then at some point a Universe like ours may be created. If a man and a woman want to make a baby,... having sex just one time,.. may not be enough.

Our Universe is evidence, that if such a process beyond our universe does indeed exists,... it got it 'right' atleast once.

Yes,... that is all theory,... but lets bring it down to simple Mother Earth then. That age old question:

Is their life in the Universe?

Yes,... mechanisms in our Universe atleast allowed life to sparkle up, against all the odds,... atleast once:

EARTH!

In our own Solar System, 3 attempts have been made:
- Venus - Too close to the Sun, the parameters made it too warm, and it is now a hell.
- Mars - To far away, it was too small to hold atmosphere and maintain a hot core for 'very long,'... the planet cooled, lost atmosphere... and died.
- Earth - Just right,... conditions on Terra Prime, allowing an atmosphere and conditions for atleast several billions of years,... long enough for life to evolve. This will change in the future. No doubt about that. Earth at some point will become inhabitable. It is one of my personal reasons I think science is so important. If we do no science... we will never be able to space travel... Earth will die,... and we will just be a footnote in the Universe's Legacy of awesomeness.

Anyway, I would need to read the rest of the 7 webpage article to argue on that other content it holds.

Enjoy forum member Cogito Ergo Sum.

the problem with the people is that everyone reads things and accept things wich Strengthens them in their beliefs religion or science...

The article caught my eye because some members were discussing the idea that god and science could not exist. I will read it again and respond.

My take on this topic is not so much about religion because I am not religiously inclined to anything; however I am spirit and matter, there has to be room for spirit and matter to exist within the parameters of science. Science has not been able to effectively prove anything about how the universe came into being, much the same as religion could not. I think there will come a time when science can prove that spirit does exist. One of the main problem is how can science move from the static way of thinking and move to a new concept of spirit. I use a simple concept to elucidate to my own self by making water the medium of my spirit. Someone has yet to come up with an idea of what water really is, except defining that it is a molecule. Unscientific as it may sound, why cannot water represent the spirit in my body? Although it may not be water there must be a possibility to measure some sort of emanation from my body, be it in light form or radiation. Why does science have to be in conflict with spirit or religion? There is a part of us that is only accessible through feeling, another part only through the senses, why is there this extraordinary denial and rejection?

Originally Posted by Stargate

there has to be room for spirit and matter to exist within the parameters of science.

"Spirit" almost by definition is outside anything science can investigate.

Science has not been able to effectively prove anything about how the universe came into being

So what?
Not being able provide a definitve answer for one thing does NOT - at all - imply that something unrelated exists.

I think there will come a time when science can prove that spirit does exist.

Not unless the definition of "spirit" alters.

One of the main problem is how can science move from the static way of thinking and move to a new concept of spirit.

You have repeatedly been informed that this will not be the case.

Someone has yet to come up with an idea of what water really is

What?

Unscientific as it may sound, why cannot water represent the spirit in my body?

Because water does not not do any of the things that "spirit" is claimed to do.
Because water is amenable to investigation, "spirit" is not.
Because water can be show to exist, "spirit" cannot.
Because, and this may be hard for you to understand: water is water, NOT "spirit".

Although it may not be water there must be a possibility to measure some sort of emanation from my body, be it in light form or radiation

Science can, and does.
"Spirit" doesn't show up.

Why does science have to be in conflict with spirit or religion?

Because "spirit" is unsupported bullshit and religion makes false claims.

There is a part of us that is only accessible through feeling, another part only through the senses, why is there this extraordinary denial and rejection?

What "part" would this be?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

there has to be room for spirit and matter to exist within the parameters of science.

"Spirit" almost by definition is outside anything science can investigate.

Science has not been able to effectively prove anything about how the universe came into being

So what?
Not being able provide a definitve answer for one thing does NOT - at all - imply that something unrelated exists.

I think there will come a time when science can prove that spirit does exist.

Not unless the definition of "spirit" alters.

One of the main problem is how can science move from the static way of thinking and move to a new concept of spirit.

You have repeatedly been informed that this will not be the case.

Someone has yet to come up with an idea of what water really is

What?

Unscientific as it may sound, why cannot water represent the spirit in my body?

Because water does not not do any of the things that "spirit" is claimed to do.
Because water is amenable to investigation, "spirit" is not.
Because water can be show to exist, "spirit" cannot.
Because, and this may be hard for you to understand: water is water, NOT "spirit".

Although it may not be water there must be a possibility to measure some sort of emanation from my body, be it in light form or radiation

Science can, and does.
"Spirit" doesn't show up.

Why does science have to be in conflict with spirit or religion?

Because "spirit" is unsupported bullshit and religion makes false claims.

There is a part of us that is only accessible through feeling, another part only through the senses, why is there this extraordinary denial and rejection?

What "part" would this be?

How can you show a dead man that he is dead? Your knowledge of water is so limited, that you always seem to go where no one else can follow. It sort of makes you a god or not? I bet you like that god part. Do not take me too serious on the god part because I do not have a god, I take responsibility for myself.
Although I find some of the things you say boring, I think you are tenacious.

Originally Posted by Stargate

My take on this topic is not so much about religion because I am not religiously inclined to anything; however I am spirit and matter, there has to be room for spirit and matter to exist within the parameters of science. Science has not been able to effectively prove anything about how the universe came into being, much the same as religion could not. I think there will come a time when science can prove that spirit does exist. One of the main problem is how can science move from the static way of thinking and move to a new concept of spirit. I use a simple concept to elucidate to my own self by making water the medium of my spirit. Someone has yet to come up with an idea of what water really is, except defining that it is a molecule. Unscientific as it may sound, why cannot water represent the spirit in my body? Although it may not be water there must be a possibility to measure some sort of emanation from my body, be it in light form or radiation. Why does science have to be in conflict with spirit or religion? There is a part of us that is only accessible through feeling, another part only through the senses, why is there this extraordinary denial and rejection?

I recall seeing a documentary on TV many years ago, which talked about the aura that illuminates around the body of each living being (including plants) And they even had special camera's to show it. This aura would be coloured different if the mood of the person was different. I do not recall much of the documentary other then this,... and I do not recall them providing any scientific base for what was said in the docu. But it was in the early 90-ties I think, when I saw it. Surely if it had a scientific base, by now there should have been much more known stuff on that particular field of study.

I suppose it was just pseudo-science?

Anyway,... forum member Stargate,... I find that what you said hard to swallow. I am an Atheist and I also do not believe in anything religious, mystical or magical. I am directly tempted to notify you, that what you consider spirit, I would consider consciousness. If you do not mean this, then correct me on it.
I would think at some point in the future, science would come up with a workable theory for consciousness. At this time, we still have trouble defining it. So doing hard study on it, is problematic. There are just to many theories around, to come to a significant conclusion.

Anyway you said:

Science has not been able to effectively prove anything about how the universe came into being, much the same as religion could not.

You are leaving out something important here!

Science is working everyday on finetuning and bettering their ideas, theories and basic understanding of the Universe. At some point,... it may take a week, it may take several centuries,... but at some point... science will provide the answers we all seek globally (even those religious folks, though they would deny it when asked).

Religions do not. Religions do not seek answers, they do not do field-study and better themselves, they do not come up with new idea's.
Religions all live in the past. All the sources religions provide are ancient and old. No new knowledge is gained, unless you would consider writing a new book and making a new religion (like The Book of Mormon), gaining religious knowledge.

Originally Posted by Stargate

How can you show a dead man that he is dead?

Dead men can't be shown anything.
The thing about dead people is that they're noticeably unresponsive. And they never learn anything.

Your knowledge of water is so limited

Oh please, point out what I'm missing.
What is that I don't know about it?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Someone has yet to come up with an idea of what water really is, except defining that it is a molecule.

Well, I'm an hydrologist so if there is something about water which is unclear to you I'd be happy to explain.

I'm not sure why you think water is such a mystery, but we actually understand it pretty well...

... you're not one of those people who thinks water crystals are a link to some spirit realm are you?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

Someone has yet to come up with an idea of what water really is, except defining that it is a molecule.

Well, I'm an hydrologist so if there is something about water which is unclear to you I'd be happy to explain.

I'm not sure why you think water is such a mystery, but we actually understand it pretty well...

... you're not one of those people who thinks water crystals are a link to some spirit realm are you?

Miss Dorothy, the hydrologist at work.

But I can understand why some people think there must be a "person" behind it all. Perhaps there is, or perhaps another race of beings designed us, and our life on Earth is their experiment?

One thing that we know about people generally.

They have real difficulties in perceiving, let alone understanding, very large numbers.

They are absolutely dreadful at dealing with probabilities - statistics in any form to be honest.

So when we talk about life or anything else arising by "chance", we're talking about the the opportunities for certain chemical and then biological things to happen. All over the whole surface of the world for every milli-second of the world's existence before that particular chemical thingie happened.

How many seconds per year? 31 and a half million.
How many milliseconds? 31 and a half billion. Per year.
How many years? Let's say 2 billion.

Now we have 63 billion billion opportunities. For every molecule on the earth's surface, and in the oceans, which is touching another molecule - that's all of them.

How many molecules? It's not infinite, but it may as well be. Choose the largest number you'd like, probably in the gazillion range - then multiply by 63 billion billion.

And remember, we only need one particular interaction to "succeed", and then only partially, to set the ball rolling to get where we are now.

Once you start looking at chance in those terms, it's a lot less like a lottery. And remember the other difference from lotteries. It's only about whether there is any "winner" at all, and that winner doesn't even have to have got it completely right. The result only has to be good enough to allow further interactions, not to be a successful cell or life form in its own right.

It's a lot easier for many people to think that someone or something made up their mind in advance that they wanted a particular outcome and had the knowledge to make that specific thing happen. It's rather like thinking that evolution and cosmology are like cooking. I want a cake or a casserole so I gather up the necessary ingredients and mix them and heat them correctly and Hey presto! Food! For me. Just what I wanted.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Originally Posted by Stargate

My take on this topic is not so much about religion because I am not religiously inclined to anything; however I am spirit and matter, there has to be room for spirit and matter to exist within the parameters of science. Science has not been able to effectively prove anything about how the universe came into being, much the same as religion could not. I think there will come a time when science can prove that spirit does exist. One of the main problem is how can science move from the static way of thinking and move to a new concept of spirit. I use a simple concept to elucidate to my own self by making water the medium of my spirit. Someone has yet to come up with an idea of what water really is, except defining that it is a molecule. Unscientific as it may sound, why cannot water represent the spirit in my body? Although it may not be water there must be a possibility to measure some sort of emanation from my body, be it in light form or radiation. Why does science have to be in conflict with spirit or religion? There is a part of us that is only accessible through feeling, another part only through the senses, why is there this extraordinary denial and rejection?

I recall seeing a documentary on TV many years ago, which talked about the aura that illuminates around the body of each living being (including plants) And they even had special camera's to show it. This aura would be coloured different if the mood of the person was different. I do not recall much of the documentary other then this,... and I do not recall them providing any scientific base for what was said in the docu. But it was in the early 90-ties I think, when I saw it. Surely if it had a scientific base, by now there should have been much more known stuff on that particular field of study.

I suppose it was just pseudo-science?

Anyway,... forum member Stargate,... I find that what you said hard to swallow. I am an Atheist and I also do not believe in anything religious, mystical or magical. I am directly tempted to notify you, that what you consider spirit, I would consider consciousness. If you do not mean this, then correct me on it.
I would think at some point in the future, science would come up with a workable theory for consciousness. At this time, we still have trouble defining it. So doing hard study on it, is problematic. There are just to many theories around, to come to a significant conclusion.

Anyway you said:

Science has not been able to effectively prove anything about how the universe came into being, much the same as religion could not.

You are leaving out something important here!

Science is working everyday on finetuning and bettering their ideas, theories and basic understanding of the Universe. At some point,... it may take a week, it may take several centuries,... but at some point... science will provide the answers we all seek globally (even those religious folks, though they would deny it when asked).

Religions do not. Religions do not seek answers, they do not do field-study and better themselves, they do not come up with new idea's.
Religions all live in the past. All the sources religions provide are ancient and old. No new knowledge is gained, unless you would consider writing a new book and making a new religion (like The Book of Mormon), gaining religious knowledge.

Eq, I do understand what you are saying and in part I also agree with some of the points you make, however, I cannot see my heart with my outer eyes so I feel it, and it tells me it’s there, I cannot see the back of myself, if I want to do so I have to use a tool or ask someone to look for me. I am aware of my capabilities you may not be aware of. I explain who I am to me, so I can live with myself. It is not beneficial for me to try and live you, so I do not try. I am not advocating religion because it is not for everyone. I am sure science will find answers for some things but not at once. I think everything is possible that can be possible and the same in the reverse.

Well, that cleared up absolutely nothing.

I mean, what does "I think everything is possible that can be possible" even mean? It's just a redundant statement. You claim you know who you are, but do you know what you are saying?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I mean, what does "I think everything is possible that can be possible" even mean?

I think it's a posh way of saying: everything is cream cheese unless it isn't.
Alternatively it could mean: I haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by adelady

But I can understand why some people think there must be a "person" behind it all. Perhaps there is, or perhaps another race of beings designed us, and our life on Earth is their experiment?

One thing that we know about people generally.

They have real difficulties in perceiving, let alone understanding, very large numbers.

They are absolutely dreadful at dealing with probabilities - statistics in any form to be honest.

So when we talk about life or anything else arising by "chance", we're talking about the the opportunities for certain chemical and then biological things to happen. All over the whole surface of the world for every milli-second of the world's existence before that particular chemical thingie happened.

How many seconds per year? 31 and a half million.
How many milliseconds? 31 and a half billion. Per year.
How many years? Let's say 2 billion.

Now we have 63 billion billion opportunities. For every molecule on the earth's surface, and in the oceans, which is touching another molecule - that's all of them.

How many molecules? It's not infinite, but it may as well be. Choose the largest number you'd like, probably in the gazillion range - then multiply by 63 billion billion.

And remember, we only need one particular interaction to "succeed", and then only partially, to set the ball rolling to get where we are now.

Once you start looking at chance in those terms, it's a lot less like a lottery. And remember the other difference from lotteries. It's only about whether there is any "winner" at all, and that winner doesn't even have to have got it completely right. The result only has to be good enough to allow further interactions, not to be a successful cell or life form in its own right.

It's a lot easier for many people to think that someone or something made up their mind in advance that they wanted a particular outcome and had the knowledge to make that specific thing happen. It's rather like thinking that evolution and cosmology are like cooking. I want a cake or a casserole so I gather up the necessary ingredients and mix them and heat them correctly and Hey presto! Food! For me. Just what I wanted.

You know it is very simple.

What is one of the really major issues that would sincerely validate Evolution?

Think of it... I'll give you some time...

...
...
...

Nope, it is not the Missing Link thingy. We debunked creationists on this a long time ago already and many times after that,... though they still deny it.

...

It is:

'How did the first cell came to be?'

How do you go from... ow look at all these fuzzy swimming and roaming around individual molecules and stuff,... towards the first orgasm in Biology History, that created the first baby, a primordial cell?
We still do not know that,... but SCIENCE is researching it,.. while Religion is sitting on its fat behind (composed of centuries old doctrines).

And at some point,.. science will figure it out. Of this I have no doubt.

I took 50 years to prove the Higgs Boson to be true and Billions of dollars.

I smile, while religious folks rant ancient doctrines that are not going anywhere.....

Science progresses, and each second in time,... Religion adds one second of time towards the longest lasting record in Guiness History,.. of believing in bullshit.

....

They are now all over this particular thing.... the first cell.
Claiming victory as science can not come up with answers.

They fail to notice the ... 'not yet,... but'

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

What is one of the really major issues that would sincerely validate Evolution?

Though it's likely a fuzzy line, there's a difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution has already been validated -- in fact the modern world, including scientist should call it a fact at this point (many do) and stop handing deniers ammunition for their rhetorical wars.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Well, that cleared up absolutely nothing.

I mean, what does "I think everything is possible that can be possible" even mean? It's just a redundant statement. You claim you know who you are, but do you know what you are saying?

It is you who do not know what I am talking about, the reason being I do not see it your way.

Originally Posted by Stargate

It is you who do not know what I am talking about, the reason being I do not see it your way.

And the problems with that are:
A) it takes you forever to admit that you're using your own definitions, and
B) you're apparently incapable of explaining in any coherent manner how you see it.

In short, you're one step removed from a troll, and I'm undecided whether that's one step up or one step down.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

Your knowledge of water is so limited

Oh please, point out what I'm missing.
What is that I don't know about it?

You forgot to tell him that water is often wet.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

You forgot to tell him that water is often wet.

And that's another claim of his he's failed to support. Or even explain.

Hi adelady,

Your post re odds is very interesting. (I stress that I am a non-believer of any 'god', partly because there is absolutely no evidence for one and there never has been).


On the subject of odds though; Knowing how integrated circuits are made layer by layer on silicon wafers; I have often wondered if any sort of integrated electronic circuit could ever be made by pure chance, on a rock on a planet somewhere with lots of elements around being deposited and maybe acidic rain etc.


The odds against this would be seem to be virtually infinite, but as you have illustrated with biological systems, the odds might not actually be that high?


OB

The odds against this would be seem to be virtually infinite, but as you have illustrated with biological systems, the odds might not actually be that high?

I'd say they're a lot higher. With biological systems it's just get something, anything, to get to a point near life and let things run thereafter. And there's no requirement for any item in the resulting ecologies to have or not have any particular characteristics. Like in our case, highly intelligent but hopeless with statistics and probability despite being absolutely fantastic at pattern recognition.

Once you start needing a specific outcome with specific functionality you're introducing an entirely different concept. You need something other than "just let it happen" for that kind of thing.

The energy required to create amino acids from present elements is lower than the amount of energy required to produce a computer chip from those elements.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

What is one of the really major issues that would sincerely validate Evolution?

Though it's likely a fuzzy line, there's a difference between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution has already been validated -- in fact the modern world, including scientist should call it a fact at this point (many do) and stop handing deniers ammunition for their rhetorical wars.

The argument against creationists and evolution deniers and those who believe in intelligent design is easily defeated.

They claim that all things are created, and all life is designed. Their argument stems along the line that anything complex, must, by definition, be designed, since nature and chance (evolution) could never result in something so complex.

The counter to that argument is simple. Since anything complex (ie any life on earth) must be designed, then they "have to accept that the designer itself, which is complex by definition, must also be designed"¹

---

¹ That link was found on another forum - has become my favourite link regarding intelligent design!

Originally Posted by Tranquille

The counter to that argument is simple. Since anything complex (ie any life on earth) must be designed, then they "have to accept that the designer itself, which is complex by definition, must also be designed"¹

A humorous approach to the ID argument. Thank you for sharing!
It seems to be the same counterargument as the one I used in post #4 (point 6).

Originally Posted by Tranquille

They claim that all things are created, and all life is designed. Their argument stems along the line that anything complex, must, by definition, be designed, since nature and chance (evolution) could never result in something so complex.

I don't normally get involved in ID debates ( since nothing useful ever comes out of people trying to defend personal convictions ), but the above is just silly. I would argue the exact opposite - precisely because it is so complex, it is extremely unlikely to be the result of a design effort. All complex systems we observe in nature appear to be the result of "organic" processes, such as growth, or non-linear processes such as the ones modelled in chaos theory, examples for all of which are easily observable. Never once have we observed anything being spontaneously "created" or "designed". Such an event is merely an unsupported and rather illogical claim.

Amazing isn't it though how complex systems can evolve "by themselves" - our eyes and brain for example?

And this can happen with simple rules. I can't remember the details, but I saw on TV a computer experiment where they modeled a pair of legs joined by hips. The legs didn't 'know' how to walk. They next programed some basic moves and applied them to 100 iterations of the legs with very slight differences to the parameters etc. All the legs fell over, but they took the five most stable and put those back through the program. They repeated this a number of times and the best legs 'learned' how to walk without falling over in surprisingly few 'generations'.





(I should point out that when I said 'integrated electronic circuit', that could include a basic transistor switch for example.)


OB

I read about that experiment in a Popular Science mag. They showed some of the many iterations of walking mechanisms that "evolved" and which ones were the most successful.

It was pretty cool.