Why God??!!

[Mart]

The extent of our human ignorance is large. We do not know many things, phenomena in our Universe. Scientists and philosofers are probably one of the closest people to the truth, if we were to try to quantify it. Also one can also say that wisdom is not the same as scientific knowledge.
Definition of supernatural should be used with care though. supernatual may be also to many people something which is right to physics law, but occuring once every million years. Well..., someone after 80 years of living might conclude that something is supernatural because he/she sees it for the first time when being 81. Keeping a mind open is important, I think. The basis of science is to reveal previously covered things, to be ready to find something never seen before. I find it ironic that often people of science can be closed for a possibility of existence of God.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by mart7x5

The point is that God did not have to create our universe. Stating that because existence of God adds nothing to the equation proves that God does not exist is illogical for me. In the same manner I could say for example that existance of ... let's say Antarctica is unnecessary for me. I have never been there. All pictures I saw from there might be nothing more but a manipulation. Does it prove that Antarctica does not exist?

Uh uh, I didn't say it proved God did not exist. Occam's Razor doesn't prove anything. It does two things.

One, if the Razor cuts something out, it's because that object has no affect on the equation, i.e. the universe, and thus means nothing to the universe. If Occam's Razor says that God is not necessary for evolution or physics, then I will not take God into account when considering either of these things. Even if God does exist, it doesn't matter to me because God has no effect on my life.

Secondly, Occam's Razor forces you to point out how God is an integral part of evolution or physics. If you can show that, then the discussion begins anew. Until that point, however, there is no reason to even speculate upon God's existence, because it is of no consequence to our existence.

[Mart]

Originally posted by Lorizael

... God has no effect on my life. ...

For that you need to be sure that your life (your consciousness) ends with death of your biological body. I haven't yet seen such proof. Is my consciousness a bunch of electrons in my brain cells? Science determined that they are responsible for my body functioning, but is this the same as consciousness?

[Lorizael]

The burden of proof is on you, though. There is no reason to think that consciousness continues after death, so no proof is needed to ascertain this.

However, you have proposed this idea, so you must provide proof that it is so. You must show why things are different than what is seen.

And you cannot do this by invoking God's name, because you are attempting to show that God exists. Circular reasoning will not be accepted.

[Mart]

It's being open:

There is no reason to think that consciousness continues after death

there is no reason also to think that consciousness does not continue after death.

For one person a glass is half empty, another person will say that this very same glass is half full. They both describe the same thing in different ways. Similarly here you cannot really proof any of theese two:

consciousnes dies with body
consciousnes does not die with body

my approach is: both are then possible

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by mart7x5
there is no reason also to think that consciousness does not continue after death.

There certainly is. Consciousness is a product of the brain. When the brain is dead, it's reasonable to assume that consciousness is not continuing. In fact, it's a pretty simple, logical conclusion.

That's not to say it's proven that consciousness does not continue after death, only that everything we know of human physiology suggests otherwise, so it's a reasonable assumption that this is the case.

[Mart]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Consciousness is a product of the brain.

And this is where I do not agree. Previously people (we now call them less educated) thought that human consciousness is around human heart. Now it is brain. Are you sure we are at the end of this "consciousness" thread? I'm not

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by mart7x5
And this is where I do not agree. Previously people (we now call them less educated) thought that human consciousness is around human heart. Now it is brain. Are you sure we are at the end of this "consciousness" thread? I'm not

We went over this in a previous thread about abortion.

Without a brain, there is no consciousness. Those "previous people" weren't relying on any scientific anatomy. It's been well established for hundreds of years now that the brain is the center of human consciousness. Perhaps, if you have some dramatic evidence that would overturn modern medical thought, you should present it.

Frankly, I get very tired of the "well, people in the stone age used to think X was true, but now we think Y is true, but we could be wrong like the people who believed X" argument. It's a ridiculously simplistic way of looking at it that ignores the vast differences in the available information and techniques between then and now.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by mart7x5
And this is where I do not agree. Previously people (we now call them less educated) thought that human consciousness is around human heart. Now it is brain. Are you sure we are at the end of this "consciousness" thread? I'm not

Explain consciousness outside the body without the presence of God. This is what I'm getting at. You think that humans were granted souls by God. If you take away God, because you are after all trying to prove his existence, where does consciousness come from?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
No, we have different definitions of "troll," though. Don't forget, I'm a "religionist." I don't know much about Occam's razor, but it seems stupid to sneer at people for following the advice of several people from thousands of years ago, and support your sneering by following the precedent of a single man from hundreds of years ago. So yourself.

It's not precedent. We follow the rule because it's true

As for "simplest explanation," you run into trouble there. You're in the rhetorical fishbowl here, remember. It's a pretty big statement to make when you can't ever see the whole picture at stake. It looks "simple" to you, but the way chimps fish for termites looks simple until you try it. Occam's Razor might be more sensibly applied to a question in a laboratory, where the full set of affecting circumstances are understood. Here it's sorta arbitrary.

Here's what it boils down to: no matter how you put it, in the end life arose through natural processes. There simply isn't anything outside of nature. Any argument that a creator is necessary for the complexity/existance of life, misses that the complexity would simply be deferred to the creator.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


The information argument above is simply an Argument from Personal Incredulity, and it's flawed to boot, as it is assigning a mystical defition to "information" that does not exist. The "information" in question is nothing more than the chemicals in question reacting based upon the laws of physics. You haven't adequately defined "information" at any rate. You use it without really understanding what it means in science.

TalkOrigins has already dealt with this, because the Creationist dittoheads have been repeating variations on this for ages:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/feb04.html

I fully understand the definition of information givien in science as in "information theory" for example. And the classical definition certainly does exist. There is nothing "mystical" about it. It is plainly spelled out in the dictionary among other places. First the "scientific definition" as you call it:

That definition was made popular by a certain Claude Shannon. He made clear in his use of the word that he was not referring to the word "in the ordnarry sense". Read the introduction to his paper (I don't have it handy) but he essentially said that he was concerned with the TRANSMISSION of EXISTING information not the origin of that information. Richard Dawkins leaps on his work in an excersize in irrelevance. Not because Shannon was wrong but because he was not dealing with the origin but its transmission and how the true message is discerned among the noise etc.

The ordinary sense of the word information is quite obvious and that is the sense that is under discussion when we are concerned about the origin, as in the origin of the informtion in DNA for example or the origin of information in a computer, book or computerized machine. The definition is:

1. The act of informing or being informed. 2. Knowledge derived from study, experience or instruction etc.. 3. A non accidental signal used as an input in a computer or communication system.

Inform means to tell or otherwise give or send information.

The issue is where does the nonaccidential signal or the "telling" of the meaning (in the case of DNA) of the codons come from? Or in other words, how do the laws of physics take on a new role of informing chemicals that they have meaning beyond their normal blind characteristics? The question is simple:

What law of physics cause DNA to give a coded message that is understood, decoded and translated correctly into actual work within the cell?

For example; AUG means Methionine. Yet Adenine Uracil and Guanine do not chemically form Methonine. The combination of Adenine Uracil and Guanine only MEANS Meathionine. How was the meaning assigned to, first the nucleotide bases (ATCG), and then to their correct combination into triplet 'words' and how was this meaning translated along with the formation of an associated gramatical system etc. to produce a language such as exists in DNA?

This subject of the origin of infomation was not a diobolic scheme of evil Creationists but it has provoked thought among most anyone who studies DNA as it did with Francis Crick who was among the first to discover its unique coded message. He thought it must have come from outer space.

(edit: I didn't read clearly and made a dumb mistake, so I had to change a couple of words.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The foundation of all life is contained in specific detailed instructions and information that can be read, interpreted, understood and acted upon logically. This type of information cannot arise without intelligent input.

And right here, you have a fundamental premise that discredits your entire argument. This information was present in the Creator's mind. Where did that come from?

What caused God?

(btw, existing "outside" of spacetime has nothing to do with anything, just to head that off - if God exists, he must be part of the universe. Spacetime is just a coincidence, like gravity, not some fundamental property of a universe)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mart7x5

The point is that God did not have to create our universe. Stating that because existence of God adds nothing to the equation proves that God does not exist is illogical for me. In the same manner I could say for example that existance of ... let's say Antarctica is unnecessary for me. I have never been there. All pictures I saw from there might be nothing more but a manipulation. Does it prove that Antarctica does not exist?

Here's a better example: because I have no proof that undetectable dancing elves live on the surfaces of electrons, they don't exist.

[Lincoln]

When you tell me what caused the Big Bang and what caused the material to be present and what was before that then I will answer your question. If you cannot discuss an issue because it leads to a mystery then you have no business postulating anything about the formation of the universe. Both roads lead to a mystery.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lincoln


I fully understand the definition of information givien in science as in "information theory" for example. And the classical definition certainly does exist. There is nothing "mystical" about it. It is plainly spelled out in the dictionary among other places. First the "scientific definition" as you call it:

That definition was made popular by a certain Claude Shannon. He made clear in his use of the word that he was not referring to the word "in the ordnarry sense". Read the introduction to his paper (I don't have it handy) but he essentially said that he was concerned with the TRANSMISSION of EXISTING information not the origin of that information. Talk Origins leaps on his work as does Richard Dawkins in an excersize in irrelevance. Not because Shannon was wrong but because he was not dealing with the origin but its transmission and how the true message is discerned among the noise etc.

The ordinary sense of the word information is quite obvious and that is the sense that is under discussion when we are concerned about the origin, as in the origin of the informtion in DNA for example or the origin of information in a computer, book or computerized machine. The definition is:

1. The act of informing or being informed. 2. Knowledge derived from study, experience or instruction etc.. 3. A non accidental signal used as an input in a computer or communication system.

Inform means to tell or otherwise give or send information.

So Talk Origins simply evades the issue as does Richard Dawkins. The issue is where does the nonaccidential signal or the "telling" of the meaning (in the case of DNA) of the codons come from? Or in other words, how do the laws of physics take on a new role of informing chemicals that they have meaning beyond their normal blind characteristics? The question is simple:

What law of physics cause DNA to give a coded message that is understood, decoded and translated correctly into actual work within the cell?

For example; AUG means Methionine. Yet Adenine Uracil and Guanine do not chemically form Methonine. The combination of Adenine Uracil and Guanine only MEANS Meathionine. How was the meaning assigned to, first the nucleotide bases (ATCG), and then to their correct combination into triplet 'words' and how was this meaning translated along with the formation of an associated gramatical system etc. to produce a language such as exists in DNA?

This subject of the origin of infomation was not a diobolic scheme of evil Creationists but it has provoked thought among most anyone who studies DNA as it did with Francis Crick who was among the first to discover its unique coded message. He thought it must have come from outer space.

Now you seem to assume that the information-containing objects have some purpose in mind, that they are "aware" that they are in the process of creating life. That's not really how the system works.