Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

[KrazyHorse]

I actually have the distinction of having calculated the hardest one-loop Feynman diagram system ever calculated (it took me about 2 years....)

What ******* made you do that for your dissertation?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The idea that Quantum mechanics leads to free-will has absolutely no proof what-so-ever.

Who ever claimed proof? Its a possible answer. It may not be the right answer but is more than you have. You didn't even say why you think you have Free Will.

So why do you think you have Free Will?

That was why I laughed at Ethel's Feynman diagram comment - I actually have the distinction of having calculated the hardest one-loop Feynman diagram system ever calculated (it took me about 2 years....). So I am sick of the bloody things. (I make a point of saying one-loop since harder two-loop diagrams have now been calculated.)

Laughing at the question does change the facts that things are uncertain. Which was the point after all since uncertaintity allows for things to not be fixed from the initiation of the Universe.

If you look at the particle physics theories which people come up with to explain the universe, they also favour one explanation for multiple effects whenever possible. Of course, I am not saying that God is a scientific explanation, but I do think there are some questions which science will never be able to answer. I think the origins of free-will is one of them.

The origin is easy. We thought of it. Its a human concept. The question is whether there is such a thing. You act as if it is proven to exist.

Just like the old Ether theory of light. Humans thought of it. But is it true?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Theological definitions that are based on the Bible actually do put God outside of spacetime "he" would have to have been in existance "before" spacetime in order to create it.

Nah, you are just confused. The concept spacetime does not exist in theology. Actually, neither time nor space as defined by science exist in theology.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Tolls
"Azathoth - The Blind Idiot God

Ruler of the outer Gods, Azathoth has existed since the beginning of the universe, dwelling beyond normal space and time, where its amorphous body writhes unceasingly to the monotonous piping of a flute.
"

Man, what kind of gods are ruled by an idiot who's blind? And where did the flute come from?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Science does not create the physical laws. We only create descriptions of them. When I said the "theory of everything" I obviously do not mean the paper in which the idea is first published, but the physical laws which are manifest.

What are physical laws? I posit that physical laws do not exist in nature, but they are mere descriptions of what happens in nature. The laws we have are just approximations. Let me cede you the point for the moment, however.

Still, your assertion of a "Theory of Everything" are phyical laws do not stick, because, as you well know, theories are just models. But do we know that there is such a thing? Is the pursue of the Grand Unified Theory ultimately futile? We don't know. Hence, you have no argument that is stemmed from this.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
These laws cannot by definition be explained away. The very best you can do is to state that there is some physical principle (probably a symmetry) out of which all the laws are natural consequencies. But you will not be able to say why this principle holds (without resorting to another principle).

Science doesn't care about "why," so this doesn't bother me.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Science only seeks to describe the universe in terms of laws and principles which hold universally. It does not attempt to ask 'why?' (and nor should it).

Agreed. What are you driving at?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Since you can never disprove the existence of God with science you should stop trying.

What does all your mumbling have anything to do with my post (quoted below)?

From us, of course.

Scientific theories are just our attempts to explain things in this universe. "Theory of Everything" (another name for the yet to be derived Grand Unifed Theory) is no exception. What it seeks to do is to present a coherent explanation of the four known basic forces in this universe.

Now what does that have anything to do with an infinite, personal being?

You seem confused.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
A much better argument for the existence of God in my opinion in mataphysical.

You mean theological?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
What distinguishes us as sentient intelligent beings? What, other than degree of complexity, distinguishes us from a chair? Are we just a collection of atoms whose motion are governed by the laws of physics and thereby set in stone (apart from unpredictable and uncontrollable quantum fluctuations).

Is there any evidence to the contrary? You are a scientist, yes?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Do we have free will? If so, where does it come from, because there is certainly no place for it in physics?

Since Quantum Physics allows for uncaused events and probabilistic situations, I deem that to be a good foundation for freewill.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why is it wrong to murder someone else? If they are just an arrangement of atoms, then murder is just rearranging atoms, which doesn't seem too bad.

Sorry Rogan, but I just can't let you get away with this

You are cheating. First, you asserted that science doesn't deal with the "why" questions. Then, with a lightning fast about face, you start mixing science with the "why" questions. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I have yet to see a good explanation of a morality which we should continue to follow without the existence of God.

You are thrashing Rogan. You are in angry denial of your own atheistic side. You found that there is no evidence for your god, but you are desperate to cling on to your religious beliefs. You are throwing out nonsensical arguments to convince yourself. Too bad they don't stick.

Notice three problems:

1. Assuming that there is a need for a supernatural creator for the basis of morality, what is the evidence that this creator is the Judeo-Christianity one?

2. Why is there a need for a supernatual origin for morality, seeing that your, eh, scientific argument is inadmissible?

3. There is a serious problem with the notion of a supernatural origin for morality. Consider a supernatural entity T. If an objective moral standard exists, just like Christians assert that it does, the code either exists the will of T or outside T. If it exists as decrees of T, it is arbitrary. If it exists outside of T, why do we need T?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
You evolutionists are pathetic.

Oh, getting offensive aren't we? Your mother is a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

So there.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Number one i didnt leave because you prooved anything to me.

We weren't going to prove anything to you, because you know everything, just like God. We just proved it to other mere mortals who might happen to look in.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Rather i left because your all nit pickers who judge a persons intelligence on grammer and spelling.

Since when did that happen? There are tons of people on 'Poly for whom English is not native. So we don't pick on grammar and such.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
There are plenty of smart people who dont have perfect grammer and spelling like all you 250 iq genious scientists who have access to labratories and a mountain of information. LOL

You found us out, rats! We are these vicious scientists who happen to lurk about around game boards so we can pounce on any creationists who might just happen to pop up.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
I didnt respond to your "Facts" or "theory's" because I already know them. Believing them is denile.

Facts are facts, you don't believe in facts. What? You don't know that? I thought you knew everything.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Evolution is a Fairy tail.

Considering the amount of evidence for evolution is utterly staggering, your definition of a "fairy tale" seems to be, eh, a bit off.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
One side has positive arguments. The other has rebuttal arguments against those positive arguments.

Nope. One side has evidence out the ying-yang. The other side got nothing but nitpicks about some rapidly vanishing gaps.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
The Creationists cannot prove that God exists, yet can put forward a valid hypothesis, and if that stands... then the creationists 'win'.

That is an interesting view of how science works. Fortunately, you're off by at least 1.6 km here.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Of course, Evolutionists can always say that mathmatically impossible odds of chance did it, but its not a good argument, since it can't be proven that something was created from nothing.

These creationists arguments were refuted aeons ago. But you knew, yes?

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Creationists follow Science too, just not the false "theorys"

Oh yeah. They don't "follow" these false "theorys" because they are the ones who turn them out.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What are physical laws? I posit that physical laws do not exist in nature, but they are mere descriptions of what happens in nature. The laws we have are just approximations. Let me cede you the point for the moment, however.

Well, I think just about every scientist on the planet would disagree with you there.

Still, your assertion of a "Theory of Everything" are phyical laws do not stick, because, as you well know, theories are just models. But do we know that there is such a thing? Is the pursue of the Grand Unified Theory ultimately futile? We don't know. Hence, you have no argument that is stemmed from this.

A 'theory' is not the same as a 'model', but that is a technical point. My statements are not altered if one cannot describe all of physics by the application of one principle. Why would you think they are? Indeed, I don't think science has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of God.

Agreed. What are you driving at?

I was replying to Ethel who disagreed with this statement.

You seem confused.

Indeed I am confused. Why are you quoting yourself? Wouldn't it be more useful to refute my criticisms of your post? Were you objecting to my complaint that the 'theory of everything' and a 'grand unified theory' are not the same thing?

Since Quantum Physics allows for uncaused events and probabilistic situations, I deem that to be a good foundation for freewill.

Quantum physics is not acausal. We do not yet fully understand what causes the wavefunction to collapse, but our lack of understanding does not make it acausal.

Sorry Rogan, but I just can't let you get away with this

You are cheating. First, you asserted that science doesn't deal with the "why" questions. Then, with a lightning fast about face, you start mixing science with the "why" questions. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

huh? That was the whole point! Why is murder wrong is not a scientific question and can therefore not be be answered by science.

Notice three problems:

1. Assuming that there is a need for a supernatural creator for the basis of morality, what is the evidence that this creator is the Judeo-Christianity one?

There is absolutely no incontravertible physical evidence, but I think the life of Christ is good enough evidence for me.

2. Why is there a need for a supernatual origin for morality, seeing that your, eh, scientific argument is inadmissible?

The point was that there is no believable scientific argument for morality. Hadn't we already agreed on this?

3. There is a serious problem with the notion of a supernatural origin for morality. Consider a supernatural entity T. If an objective moral standard exists, just like Christians assert that it does, the code either exists the will of T or outside T. If it exists as decrees of T, it is arbitrary. If it exists outside of T, why do we need T?

If our morality comes from the will of God, why would it be more arbitrary than being an artifact of evolution? Without God there can be no definition of 'good' other than 'increases the propagation of my DNA'.

[loinburger]

Rogan:

Why do you behave morally--how does your presupposition that God exists cause you to behave in a moral fashion? If it were somehow proven to you that God does not exist, does this mean that you would no longer behave morally? How do you determine what is right or wrong without knowing the mind of God?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Quantum physics is not acausal. We do not yet fully understand what causes the wavefunction to collapse, but our lack of understanding does not make it acausal.

It still leaves it uncertain. Understanding the collapse of the wave function will not necessarily lead to a specific prediction of the result.

huh? That was the whole point! Why is murder wrong is not a scientific question and can therefore not be be answered by science.

Its wrong because I along with nearly everyone else do not wish to be murdered. You are only looking at this from the murderers point of view. The rest of us don't want to be the victim. Its the non-murderers that have made the distinction.

I am guessing that you too do not wish to be murdered. So why do you have a problem with this concept?

There is absolutely no incontravertible physical evidence, but I think the life of Christ is good enough evidence for me.

Except that he was a man. Assuming he existed that is. There is no contemporary evidence of his existence outside the Bible. There is only one record that directly deals with Jesus and that is one sentence in Josephus who was born after the crucifiction. Its actually indirect at that, aproximately "James the brother of Jesus" which kind of refutes the Catholic claim the Mary remained a virgin.

I am pretty sure he existed its just that there is no way to check the claims of the Bible. Other gospels that were not found acceptable by the people that assembled the Bible we have today show things in a quite different way. There are indications that Jesus married Mary Magdaline for instance. Some are even in the modern Bible. The wedding where Jesus is supposed to have made water into to wine could very well have been HIS wedding.

The Trinity concept isn't even in the Bible at all. That was invented at the Council of Nicea.

The point was that there is no believable scientific argument for morality. Hadn't we already agreed on this?

There is no well defined arguement agreed on by all. There are quite a few ideas in socio-biology dealing with things like altruism.

If our morality comes from the will of God, why would it be more arbitrary than being an artifact of evolution? Without God there can be no definition of 'good' other than 'increases the propagation of my DNA'.

Well that wouldn't be arbitrary then. It would be relevant to survival. Your DNA is not just in you. Its not just in your offspring either. Its in your close relatives and even in fairly distant ones. Most of our DNA is identical to each other. Heck most of it is the same as chimps have (I don't approve of medical experiments on chimps).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Indeed, I don't think science has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of God.

Not science itself, no. However, the environment that science operates in does. As I posited before, science presupposes naturalism, which makes it fundamentally incompatible with religion - or any form of religion and beliefs that presupposes supernaturalism.

I don't think you have answered me on that one.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Indeed I am confused. Why are you quoting yourself? Wouldn't it be more useful to refute my criticisms of your post?

There is no relation between your criticism and the part of my post I quoted. That's why I said you seemed confused.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Were you objecting to my complaint that the 'theory of everything' and a 'grand unified theory' are not the same thing?

No, it isn't important for the issue at hand.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Quantum physics is not acausal. We do not yet fully understand what causes the wavefunction to collapse, but our lack of understanding does not make it acausal.

Do you not agree that there is a possbility that it can be acausal? Quantum physics makes this universe probabilistic instead of deterministic, does it not?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
huh? That was the whole point! Why is murder wrong is not a scientific question and can therefore not be be answered by science.

Okay. Why did you raised scientific questions with regards to murder and to morality as a whole?

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
There is absolutely no incontravertible physical evidence, but I think the life of Christ is good enough evidence for me.

With zero external evidence that Jesus existed? Your demand for evidence seems to be a bit laxing here.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The point was that there is no believable scientific argument for morality. Hadn't we already agreed on this?

Yes. No physical arguments for or against anyway. It is plausible that morality is an advantage in the survival of individuals and tribes, though.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
If our morality comes from the will of God, why would it be more arbitrary than being an artifact of evolution?

It is arbitrary because

1) It can change back and forth all the time, and not necessarily for the better - as far as humans are concerned - either. Don't forget God changed his mind often in the OT.

2) It can be against our best judgment. Nothing stops God from decreeing that rape is moral.

If, however, that morality is what humans devised, it would evolve as we accumulate knowledge and wisdom. These changes will not be sudden, they they will be with our best judgments.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Without God there can be no definition of 'good' other than 'increases the propagation of my DNA'.

How so? I don't see any secular definitions of the word "good" is inferior to the Christian one of "God's will."

Some examples are:

-- increase the overall happiness
-- humane, compassionate
-- reduction of inequality
-- reduction of human sufferings
-- World Peace

How are these definitons inferior to your god's will?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by loinburger
If it were somehow proven to you that God does not exist, does this mean that you would no longer behave morally?

That is an excellent point.

If Christians need an external force to make them behave morally, wouldn't that make a secular code of morals superior?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If Christians need an external force to make them behave morally, wouldn't that make a secular code of morals superior?

I've always considered that to be the case. It seems to me that if you assert that you can't have morals without God, then you've reduced morality to nothing more than a system of spankings and cookies--you behave in a moral fashion solely because God has made it in your best interests to do so. You'll do whatever gets you the fewest spankings and the most cookies.

That isn't morality, that's hedonism.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by loinburger
That isn't morality, that's hedonism.

Now that's a good reason to be a Christian

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Obviously not, Mr. "I've read 22 physics books yet still don't understand the meaning of E = MC^2."

No sir, you do not understand the meaning of E = MC^2

There are still Evolutionists, after all, and the evidence has been mounting against them for centuries!

Your nebulous claims to proof are always comical, Loinburger. At least, they're comical the first few times around. They grow mighty tiresome after six pages of your ignorant trolling...

If you feel that you have something to contribute, then by all means, please do so! If you just want to spam the Off-Topic forum with your asinine comments, then please be courteous and go back to the Civ III forum where trolls are better received (or rather, not recognized until it is too late), because here, a troll is a troll is a troll regardless of how obtuse the troller may be.

Words of wisdom, Loinburger the troll!

Prove to me that something was created from nothing. If you cannot, then shut the hell up.

What a shallow victory indeed. "We Evolutionists are correct because we assert that it is so, and are so goddamn stubborn that we will not even consider any opposing argument! We win!"

Lioinburger your ignorance is quite comical. Do tell me, How is a life of ignorance?

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Ive seen nothing from you Evolutionists but a few facts mixed in with lies. That is why i have not continued my argument to prove that evolution is false. Its a waste of my time because you Evolutionists are too stubern and ignorant. Im not going to waste my time. Ive already stated, it is a waste of my time.