How can you possibly be an athiest?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
What if we were eventually able to do experiments at the Planck scale and found that our experiments gave different answers every time, on a non-statistical basis, so that there was no way to predict the outcome of the experiment. (For example, imagine that there were an (almost) infinitely long string of letters HRISHFKSHF.... which was written into the structure of the universe somehow, and each hour we move onto the next letter. This sequence is "pre-determined" so therefore non-statistical (ie. the probability of letter 'F' is not just 1/26). Each letter triggers a different fundamental "theory of everything" - so our physical laws change every hour in a non-predictable way.

Rogan, have you realised that you are suggesting that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are not merely fairy tales, that the Hindus were right about this Universe? [In fact, the Hindu myths are eeriely similar to a Big Crunch ending, but I am digressing). What you are positing is, regardless of how absurd a situation seems like, one cannot rule it out dispite the fact all available evidence points in the other direction?

Besides, how do you tell time on that scale? You are positing that there's a big universal time clock somewhere and everything is sync'ed to it on the Planck scale. Not only you are suggesting non-locality but also absolute time.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Then science itself breaks down because it posits the assumption that all things are governed by laws, which in principle we can discover. This assumption need not be true for all spacetime (and indeed we have no evidence that it is), and anyone who believes it is, is exhibiting faith.

Science does not posit that all things are governed by laws. Laws are just a human fomulation of the regularities exhibited in nature. Surely, such regularities precludes your hypothetical scenario.

Certainly, there is no evidence that all our scientific models work the same way throughout all of spacetime. However, if spacetime is divided up into regions with different laws, we should be able to observe changes along the interfaces. Such has not been the case so far. Thus, induction shows that there is a very high probablity that laws of nature are uniform across the whole spacetime.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Going further, the letter sequence is unknowable, infallible, and omnipotent, and could be defined as God (or the manifestation of HIS personality). Or to put it another way, a phenomenum which has the ability to change physical laws in an undefined, undeterminable and all-reaching way IS God. Therefore to be an atheist requires faith in the entire applicability of science and its starting assumption.

Rogan, you have resorted to a classic "God of the Gaps" argument:

1. There are things that cannot be explained by physics. [Why?]

2. Things might happen on the Planck scale that could be totally non-predictable. [All emarlds are green when you look at them and blue when you aren't.] That's even the "Look, God!" at the end.

3. How is your "letter sequence omnipotent?" When you come up with a set of cosmological constants that allow staggering amounts of water to sit indefinitely in the atmosphere, without crushing the lifeforms underneath, we can then talk about this "omnipotent" business.

4. How is the applicability of science differ from the applicability of our senses? The assumption of regularity stems from our repeated observations of nature. Certainly it is inductive, but we have so far found no counterexamples to such.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Can anyone explain me why this thread has become yet again creation vs evolution ?

Certain Creationists equate evolution with atheism. This of course is news to the Pope.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
In the mean time why don't you and Boris tell us what law of physics requires this order of DNA (for example):

CGATTACCGATTGAC and not this one: CGATACCATAGCCA

And while you are at it please explain how the laws of physic divide the code into triplets or codons. Then you can tell us how the code came about and how it came to be translated and by what mechanism, without the aid of intelligent input. Finally you can tell us all how the laws of physics gives meaning to a chemical smbol and translates that meaning to the appropriate parts of the cellular machinery so that the interactive part know how to asemble themselves properly.

Humans are too complex to evolve on its own, ergo, you need a god.

However, since said god is too complex to come into being on its own, ergo, you need a meta-god to create it.

Repeat cycle indefintely.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Frogger
Which is a smaller leap to make (in my mind) on pure faith than is belief in an omnipotent omniscient Creator intimately involved in his Creation.

Granted that is a matter of opinion. Since I am sure that the first is wrong and the second right, I would disagree. But no matter what the opinion, the first is still a leap.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by yavoon
rogan, nowhere in science does it say that wut we might consider the normal laws of physics apply everywhere.

perfect example, relativity.

better example, black holes.

You are missing my point. I am not talking about the applicability of physics theories (btw a more accessible example would be Newtonian mechanics) -- I am talking about scientific methodology. When we finally have the theory of 'everything', we will find that it doesn't describe everything after all.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Rogan, have you realised that you are suggesting that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are not merely fairy tales, that the Hindus were right about this Universe? [In fact, the Hindu myths are eeriely similar to a Big Crunch ending, but I am digressing).

Rubbish. I am pointing out that you should not use science to describe phenomena which science was never intended to describe. Just as one should not describe black holes using Newtonian physics.

Should we disbelieve in Black Holes because we don't have a working theory of them? Should I disbelieve in supersymmetry because there is no evidence for it? (In fact this is a nice example because many physicists believe that it exists purely on asthetic grounds.) What about the Higgs boson, which only has indirect evidence? Do you truely only believe in things which have been 100% proven by science? Since nothing has that would be a shame - then where is your cut-off? 95%? 99.9%?

What you are positing is, regardless of how absurd a situation seems like, one cannot rule it out dispite the fact all available evidence points in the other direction?

No - I am saying that you should be aware of what the evidence tells you - not what your prejudices tell you. Many theories appear on the surface to describe physical phenomena in the same way - you should consider all the possibilities. Just because the Standard Model has never been proven wrong does not make it right.

Besides, how do you tell time on that scale? You are positing that there's a big universal time clock somewhere and everything is sync'ed to it on the Planck scale. Not only you are suggesting non-locality but also absolute time.

My counter-example was not intended to be physically rigorous. I am fairly sure I could come up with a Lorentz covarient description if you like, but would you really care?

Science does not posit that all things are governed by laws. Laws are just a human fomulation of the regularities exhibited in nature. Surely, such regularities precludes your hypothetical scenario.

That depends on your definition of 'science'. In principle I agree - the correct formulation of science should accept that there are things which cannot be described by laws (which sounds remarkably like you are conceeding my point ), but the formulation of science many people (and many on this board) worship is one where science is infallible and everything can be described by physical laws. I am at a loss as to why you think regularities preclude a non-predictive sector - I am not saying that there are no laws which are applicible for many physical processes.

Certainly, there is no evidence that all our scientific models work the same way throughout all of spacetime. However, if spacetime is divided up into regions with different laws, we should be able to observe changes along the interfaces.

This has got nothing to do with it.. I am sure that these theories are only approximations of the 'true' theory -- clearly these approximations will break down in certain parts of space-time. What of it?

Such has not been the case so far. Thus, induction shows that there is a very high probablity that laws of nature are uniform across the whole spacetime.

But do you honestly believe that physics will one day describe all physical phenomena? Your 'inductive' leap is quite a big one!

Rogan, you have resorted to a classic "God of the Gaps" argument:

It is not a 'God of the Gaps' argument, because God is so much more than that, but if I can get you to acknowledge the 'Gaps', maybe you will wonder about that is in them.

1. There are things that cannot be explained by physics. [Why?]

Well, the classic example, which I have often mentioned on these boards, is free-will. If you have true free-will, it can never be explained by physics, since if it were explainable by a predictive model, it would no longer be free-will. So there have to be 'Gaps'. [Although I will confess, that some atheists hold the view that they have no free-will, which is a perfectly logical viewpoint to hold.]

2. Things might happen on the Planck scale that could be totally non-predictable. [All emarlds are green when you look at them and blue when you aren't.] That's even the "Look, God!" at the end.

I don't understand the 'emeralds' comments. Non-predictivity, does not equal non-observability.

3. How is your "letter sequence omnipotent?" When you come up with a set of cosmological constants that allow staggering amounts of water to sit indefinitely in the atmosphere, without crushing the lifeforms underneath, we can then talk about this "omnipotent" business.

If the letter sequence dictates what the physical laws will be, it dictates how everything will behave and nothing can violate its rules. Can you violate the laws of phyics?

I find the second part curious - are you implying that because I can't come up with an internally consistent physics theory which described a different world to our own (which incidentally isn't true - I could come up with such a theory fairly easily) then it can't exist? By that token, judging by some of the 'physics' discussed here, acceralation due to gravity on the Earth's surface cannot be 9ms^-2.

4. How is the applicability of science differ from the applicability of our senses? The assumption of regularity stems from our repeated observations of nature. Certainly it is inductive, but we have so far found no counterexamples to such.

It is no different, but I hope you have a clearer idea of where the applicibility of your senses break down! Perhaps you can predict for me, what my response to your next post will be?

So do you conceed that your "assumption of regularity" is indeed an assumption?

[Wtiberon]

Josh you wouldn't be a physicist would you?

Nicely put though

[Tattila the Hun]

I don't believe in God, but I do believe Him.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey Rogan

Again thanks:



Boris:

Yet again, yet another thread...

That's what I'm saying. Presuming the existence of God is not equal to presuming the non-existence of God, since science (which often operates on assumptions, but rational ones) states that in the absence of evidence, it is more rational to assume the negative is true.

Actually you are wrong on this point. Lacking evidence, Science merely says we do not know what is going on and waits for more information before drawing a concrete conclusion.

Real life is somewhat different. Everyday Boris, you trust that people are telling the truth. You do not have evidence to know that they are, yet you trust them.
This to me is evidence that lacking evidence human beings, by nature, will believe in something rather than nothing, the exact opposite of your preposition here.

[Ben Kenobi]

cinch:

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then how can 'beings from another dimension' create our universe? Matter cannot be created, therefore it never was created.

I hope I'm not stepping on a landmine here.

You are assuming two things with this argument.

1. That the universe is a closed system
2. That God must work within the confines of the rules set out. If God is God, he must by definition be able to change these rules.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Humans are too complex to evolve on its own, ergo, you need a god.

However, since said god is too complex to come into being on its own, ergo, you need a meta-god to create it.

Repeat cycle indefintely.

Translation:

You cannot answer the questions. Yet you still cling to a blind faith in materialism inspit of ANY evidence that points to intelligent design. You are a man of faith Ranger. Have you ever though of becoming a theologin?

[Lincoln]

In case you missed them:

Originally posted by Lincoln
In the mean time why don't you and Boris tell us what law of physics requires this order of DNA (for example):

CGATTACCGATTGAC and not this one: CGATACCATAGCCA

And while you are at it please explain how the laws of physic divide the code into triplets or codons. Then you can tell us how the code came about and how it came to be translated and by what mechanism, without the aid of intelligent input. Finally you can tell us all how the laws of physics gives meaning to a chemical symbol and translates that meaning to the appropriate parts of the cellular machinery so that the interactive part know how to asemble themselves properly.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Wtiberon
Josh you wouldn't be a physicist would you?

Yes, I am. CERN Theory Division.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln:

"God of the Gaps".

In case you missed it:

"God of the Gaps".

And while you're at it:

"God of the Gaps".

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln, we DID go over all of this before. We explained how evolution inevitably creates "information" from randomness, we explained that scientists believe the first self-replicating system was small enough to form randomly (and research is ongoing into molecules with the necessary properties) and so on. You were left with no argument other than the faith that intelligence was involved: you failed to demonstrate any requirement for intelligent design.


Jack,

I will ignore your first paragraph because it simply is not true. You did not prove that information comes from randomness and neither can you. If I am wrong then please demonstrate how that it is done.

Evolution inevitably creates information from randomness. That isn't in dispute even by most creationists (even though they call it "microevolution"). Only the most fanatical argue that beneficial mutations never occur or that natural selection does not exist.

Next, you "assume" life is already in existence. The question is the origin of life and the information that must be contained in it from the begining. You cannot reason in a circle.

I have already stated my belief that the first self-replicator would be something simple enough to form by chance. However, YOU keep referring to a system that has undergone billions of years of evolution (the modern genetic code).

Then you must know that there is absolutely no evidence that the code originated by way of evolution or natural selection or by any random process whatsoever. There is however overwhelming evidence that similar codes arise by an intelligent being in all known cases without even one exception.

Incorrect. The dancing of bees (signalling the whereabouts of food to other bees in the hive) is a code that wasn't intelligently designed by the bees, for instance (they lack the brainpower). That's another code developed by evolution.

But there are no "similar codes" to the genetic code. There are no really close manmade examples, except computer simulations of evolution itself.

Your next paragraph is irrelevant. The chemicals represent coded building blocks for information. Diverting us to the "shapes" is misleading because you evade the issue. Yes they are uniquely shaped but that has nothing to do with the origin of information.

No it is relevant. What matters is the (initially random) formation of molecules of the right SHAPE. Everything else stems from that: the refinement of methods of reproducing the "right" shapes.

Next, you tell us about "copies of the original" which is interesting and true but still irrelevant because we are not talking about making copies but the origin of the information that may or may not be copied. Let's stick to the point.

If we're going to stick to this point, we must drop discussion of the modern genetic code. Unless you can prove that the modern code was essential to all life from the outset?

You asume a great deal here. I this not pure speculation on your part? The simplest life form available for study confirms that life contains information and a code.

Even the simpest modern life is the end result of at least three billion years of evolution. Any organisms still using a simpler, more primitive, less efficient system would have been driven into extinction long ago.

Yes, this is speculation. But if it MIGHT have happened this way, then there is no "problem" for atheism.

Finally, can anyone answer the questions without resorting to a belief system? I am neither assuming the existence of God or denying a materialistic explanation. If someone has one then let's run with it. In the mean time the evidence points to intelligent design. Why do people avoid this conclusion -- does it run contrary to your faith in materalism?

We have plenty of evidence for evolution, and no evidence for the existence of the "intelligent designer". While such a designer MIGHT exist, he/she/it remains an unnecessary assumption at this time.