Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…274275277279280…327

Comments

  • Options
    #8282
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Morbert wrote: »
    In some ways, chaotic inflation is the inverse of a bubbling soup. When you boil soup, it is produces local regions of inflating bubbles. In chaotic inflation, the soup is inflating and it produces local regions that stop expanding.

    Fantastic analogy. Worthy of Doctor Who :)


  • Options
    #8283
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    smacl wrote: »
    Fantastic analogy. Worthy of Doctor Who :)

    Actually I should have said "stop inflating" rather than "stop expanding". The regions can still expand to a certain extent.


  • Options
    #8284
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad



    This is nice! Still hard to wrap your head around though.


  • Options
    #8285
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    Taken from another thread:





    newmug wrote: »
    We're going waaaaaaaaaaayyyy off thread here!


    To sum up the latest argument, some lucky people have faith, some other people don't, and they'll be kicking themselves when they die or when science actually discovers proof of the supernatural dimension, whichever comes first.*




    On-topic, the bottom line is that Russia is still acting the maggot. Maybe its a case of Fatima is right, maybe its a case of "a broken clock is right twice a day". We'll all find out soon enough anyway.








    *(Given the discoveries in the last 50 years of how things at a quantum level actually DONT follow Newtonian laws of physics, I never cease to be amazed at the closed-mindedness of the very people who think they're more intelligent than the average Joe, especially if Joe is a religious type. Its irony and hypocrisy rolled into one. Science will eventually discover proof of the supernatural - its inevitable)





    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Disagree with that one. Don't many of them approach a topic/subject with an attitude of "there must be a (insert scientific discipline here) reason

    newmug wrote: »
    Some do, but they shouldn't. REAL scientists don't.

    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Scientific Method by its very nature cannot accept that there is anything supernatural because everything must have a physical cause.

    newmug wrote: »
    Nope. You can have a chemical cause, a biological cause, a psychological cause, an electromagnetic cause etc. Physics is just one branch of science, probably the most understood one at that. The supernatural definitely doesn't reside there. But quantum mechanics, now that's a frontier with some hidden surprises!



    Its one for another thread. But, being an engineer myself, I can tell you that science doesn't exclude any possibility. Indeed, some of the things they have discovered recently are bizarre, they fly in the face of traditional thinking. Just google superstring theory. Stuff being in 2 places at once and all that. Sound familiar?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory#Extra_dimensions




    The more science discovers, the less likely it is that we are just a fluke of nature. The amount of things that would have had to go perfectly right just to get us to where we are is beyond statistically possible. Every single instant in time / action in space since the big bang would have had to work out with such precision that the odds would be infinite. And if it is all just a fluke, why didn't it repeat itself? The more science unfolds our make-up, the more obvious it is that there is a design in there. It may take 10 years, it may take 10,000 years, but someday the link between what we now call the "supernatural" (I think spiritual is a more accurate word for it) and the "natural" will become known.


    I can fully understand the athiests who don't believe, purely because it actually IS hard to believe something that you don't have proof of. Sure the first atheist ever was one of the apostles, St.Thomas! No bother there lads. But its the arrogant ones, the militant-student types who think they've superior intelligence, and yet they cant see the hypocrisy of their own narrow-mindedness! Would yiz get off the pitch lads, just get off the feckin pitch!


  • Options
    #8286
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    newmug wrote: »
    The more science discovers, the less likely it is that we are just a fluke of nature. The amount of things that would have had to go perfectly right just to get us to where we are is beyond statistically possible. Every single instant in time / action in space since the big bang would have had to work out with such precision that the odds would be infinite. And if it is all just a fluke, why didn't it repeat itself? The more science unfolds our make-up, the more obvious it is that there is a design in there. It may take 10 years, it may take 10,000 years, but someday the link between what we now call the "supernatural" (I think spiritual is a more accurate word for it) and the "natural" will become known. :
    I agree with most of what you say until this last paragraph. I don't think it is obvious that there is a design there. I believe in the multi-dimensional theory, but that doesn't really add up to there being a designer. Other dimensions can probably influence life forms on this planet.
    A snowflake, although not a lifeform, is beautiful and unique, but it is not designed by anyone or anything. It is formed by the physical conditions in which moisture finds itself. We have evolved, all life forms are continually evolving, due to their circumstances. They always have and hopefully, always will. I'm not so sure that the link between the "spiritual world" and our world will ever be discovered by man. I think the capacity of our minds is too limited for that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8287
    Penny 4 Thoughts
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Penny 4 Thoughts


    The more science discovers, the less likely it is that we are just a fluke of nature. The amount of things that would have had to go perfectly right just to get us to where we are is beyond statistically possible

    This is known as the "lottery fallacy"

    Yes the odds of a particular outcome is huge. But there is no reason to suppose anything is picking any particular outcome for a reason simply because that outcome exists. The odds of an outcome (any outcome) are not nearly as large.

    Think of it this way, you run a lottery where everyone on Earth is assigned a number and a number is drawn from a huge hat.

    The odds that any particular person will win the lottery are tiny, 1 in 6 billion. The person who actually wins might be truly shocked, and ponder "why me".

    Of course there is no why me, the number was just randomly picked. Since each person has a number and the number drawn must correlated with someone some where, the odds that someone will win are actually a certainty.

    We cannot calculate the odds of an outcome (as opposed to a particular outcome) because we don't know the physics. But there is no reason to suppose that an outcome is nearly as unlikely as a particular outcome. There is also no reason to suppose that anything is picking one particular outcome over another particular outcome.


  • Options
    #8288
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »
    We cannot calculate the odds of an outcome (as opposed to a particular outcome) because we don't know the physics. But there is no reason to suppose that an outcome is nearly as unlikely as a particular outcome. There is also no reason to suppose that anything is picking one particular outcome over another particular outcome.

    This is a dreadful post, because by its logic, pure sense and intelligent reasoning it has destroyed so many non-thinker's arguments, that they won't be able to post any more of their "intelligent design" nonsense. How are we going to enjoy ourselves anymore?
    Unless some non-thinkers will contradict Penny's argument.....


  • Options
    #8289
    Lady Chuckles
    Registered Users Posts: 9,279 ✭✭✭Lady Chuckles


    I think you're being unfair. Are you saying that people who believe in intelligent design are non-thinkers?

    I love philosophy, religion and science. I enjoy combining all of them as best I can - and I can :P ... Some people who believe in ID has put a great deal of thoughts into their belief, what they find plausible and why, and whereas you don't have to agree, I don't think saying they're non-thinkers is fair - nor does it contribute to good, friendly discussion (although I get that people online can sometimes be quite frustrating)


  • Options
    #8290
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Lady Chuckles wrote: »
    I think you're being unfair. Are you saying that people who believe in intelligent design are non-thinkers?
    I love philosophy, religion and science. I enjoy combining all of them as best I can - and I can :P ... Some people who believe in ID has put a great deal of thoughts into their belief, what they find plausible and why, and whereas you don't have to agree, I don't think saying they're non-thinkers is fair - nor does it contribute to good, friendly discussion (although I get that people online can sometimes be quite frustrating)

    I have no desire to be unfair to anyone.
    If you take the bible out of the equation for a minute. Lets pretend it didn't exist, just for the sake of argument. Now, what evidence is there for Intelligent Design, in the absence of the Holy Book? Why would anyone even suggest that everything was created by a supreme being, when science can offer quite satisfactory theories for how it all started?


  • Options
    #8291
    Lady Chuckles
    Registered Users Posts: 9,279 ✭✭✭Lady Chuckles


    But it does exist... and likewise if you took Darwin away :)
    I think that if we had neither, people would still come to the same conclusion. Some thinking there's a divine creator and some thinking that it's all evolution.

    ... But that's just me :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8292
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Just a question? Why dose it have to be ID or evolution? If it's just evolution, dose that exclude God?


  • Options
    #8293
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Lady Chuckles wrote: »
    But it does exist... and likewise if you took Darwin away :)
    I think that if we had neither, people would still come to the same conclusion. Some thinking there's a divine creator and some thinking that it's all evolution.

    We can deal with Darwin later. Can you tell me if you would be looking for a creator of it all if the Bible did not exist?

    You see, creationists have a habit of trying to ridicule or pooh pooh the big bang or evolution, rather than saying "OK creation is real and here's the proof" or even "here is some evidence for creation."
    Now, just for a brief minute, I am your student. The bible is unheard of, and you are presenting me with some evidence for creation. The floor is yours Lady Chuckles.....


  • Options
    #8294
    Lady Chuckles
    Registered Users Posts: 9,279 ✭✭✭Lady Chuckles


    Oh please... You have no interest in being anybody's student - and I never said anything about my own beliefs so it's pretty cheeky asking me to give you evidence for creation (I'm not even sure what you want me to prove)

    I told you if we had neither, we'd probably come up with both anyway.


  • Options
    #8295
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Lady Chuckles wrote: »
    Oh please... You have no interest in being anybody's student - and I never said anything about my own beliefs so it's pretty cheeky asking me to give you evidence for creation (I'm not even sure what you want me to prove)
    I told you if we had neither, we'd probably come up with both anyway.

    Why don't you just admit it, without the Bible THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Creationist's beliefs are 100% based on the Bible.


  • Options
    #8296
    Lady Chuckles
    Registered Users Posts: 9,279 ✭✭✭Lady Chuckles


    You clearly don't get what I am trying to say.


  • Options
    #8297
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Lady Chuckles wrote: »
    You clearly don't get what I am trying to say.

    Maybe not. Do you have any evidence, apart from the Bible, that supports creationism? You haven't told me yet. You keep going on about evolution. We can discuss that later.
    Is it your belief that God created the world and if it is, have you any scientific or other reason for believing that is the case?


  • Options
    #8298
    Penny 4 Thoughts
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Penny 4 Thoughts


    Lady Chuckles wrote: »
    I love philosophy, religion and science. I enjoy combining all of them as best I can - and I can :P ... Some people who believe in ID has put a great deal of thoughts into their belief, what they find plausible and why, and whereas you don't have to agree, I don't think saying they're non-thinkers is fair - nor does it contribute to good, friendly discussion (although I get that people online can sometimes be quite frustrating)

    A lot of ideas and concepts in intelligent design/creationism do not seem to be updated, revised or dropped when they are shown to be not rationally sound. That to me would suggest that those who propose them are not reaching their conclusions based on rational arguing, but rather on emotional lines of belief.

    Of course everyone does that to some degree in different areas. I've had conversations with the most rational people I know where they are holding to some clearly unsound idea and cannot see the issue. But again it is always clear that this is for emotional reasons (often around relationships, illness etc).

    I would agree with you that broad classifications of people based on a particular sub-set of beliefs they hold is not conducive to friendly conversation, but equally simply because a proponent of ID can be rational and can think about the subject doesn't mean that the conclusions they reach are rationally sound with a lot of thought behind them.


  • Options
    #8299
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »
    A lot of ideas and concepts in intelligent design/creationism do not seem to be updated, revised or dropped when they are shown to be not rationally sound. That to me would suggest that those who propose them are not reaching their conclusions based on rational arguing, but rather on emotional lines of belief.

    Of course everyone does that to some degree in different areas. I've had conversations with the most rational people I know where they are holding to some clearly unsound idea and cannot see the issue. But again it is always clear that this is for emotional reasons (often around relationships, illness etc).

    I would agree with you that broad classifications of people based on a particular sub-set of beliefs they hold is not conducive to friendly conversation, but equally simply because a proponent of ID can be rational and can think about the subject doesn't mean that the conclusions they reach are rationally sound with a lot of thought behind them.
    Science is putting a lot of time, effort and money into broadening their understanding of where and how everything began. They are achieving some results and hopefully much more will be revealed as technology improves.
    It seems to me that creationists just use the Biblical accounts to reinforce their views. Even when those accounts are irrational and illogical or when science seems to disprove them, these people hold on fast to their beliefs, simply because the Bible says it is so. That is why I have suggested that they don't think about some of these beliefs, they just believe, irrespective of how illogical some of those beliefs can be.


  • Options
    #8300
    Lady Chuckles
    Registered Users Posts: 9,279 ✭✭✭Lady Chuckles


    Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »
    A lot of ideas and concepts in intelligent design/creationism do not seem to be updated, revised or dropped when they are shown to be not rationally sound. That to me would suggest that those who propose them are not reaching their conclusions based on rational arguing, but rather on emotional lines of belief.

    Of course everyone does that to some degree in different areas. I've had conversations with the most rational people I know where they are holding to some clearly unsound idea and cannot see the issue. But again it is always clear that this is for emotional reasons (often around relationships, illness etc).

    I would agree with you that broad classifications of people based on a particular sub-set of beliefs they hold is not conducive to friendly conversation, but equally simply because a proponent of ID can be rational and can think about the subject doesn't mean that the conclusions they reach are rationally sound with a lot of thought behind them.

    You're a really good writer :)

    Holding to "unsound" ideas for emotional reasons goes for everyone. Not just people who are normally "rational". People you'd say are "irrational", are probably like that for emotional reasons as well. (I'm not sure I like the words unsound, rational and irrational because they are not ojective words .... hence the "..." )

    You say creationism doesn't progress, which is true - or at least I haven't heard any recent research on it. On the polar opposite, science changes every day. The truths we know today, may not be truths in a few years (talking generally now, not science vs religion) - and that's what makes it so intriguing! :D
    It also leaves room to philosophically ponder on your own :):)

    Finally: Creationism isn't just in the bible, by the way (feeling compelled to respond to previous poster, even though I wasn't going to)
    If you look up other ancient civilisations (BC), the likes of Mayan, Vikings, Celts, Egyptians etc. you'll find that they had creationism as well.


  • Options
    #8301
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Lady Chuckles wrote: »
    You're a really good writer :)

    Holding to "unsound" ideas for emotional reasons goes for everyone. Not just people who are normally "rational". People you'd say are "irrational", are probably like that for emotional reasons as well. (I'm not sure I like the words unsound, rational and irrational because they are not ojective words .... hence the "..." )

    You say creationism doesn't progress, which is true - or at least I haven't heard any recent research on it. On the polar opposite, science changes every day. The truths we know today, may not be truths in a few years (talking generally now, not science vs religion) - and that's what makes it so intriguing! :D
    It also leaves room to philosophically ponder on your own :):)

    Finally: Creationism isn't just in the bible, by the way (feeling compelled to respond to previous poster, even though I wasn't going to)
    If you look up other ancient civilisations (BC), the likes of Mayan, Vikings, Celts, Egyptians etc. you'll find that they had creationism as well.

    I agree with you, Penny is a very good writer. You are not too bad yourself though.

    Ancient civilisation did indeed believe in creationism, but the world has moved on. Our knowledge of the universe is immeasurably superior to the understandings of those ancient people. I am just trying to point out that there is no evidence for the beliefs held by creationists.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8302
    Penny 4 Thoughts
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Penny 4 Thoughts


    Lady Chuckles wrote: »
    Finally: Creationism isn't just in the bible, by the way (feeling compelled to respond to previous poster, even though I wasn't going to)
    If you look up other ancient civilisations (BC), the likes of Mayan, Vikings, Celts, Egyptians etc. you'll find that they had creationism as well.

    Very true, and i don't think it is fair to pick on the judeo-christian religions as being particularly irrational in this regard. Though across the different religions there are very different stories when you get down to the details. To me the lesson I would take from that is not that there was a creator or creators, but that we are prone to imagining there was, and we fill in the details based on our particular histories.

    That there was a creator seems to be the easiest answer for humans to understand and accept. But as we have learned from science, particularly with physics in the last 100 years, there is often no correlation between what is easy for us to understand and what is true.


  • Options
    #8303
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

    Sniped
    But as we have learned from science, particularly with physics in the last 100 years, there is often no correlation between what is easy for us to understand and what is true.

    And the opposite is equally true, that which is easy dismissed is not necessary false.


  • Options
    #8304
    Penny 4 Thoughts
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Penny 4 Thoughts


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    And the opposite is equally true, that which is easy dismissed is not necessary false.

    Not equally, as there are far more ideas that are false than there are ideas that are true. There is only one reality, but an infinite number of imagined variations of that reality which are not real (or false). To put it another way, when making a statement about reality it is far far easier to get it wrong than it is to get it right.

    That means you need a very very good reason to think a statement is probably true, and very little reason to think a statement is probably false, since all things being equal it is far more likely to be false than true.


  • Options
    #8305
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »
    Not equally, as there are far more ideas that are false than there are ideas that are true. There is only one reality, but an infinite number of imagined variations of that reality which are not real (or false). To put it another way, when making a statement about reality it is far far easier to get it wrong than it is to get it right.

    That means you need a very very good reason to think a statement is probably true, and very little reason to think a statement is probably false, since all things being equal it is far more likely to be false than true.

    I'm not so sure it's more likely to be wrong as right, it's more likely to be inaccurate than completely wrong. We work by refining truth, building one on top of another.


  • Options
    #8306
    Lady Chuckles
    Registered Users Posts: 9,279 ✭✭✭Lady Chuckles


    ... and I'm not too gone on the whole "there's only one reality" :o
    Like, how could we possibly know there's only one? What makes you say that? Couldn't there be many reasons, solutions and truths? I believe it's more complex than that.


  • Options
    #8307
    Penny 4 Thoughts
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Penny 4 Thoughts


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I'm not so sure it's more likely to be wrong as right, it's more likely to be inaccurate than completely wrong. We work by refining truth, building one on top of another.

    I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, again given the infinite number of wrong realities that can be imagined.

    Of course something can be slightly inaccurate, and we might say that it is not completely wrong, while at the same time not being completely right. But the set of slightly inaccurate things is only marginally larger than the set of correct things when again compared to the vast amount of completely wrong things one can imagine.

    It is only slightly easier to be inaccurate than it is to be correct, while infinitely easier to be completely wrong.
    Lady Chuckles wrote: »
    ... and I'm not too gone on the whole "there's only one reality" :o
    Like, how could we possibly know there's only one? What makes you say that? Couldn't there be many reasons, solutions and truths? I believe it's more complex than that.

    By reality I mean what is real rather than not, since by definition there is only one version of that.


  • Options
    #8308
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Penny you are presupposing that everyone has the same data. They don't. 500 years ago we had a lot less information than we do now, 1000 years ago even less and if you go back far enough all they had were observations of the naked eye, no set of references to place those observations in. In fairness the data they had fitted their theory.
    As the data grew the theory changed and adapted to fit the data. Today we have another more complete set of data but still not complete, a more refined theory but not a final set of data. "We see farther because we stand on the shoulders of giants"


  • Options
    #8309
    Penny 4 Thoughts
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Penny 4 Thoughts


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Penny you are presupposing that everyone has the same data. They don't. 500 years ago we had a lot less information than we do now, 1000 years ago even less and if you go back far enough all they had were observations of the naked eye, no set of references to place those observations in. In fairness the data they had fitted their theory.
    As the data grew the theory changed and adapted to fit the data. Today we have another more complete set of data but still not complete, a more refined theory but not a final set of data. "We see farther because we stand on the shoulders of giants"

    Hi Tommy,

    That isn't really anything to do with my point. I'm not criticising anyone for not knowing back then what was happening. I'm saying that it is far far far easier to get something wrong that right. We must therefore be very sure of something for it to have much value.


  • Options
    #8310
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »
    Hi Tommy,

    That isn't really anything to do with my point. I'm not criticising anyone for not knowing back then what was happening. I'm saying that it is far far far easier to get something wrong that right. We must therefore be very sure of something for it to have much value.

    Well that's an interesting point. Value, I suppose it depends on what value your looking for. In this case an explanation for why we are here. All we have to go on is that we are here and we have the lingering suspicion that theirs a purpose to our being here.
    We work from the premise that their is a purpose and we get what we are looking for. Or do we? Are we any more certain of the existence of a God than we were 4000 years ago? Are we any more certain of the non-existence of a God? The evidence is about the same tbh, we might understand the workings a bit better, but we still have nothing more to go on than that lingering feeling.
    So back to value, if value means adding to our understanding of how things work then no, we have better tools for that now but if by value you mean giving life a direction and meaning then it has the same value it had 4, 5, 6000 years ago.
    I don't think God has any value other than that.
    I'v said this on this thread before, trying to prove the existence is pointless and misses the point. It's not an argument about 'facts' it's about perspectives, rose tinted glasses to the unbeliever, a guiding light to the believer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8311
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Value, I suppose it depends on what value your looking for.

    Value, as in worth, is obviously very subjective in this context, and has nothing to do with something being right or wrong. Having religious faith for example may well provide value to the faithful, but that does not suggest that the faith has any foundation in reality.

    For example, a scientologist might have faith in the existence of their inner Thetan, and gain spiritually as a result, but that doesn't imply that there is any truth behind the beliefs of Scientology. The same can be said for any religions and for all of them.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement