Science and God

[Polymath257]

Then how do you trust yours? How can you insist that others are 'wrong!' for trusting their 'wiring?'

By testing thoroughly and knowing where the 'internal wiring' can go bad. Again, the multiple examples of optical illusions are a good starting point. The tendency to see faces where there are no faces is another.

Internal wiring suggests a wire-er.. to those who sense it, at least..

And that is another good example of the same phenomenon. We tend to see purpose even when none is actually there.

 

[David T]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

Oh the "i eye" again.

 

[David T]

You might like to read the tidy little volume by a Dr Lewis
Thomas called "Lives of a Cell."

It seems to me, from what little microbiology and
related that I studied, that the bigger problem for life
has been to keep "others" from joining the club, not
to to find ways to get some sort of mutualism going.

The panicy response of the body to certain sorts of
bacteria (see diphtheria) are what makes the disease
deadly-kind of like going after the burglar with flame
throwers and artillery.

The power of the immune system is a much or more
to preserve "self" than to fight disease, as such.

Your mitochondria are more than a little obviously
"others" who are incorporated into the cell.

As for the development of multicellular life, of
course it was a project, but look no further than
filmamentous algae to see how you could get
started. Or sponges and hydra, if you prefer
animal life.

Audie where are your feet as you are making the observations?
Dont worry i am not here to convert people to anything especially religion. But as a scientist you have to ask where are your feet in context to that which is observed. Thats hard core science which i am all about not noahs ark is real type of science but with complex words. Like string theory.

 

[David T]

By testing thoroughly and knowing where the 'internal wiring' can go bad. Again, the multiple examples of optical illusions are a good starting point. The tendency to see faces where there are no faces is another.


And that is another good example of the same phenomenon. We tend to see purpose even when none is actually there.

Oh like clouds!!!! There perfect you are a mathmatician!!!
So i bet you unicorns are more real than genetic and birth defects. Agree or disagree?

 

[usfan]

We tend to see purpose even when none is actually there.

Or, the inverse is Reality. We can see random meaninglessness, but there IS a purpose and Direction in the universe.

Delusion can go either way.

 

[Polymath257]

Or, the inverse is Reality. We can see random meaninglessness, but there IS a purpose and Direction in the universe.

Delusion can go either way.

As an example, people often attribute personalities to inanimate objects (computers, cars, clocks, etc) where there is clearly NOT anything like a personality.

We *see* faces in clouds because our brains evolved to see faces as a protective mechanism. It is worse to see a face that isn't really there than to not see one that it.

We tend to see purpose where there is none for the same reason. This is what leads to superstitions and other strange behaviors.

Yes, delusion can go either way, but it is MUCH more common to see faces that are not there or intention where none exists than it is to be wrong in the opposite way. And there is good reason for such mistakes of perception.

 

[David T]

From what I can see of the evidence, it seems that *life* should be fairly common in the universe. There are a LOT of planets and many are in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for their stars. I am much less convinced that a Jupiter-sized planet is required to protect against asteroids, but even if so, such planets are also in abundance.

From what I can see the *hard* step in life is going from bacterial life (based on simple cells) to eucaryotic life (based on complex cells with organells---essentially mutualism). There is another, *big* step in going from single celled life to multi-cellular life. Both of these steps on Earth took billions of years to achieve.

Finally, and this is a bit more depressing, it seems like *technological* life (say, being able to use radio) is short lived. Let's take our own civilization. We have had radio for a bit over 100 years. Do you really think we will survive another 10,000 years?

And if the average time that a technological species lasts is 10,000 years, the likelihood of *overlap* between two such species in the same galaxy goes way, way down. And that means that the likelihood of *detection* of life on other planets also goes down. This seems like a possible reason why SETI failed.

Another, perhaps even more depressing reason for SETI failing may be the 'dark universe' hypothesis: that life, in order to survive in a competitive universe, learns quickly to be quiet because those civilizations that don't are destroyed quickly.

As for the different possibilities for the strengths of the fundamental forces, we don't know that those strengths *can* be different. We don't know what, if anything, determines their strengths, and we don't know whether there are multiple universes, which would guarantee at least one 'wins the jackpot' even if the probability is low.

In any case, this is *hardly* an argument for the existence of a deity. NOBODY claims that life started from 'random forces' since the laws of nature are NOT RANDOM.

last but rarely considered theory they evolved. Since we know factually christianity has been stuck on one word for 2000 years trying to fugure it out it appears that prcess is extremely slow. All indication its moved by creeps and jerks. Very techtonic actually.

 

[David T]

Or, the inverse is Reality. We can see random meaninglessness, but there IS a purpose and Direction in the universe.

Delusion can go either way.

Fix the shared delusion there ya go. "i eye".

 

[David T]

As an example, people often attribute personalities to inanimate objects (computers, cars, clocks, etc) where there is clearly NOT anything like a personality.

We *see* faces in clouds because our brains evolved to see faces as a protective mechanism. It is worse to see a face that isn't really there than to not see one that it.

We tend to see purpose where there is none for the same reason. This is what leads to superstitions and other strange behaviors.

Yes, delusion can go either way, but it is MUCH more common to see faces that are not there or intention where none exists than it is to be wrong in the opposite way. And there is good reason for such mistakes of perception.

And abstractions create faces and other abstractions where none exist. Pretty soon we have abstractions creating abstractions oh look random there is no purpose oh look i understand that deeply mysterious.

 

[Polymath257]

And abstractions create faces and other abstractions where none exist. Pretty soon we have abstractions creating abstractions oh look random there is no purpose oh look i understand that deeply mysterious.

Which, again, is why we need our hypotheses to be *testable*. It is way too easy to spin a 'just so' story that isn't testable but convinces people.

 

[usfan]

Which, again, is why we need our hypotheses to be *testable*. It is way too easy to spin a 'just so' story that isn't testable but convinces people.

How do we test the 'no God' hypothesis? Isn't it just a belief, as well? Isn't a belief in godless naturalism just another, 'just so!' story?

 

[shunyadragon]

Then how do you trust yours? How can you insist that others are 'wrong!' for trusting their 'wiring?'

Wiring(?) is problematic anthropomorphic mechanistic concept and does not compute.

Internal wiring suggests a wire-er.. to those who sense it, at least..

Only in computers, appliances, electricity power networks, and other wired stuff created by humans.

. . .suggests only suggests to those that believe it suggests.

 

[Polymath257]

How do we test the 'no God' hypothesis? Isn't it just a belief, as well? Isn't a belief in godless naturalism just another, 'just so!' story?

Not at all. We can produce hypotheses that do not involve a deity. If a deity was necessary to understand the universe, such hypotheses would be useless. But, in actual fact, they have been incredibly productive of new understanding. That, at the least, shows that no deity is required for understanding how the universe works.

The point is that belief in the existence of something *before* evidence of its existence is not a reasonable approach. The evidence needs to be for the positive existence, not for the non-existence. That is why, for example, we didn't claim the Higg's particle was discovered until it was *actually* seen in the observations. The *theoretical* evidence was there LONG before the actual discovery. But we knew what to look for and how to test it and we did the tests.

Now, let's turn it around and ask what predictions can be made from the 'God hypothesis' that cannot be made with the 'no God hypothesis'. And let's see if such predictions can be tested via observation to distinguish the two hypotheses.

First, you might want to set up some of the traits your 'God' has and then determine what those traits would mean about the structure and working of the universe. Find something that is inconsistent with the 'no God hypothesis' and where BOTH sides agree it is a reasonable test. Then we can go do the test.

Any suggestions?

 

[David T]

Which, again, is why we need our hypotheses to be *testable*. It is way too easy to spin a 'just so' story that isn't testable but convinces people.

Absolutely agreed. Birth defects genetic defects. Less real than unicorns. And can be proven emperically as fact fact fact. And most likely baffles as to it being both fact and well perception.
Birth defects more or less real than unicorns.

 

[usfan]

Only in computers, appliances, electricity power networks, and other wired stuff created by humans.

Why? How can you assume a 'Maker!' for very low tech machines, yet posit, 'random accident!', for very complex, highly technical biological machines? We can't even come close to 'creating' a single celled organism, with all of our technology, and do not have a clue about abstracts like the soul or spiritual dimensions.. ..yet this very limited understanding and ability in a universe that transcends all our comprehension compels a conclusion of 'no God!'?

The plausibility of there being 'something' to the internal evidence is more likely than the imagination of random naturalism..

But, everyone gotta believe something..

 

[Darkforbid]

There are too many underlying assumptions in this argument that are not science, including taking scientists out of context. It is a classic ID argument. First, randomness has no causal role in the outcome of whether planets including ours result in supporting life. Second, the number of planets discovered and described represents a very very very small sample of the possible planets even in our own galaxy. A further discussion on the actual parameters for life on planets that scientists consider necessary for the existence of life is wurthy of further discussion, which the video misrepresents.

By the way, I believe in God, and I am a scientist, and consider this video very deliberately misleading based on an ID agenda.

Actually i find your post misleading 'First, randomness has no causal role in the outcome of whether planets including ours result in supporting life.' Is totally wrong even a simple 3 body problem leads to chaos and you claim highly complex planetary formation is not chaotic!?

 

[ChristineM]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

It makes lots of assumptions and presents nothing new

 

[viole]

Unfortunately, human beings are not 'scientific, rational', creatures. They blend beliefs and facts, stirred together in a primordial ooze of worldview, which they cling to with religious faith.

Yes, and that is why there so many theists around.

Ciao

- viole

 

[QuestioningMind]

If you have some internal 'sense' of God, or wiring, is that not evidence of the Reality of God? At least in your life?

Nothing can be 'proved,' not even this statement. ..but evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, should count for something..

You're assuming that what people 'sense' or 'feel' is always accurate. Unfortunately a person's 'feelings' about things can often times be 100% wrong. Thus 'feelings' can't be considered reliable 'evidence'.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

This video is no different that others I've seen. Like all of the others it has two major flaws that I can see.

1. It assumes that what we currently comprehend about the universe is all that there is to know. It may be true that based upon our current understanding the probabilities of the universe existing as it does is astronomical. However, that doesn't mean that tomorrow someone won't discover some new phenomenon in the universe that will make us look at the conditions that exist in the universe and say: There's a 100% probability that the universe would exist as it does.

2. I'm STILL waiting for one of these videos that claims to have calculated the probability of the universe existing naturally to ALSO provide the method they used for calculating the existence of an all powerful creator being that exists outside of time and space. Obviously they MUST have made such calculations in order for them to conclude that this all powerful creator being that exists outside of space and time is somehow MORE probable than the universe simply existing as it does naturally.