The Watchmaker Revisited

[gnostic]

hmmmmm.....well, there are really only two possibilities: 'Reason', and 'nature'.

I will leave the definition of 'Reason' to you, since you seem to tout it's use as a tool of science, OK?

'nature' is what science is trying to 'explain' via Reason, Logic, and Analysis, and what theology and philosophy also are trying to explain via their own methodologies. I am using the term to mean that which is responsible for the phenomenal world; the core essence of Reality. For example, one might ask: 'what is the nature of the material world?', to which I might respond: 'the nature of the material world is that it is illusory'.

Excuse me, but science don’t explain merely on reasons and logic alone.

Reason and logic are required, but science required that any explanation to be based on evidences, hence independent verification.

The evidences are independent to whatever ever reasonings people can drum up, but if the evidences back up the reason and logic, then the scientist’s explanation is plausible because it has the probability of being true. And the more evidences you have, the more probable is the explanation.

Without the evidences, then the explanation is unscientific, unsupported.

Philosophies and religions used reasons too, but they don’t required independent verification, hence don’t require evidences.

They (philosophers and religious adherents) think or believe what they think to be true. But without evidences, how can they objectively ascertain what they believed and rationalised to be true.

Evidences provide objective solutions (or objective probabilities) that reasons and logic (and religious or spiritual beliefs) don’t have.

I have never taken a philosophical subject in any formal course or subject, but as I see it, philosophies are in the same boat as that of religions.

There are many different types of philosophies, just as there are many religions and many sects, and like religions, each ones are vying for followers, but how would you determine which one is relevant or true, if you only have their words?

 

[gnostic]

Is the TV signal the activity of a TV set, or does it exist independently of the hardware, being that which makes the TV set work?

Again with the tv and tv signals examples?

Sorry, but tv signal is nothing like consciousness.

And you are wrong that tv signal don’t require hardware.

A tv is hardware that receive signals and covert the signal into visual and audio. But the tv signal don’t exist without hardware that transmit the signal, hence it required the radio transmission tower (hardware) and all the electronics (again more hardware) from a tv station.

Yes, tv signals can still exist, if your tv or my tv are broken, but if the tv station ceased to be operational or the radio transmission tower was damaged, then could be no tv signal at all.

You are onlyb one side of the picture, which are tvs themselves, but you are totally ignoring the television stations that transmit the signals, so tv signal does need hardware.

Your use of tv signal as analogy for consciousness remained a seriously flawed one.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don’t think shunyadragon said that he agree and disagree with modern cosmology, or agree or disagree with universe being infinite or finite.

I think he was merely point out to you if you even accept the science of conservation of mass and energy, then it actually make the biblical creation “false” or “pointless”.

If “conservation” is true, then there is no need for a “Creator”, if mass and energy cannot be created, nor destroyed.

I believe that determining the 'need' or 'no need' for a Creator is beyond human abilities as far as the objective verifiable evidence. It is possible that God could have Created our physical existence as is with the conservation of energy and mass as is. There is no evidence at present that could determine whether the physical existence is eternal and infinite or finite or temporal. What I am saying that science is neutral to the existence of God and Creation.

The Baha'i view is that the Creation of our physical existence is eternal and/or infinite with God, and Creation is progressive and eternal with the possibility of an infinite number of universes. Creation could be compared to our sun and our planet's existence, as long as our sun exists our planet exists. God is eternal and as long as God exists a physical existence exists as a reflection of the attributes of God, and continually evolves and Creates.

 

[shunyadragon]

And asserting that a belief in God and the scientific method are incompatible would be another dogma

They are indeed compatible in the Baha'i Faith the scientific methods are accepted as scientific knowledge demonstrating God's Creation as it is naturally.

The harmony of science and religion is a central concept in the Baha'i Faith.

 

[godnotgod]

They really haven't contributed very much to society, have they.

Only the ignorant and foolish would see that as being the case. You need to get in touch with your higher faculties.

"ineluctable limits"??? Science has always known that there are limits to our knowledge.

Not really. In the back of it's brain, it really thinks it will someday connect all the dots, and 'understand' everything in terms of factual knowledge. Even now, it talks about a 'Theory of Everything', that can explain it all in one fell swoop.

It is the theists, philosophers, mystics and gurus (woosters hereinafter) who say they know all.

Man, you certainly are confused, aren't you? Where did you get the idea that the 'woosters' roosting in your brain make the claim of 'knowing all'? From a Bugs Bunny cartoon or some comic book that stereotypes mystics and others you toss into the same pot?

The mystic does not claim to 'know all', in terms of factual knowledge, but to be one with the nature of all.

"nature which is irrational"??? What a silly statement. Why must woosters try to attribute human qualities to nature?

The statement OSHO is making is not about nature itself being irrational; it is about how the ordinary, conditioned mind interprets the new findings of Quantum Physics, which can only result in a paradoxical view. To that kind of mind, what Quantum Physics reveals makes no rational sense, because nature is not based upon Reason; it is bigger than Reason. It is not to say that nature itself is irrational; it is to say that it is non-rational. It does not necessarily follow the rules of Reason as laid out by the mind of man. Shall I provide you an example? In the video I posted, Tong said that the Quantum vacuum is nothing, and it is out of this 'nothing' that everything emerges. This cannot be explained rationally. Science is reaching, or has reached, ineluctable limits.

"nature is bigger than reason"??? Is that somehow meaningful?

Not in any rational terms. Now don't get crazy and jump to the other dualistic pole of 'irrationality'.

 

[godnotgod]

Uh huh.

uh uh

 

[Polymath257]

The statement OSHO is making is not about nature itself being irrational; it is about how the ordinary, conditioned mind interprets the new findings of Quantum Physics, which can only result in a paradoxical view. To that kind of mind, what Quantum Physics reveals makes no rational sense, because nature is not based upon Reason; it is bigger than Reason. It is not to say that nature itself is irrational; it is to say that it is non-rational. It does not necessarily follow the rules of Reason as laid out by the mind of man. Shall I provide you an example? In the video I posted, Tong said that the Quantum vacuum is nothing, and it is out of this 'nothing' that everything emerges. This cannot be explained rationally. Science is reaching, or has reached, ineluctable limits.

Interesting viewpoint. But QM is exactly the rational explanation of what we have observed. It was found through observation, logic, reasoning, and testing. The problem isn't QM, but rather the attempts to understand the descriptions of the new theory (QM) using the biases of the old (classical mechanics). That is where the paradoxes arise. If you stay internal to QM, there are no such paradoxes.

Contrary to your claim, QM is *the* rational, reasoned way we have come to understand reality. And yes, that includes the properties of a quantum vacuum. It isn't *classical*, but it is quite logical and based on reason. It most certainly *isn't* non-rational.

 

[ecco]

I believe that determining the 'need' or 'no need' for a Creator is beyond human abilities as far as the objective verifiable evidence.

I believe there is a definite "need" for a creator. The evidence for that is the billions of people who believe in a creator.

That is not evidence for a creator. That is not evidence that a creator actually created anything. That is just evidence for human's psychological need for a creator.

What I am saying that science is neutral to the existence of God and Creation.

No reputable scientist says a god created the universe. That is not neutrality.

The Baha'i view is that the Creation of our physical existence is eternal and/or infinite with God, and Creation is progressive and eternal with the possibility of an infinite number of universes.

Regardless of the religion, the explanation for a monotheistic god is always the same: Our God Has Always Existed.

 

[Audie]

I believe there is a definite "need" for a creator. The evidence for that is the billions of people who believe in a creator.

That is not evidence for a creator. That is not evidence that a creator actually created anything. That is just evidence for human's psychological need for a creator.




No reputable scientist says a god created the universe. That is not neutrality.



Regardless of the religion, the explanation for a monotheistic god is always the same: Our God Has Always Existed.

Re in bold: Are you sure about that?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don’t think shunyadragon said that he agree and disagree with modern cosmology, or agree or disagree with universe being infinite or finite.

I think he was merely point out to you if you even accept the science of conservation of mass and energy, then it actually make the biblical creation “false” or “pointless”.

If “conservation” is true, then there is no need for a “Creator”, if mass and energy cannot be created, nor destroyed.

Okay. Which is it? Is conservation true? Do you know? If it is always true, you have to explain the entire universe. Your objection is moot. No offense intended.

 

[ecco]

Re in bold: Are you sure about that?

Instead of asking a question, just give some examples.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe there is a definite "need" for a creator. The evidence for that is the billions of people who believe in a creator.

That is not evidence for a creator. That is not evidence that a creator actually created anything. That is just evidence for human's psychological need for a creator.

Fallible human perceptions of a 'need' does not represent that there is any evidence of a need.

No reputable scientist says a god created the universe. That is not neutrality.

Not true, many scientist from different religions believe in God and acknowledge that science is neutral as to whether God exists or not. Atheism and agnosticism is a philosophical/theological assumption, like theism, and not the realm of science.

Regardless of the religion, the explanation for a monotheistic god is always the same: Our God Has Always Existed.

True, but this represents a belief, and not remotely related to science.

 

[Audie]

Instead of asking a question, just give some examples.

Suture self, I thought it was a odd thing for you to say.

 

[Audie]

Fallible human perceptions of a 'need' does not represent that there is any evidence of a need.



Not true, many scientist from different religions believe in God and acknowledge that science is neutral as to whether God exists or not. Atheism and agnosticism is a philosophical/theological assumption, like theism, and not the realm of science.



True, but this represents a belief, and not remotely related to science.

I certainly know Christian scientists. Saying that god started it
all has not the least bearing on how science is done.

FWIW, I feel no "need" for a "creator". Maybe it is not in my genes,
or maybe that it was not in my early childhood influences.

 

[shunyadragon]

I certainly know Christian scientists. Saying that god started it
all has not the least bearing on how science is done.

FWIW, I feel no "need" for a "creator". Maybe it is not in my genes,
or maybe that it was not in my early childhood influences.

Personally I do not believe in a need for God, which is probably because of my history with Buddhism, and the belief in 'nothing is necessary.' My belief in God is not grounded in my personal belief that God is necessary.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay. Which is it? Is conservation true? Do you know? If it is always true, you have to explain the entire universe. Your objection is moot. No offense intended.

The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Natural Laws represent the human perspective of the nature of our physical existence. Like all sciences, including the science of evolution, it is at present consistent and predictable with all that is known about our universe.

Beyond this it represents a philosophical/theological assumptions and beliefs. Christians predominantly believe in Creation 'ex nihilo.' The Baha'i Faith believes in a Created physical existence that eternally exists with an eternal God as a reflection of the attributes of God. Neither view can be falsified nor demonstrated by science and remains an open question. At present the scientific evidence of Quantum Mechanics favors a boundless eternal physical existence..

 

[Audie]

The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Natural Laws represent the human perspective of the nature of our physical existence. Like all sciences, including the science of evolution, it is at present consistent and predictable with all that is known about our universe.

Beyond this it represents a philosophical/theological assumptions and beliefs. Christians predominantly believe in Creation 'ex nihilo.' The Baha'i Faith believes in a Created physical existence that eternally exists with an eternal God as a reflection of the attributes of God. Neither view can be falsified nor demonstrated by science and remains an open question. At present the scientific evidence of Quantum Mechanics favors a boundless eternal physical existence..

While I do not agree with your idea that there is a god,
I do appreciate that you think, and are educated.

Such a breath-of-fresh-air change in any comparison
to the vacuous pronouncements and lame quips from people
who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[ecco]

Fallible human perceptions of a 'need' does not represent that there is any evidence of a need.

How is perceptions of a need not supported by evidence? Don't you need religion in your life? Millions of people, still in this day and age, need religion to explain things like the origins of the universe and why good people get sick.

Not true, many scientist from different religions believe in God.

That is not the same thing as what I said:

No reputable scientist says a god created the universe.
​

If you want to disagree with what I say, that's OK. Disagreeing with what I didn't say is misleading at best.

Atheism and agnosticism is a philosophical/theological assumption, like theism, and not the realm of science.

Wrong. Atheism is not a philosophical/theological assumption. It is not an assumption of any kind. Atheism is based on evidence.

Regardless of the religion, the explanation for a monotheistic god is always the same: Our God Has Always Existed.

True, but this represents a belief, and not remotely related to science.

Where did I say that the eternal existence of gods represented a scientific view?

 

[ecco]

The Baha'i Faith believes in a Created physical existence that eternally exists with an eternal God as a reflection of the attributes of God. Neither view can be falsified nor demonstrated by science and remains an open question. At present the scientific evidence of Quantum Mechanics favors a boundless eternal physical existence..

Ah, yes. Try to tie in science with your religious beliefs. Does that make it easier for you to substantiate your beliefs?

 

[gnostic]

Okay. Which is it? Is conservation true? Do you know? If it is always true, you have to explain the entire universe. Your objection is moot. No offense intended.

I am not saying it is true or false. There are too many things we don’t know about the universe. And some things we may never know.

But if the conservation energy/mass is true (as in being eternal), then the whole biblical creation is false, since it clearly indicated god create heaven and earth from nothing.

I have told you dozens of times before, in other threads that the Big Bang only explain about the universe cosmology as we know it - the “observable universe”.

It doesn’t explain what happened before the Big Bang, of if there is even a “before”. I keep telling know one knows, not the scientists, not any follower of religions, not you and I.

As to this infinite regression, that’s the straw man that you keep regurgitating whenever you bring up modern cosmology.