Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?

[Count Iblis]

Well, then religion is simply one of the possible algorithms that the brain uses when it reflects on itself. I don't see how this is beyond science.

Given a very powerful computer we could, in principle, simulate some virtual world in which human like intelligent creatures live and interact with each other. If we start with these creatures having little knowledge, we could watch them developing technology, laws, moral values etc. as a function of time.

So, it seems to me that this could fall under computer science, the theory of genetic algorithms or something similar.

 

[Insanity]

"...representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine man of science without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, (Nature vol 146, Nov 9, 1940), pg 605

 

[Integral]

Well, then religion is simply one of the possible algorithms that the brain uses when it reflects on itself. I don't see how this is beyond science.

Given a very powerful computer we could, in principle, simulate some virtual world in which human like intelligent creatures live and interact with each other. If we start with these creatures having little knowledge, we could watch them developing technology, laws, moral values etc. as a function of time.

So, it seems to me that this could fall under computer science, the theory of genetic algorithms or something similar.

How is that relevant? How is that going to say anything about you treat your friends, or even how you treat your enemy?

 

[Count Iblis]

How is that relevant? How is that going to say anything about you treat your friends, or even how you treat your enemy?

Why can't this be addressed from a purely scientific point of view? Surely the values most people adhere to did not come out of thin air. The neural networks our brain use to control behavior itself evolved. Partly this is passed on genetically, and part of it learned later (nurture). So, there are genes and memes involved here.

Then this whole system undergoes evolution. You can trace the fondations of our moral value system back millions of years in time long before humans even existed.

According to an NGC documentary, the eruption of the Toba supervolcano caused humans to almost go extinct. There is some evidence that humans before the Toba eruption lived in separate groups that did not interact a lot, while after the Toba eruption people in different groups interacted much more with each other (for trade).

It may be that the behavior after the Toba eruption would have been morally represensible before the eruption. So, a new type of behavior may have been selected because of environmental changes.

 

[Integral]

Why can't this be addressed from a purely scientific point of view? Surely the values most people adhere to did not come out of thin air. The neural networks our brain use to control behavior itself evolved. Partly this is passed on genetically, and part of it learned later (nurture). So, there are genes and memes involved here.

Then this whole system undergoes evolution. You can trace the fondations of our moral value system back millions of years in time long before humans even existed.

According to an NGC documentary, the eruption of the Toba supervolcano caused humans to almost go extinct. There is some evidence that humans before the Toba eruption lived in separate groups that did not interact a lot, while after the Toba eruption people in different groups interacted much more with each other (for trade).

It may be that the behavior after the Toba eruption would have been morally represensible before the eruption. So, a new type of behavior may have been selected because of environmental changes.

Fine, but you must admit that much of what you need to build your compuverse is not yet available. Both the hardware and software are pure speculation at this time. Further this is all getting further and further off the topic of this thread.

Just what is it about your compuverse which prohibit a scientist from accepting a religion?

 

[aPhilosopher]

It may be that the behavior after the Toba eruption would have been morally represensible before the eruption. So, a new type of behavior may have been selected because of environmental changes.

It could also be that humans weren't that intelligent prior to the eruption and that only the most intelligent humans survived the massive environmental change.

 

[drizzle]

...The fact that none of the religious texts gives any nontrivial information about the universe, let alone the rigorous proof I just explained, strongly suggests that religion is nothing more than a fairy tale.

at least one of the points mentioned in http://www.scribd.com/doc/15009199/Scientific-Miracles-of-the-Quran"would please you, and would appear as a nontrivial information about the universe to you, or would it not?

you really need to read religious texts before you judge like that

 

[aPhilosopher]

[STRIKE]you[/STRIKE] I really need to read religious texts before [STRIKE]you[/STRIKE] I [STRIKE]judge[/STRIKE] defend them like that

Fixed.

Saying that "we tore the heaven and the earth" apart predicts the big bang? Seriously?

 

[drizzle]

...

no I’m not turning red, I said at least one, and I’m not defending as much as questioning his readings to these religious texts!

 

[noblegas]

But the question in the thread is: "Can a modern scientist be religious?"

What difference does it make on whether or not a classical physicist or a modern physicist is religious? In your view, What makes a modern physicist possesses a more scientific mind than a classical physicist, puttiing scientific advancements aside. Both a classical physicist and a modern physicist rely on observations , experimentation and formulation of theories to create the advancements in their field; I think a classical physicist possesses a mind that relies on logic as much a modern physicist;

lol bad analogy. Humans can't visualize a deity just like species of lesser intelligence can't visualize calculus, BUT humans are the ones who invented the deity and the species of lesser intelligence did not invent calculus. Humans invented the concept of a deity but can't really explain it and don't really know anything about it -- religion is not humankind's best work...

Yes that might be true, but just about everything that we humans imagined is derived from our minds. Whats your point? Just because a deity is an invention of the human mind does not mean that a deity does not exist ; . time is also an invention of the human mind, but just because we cannot visualized the beginning of the universe and just because we currently lack the tools to better helped us visualized the to the beginning of the universe(before the big bang), should we come to a hasty conclusion that their is no beginning nor is their no end? I don't think so.

 

[Quincy]

What difference does it make on whether or not a classical physicist or a modern physicist is religious? In your view, What makes a modern physicist possesses a more scientific mind than a classical physicist, puttiing scientific advancements aside. Both a classical physicist and a modern physicist rely on observations , experimentation and formulation of theories to create the advancements in their field; I think a classical physicist possesses a mind that relies on logic as much a modern physicist

It's not that a modern physicist has a more scientific mind, it's that a modern physicist possesses more knowledge about life and the universe (Evolution and Big Bang Theory). Newton or Galileo had discovered the basic laws of motion and gravity, but they simply could not explain how the solar system came to be or why gravity exists, etc because they didn't have the technology and so they had to invoke the concept of god. In Newton's works, there is not one mention of god in his work on the laws of motion and gravity, but he invokes god when presented with questions about the origin of the universe. This supports the idea that humans invented god to explain mystery...

Yes that might be true, but just about everything that we humans imagined is derived from our minds. Whats your point? Just because a deity is an invention of the human mind does not mean that a deity does not exist ; . time is also an invention of the human mind, but just because we cannot visualized the beginning of the universe and just because we currently lack the tools to better helped us visualized the to the beginning of the universe(before the big bang), should we come to a hasty conclusion that their is no beginning nor is their no end? I don't think so.

You just said that physicists "rely on observations , experimentation and formulation of theories." Theories are derived from observations, not from our minds. Our minds create them BASED on our observations. But the idea of a deity is clearly not based on observation.

 

[noblegas]

You just said that physicists "rely on observations , experimentation and formulation of theories." Theories are derived from observations, not from our minds. Our minds create them BASED on our observations. But the idea of a deity is clearly not based on observation.

Just because we cannot observed a deity does not mean that they do not exist.Clearly , we cannot conclude if their is a deity based on our observations. What if species of higher intelligence came along and they claimed that they spoke to god and their civilization was more advance than ours, would you still be certain that God does not exist, even though an intelligent species that's hypothetically surpassed us in science and technology , is claiming that god exist? Which group of intelligent species claims would you considered more credible?

It's not that a modern physicist has a more scientific mind, it's that a modern physicist possesses more knowledge about life and the universe (Evolution and Big Bang Theory). Newton or Galileo had discovered the basic laws of motion and gravity, but they simply could not explain how the solar system came to be or why gravity exists, etc because they didn't have the technology and so they had to invoke the concept of god. In Newton's works, there is not one mention of god in his work on the laws of motion and gravity, but he invokes god when presented with questions about the origin of the universe. This supports the idea that humans invented god to explain mystery...

We do know how the universe formed based on cosmic background radiation collected by the formed the COBE satelitte and years of constructing and deconstructing models of the how the universe formed; The Big bang theory only describes the evolution and formation of the universe over a period of 13.7 billion years, it does not described whether or not the initial conditions of the big bang occurred by some probable mechanism i.e. by chance or was the initial conditions of the big bang was the result from the mind of an intelligent being.

 

[lubuntu]

Just because we cannot observed a deity does not mean that they do not exist.Clearly , we cannot conclude if their is a deity based on our observations. What if species of higher intelligence came along and they claimed that they spoke to god and their civilization was more advance than ours, would you still be certain that God does not exist, even though an intelligent species that's hypothetically surpassed us in science and technology , is claiming that god exist? Which group of intelligent species claims would you considered more credible?



We do know how the universe formed based on cosmic background radiation collected by the formed the COBE satelitte and years of constructing and deconstructing models of the how the universe formed; The Big bang theory only describes the evolution and formation of the universe over a period of 13.7 billion years, it does not described whether or not the initial conditions of the big bang occurred by some probable mechanism i.e. by chance or was the initial conditions of the big bang was the result from the mind of an intelligent being.

That's fine noblegas but:

1. If there is an intelligent being outside the universe that set up the conditions of the big bang that being is unknowable.
2. Considering such a being creates a much big question that it answers.

 

[Quincy]

Clearly , we cannot conclude if their is a deity based on our observations. What if species of higher intelligence came along and they claimed that they spoke to god and their civilization was more advance than ours, would you still be certain that God does not exist, even though an intelligent species that's hypothetically surpassed us in science and technology , is claiming that god exist?

Hearing species of a higher intelligence claim that they spoke to god is itself an observation. If that were to happen, I may think the existence of god is more likely, but hearing a species of a higher intelligence say that god exists certainly does not constitute proof of god's existence.
I don't think you understand atheism. People aren't (at least I'm not) atheist because they believe that science and technology can provide all the answers, but because there's simply no evidence for a god. Why don't you believe in santa clause or invisible pink unicorns? Because there's no evidence for them. Same with the existence of god. There's no logical reason for believing in something that doesn't have evidence. The only reasons I can think of that would make people believe in religion/god are that they want to stay loyal to their religious family's customs or they think it's good/healthy to believe or maybe it provides them emotional comfort, all reasons which I can understand, but personally, I just find it hard to accept something without evidence, no matter how comforting it may be.

The Big bang theory only describes the evolution and formation of the universe over a period of 13.7 billion years, it does not described whether or not the initial conditions of the big bang occurred by some probable mechanism i.e. by chance or was the initial conditions of the big bang was the result from the mind of an intelligent being.

So, because it can't describe the origin of the big bang, it was god who caused it? What reason do you have to assume that a divine being caused it?

 

[noblegas]

Hearing species of a higher intelligence claim that they spoke to god is itself an observation. If that were to happen, I may think the existence of god is more likely, but hearing a species of a higher intelligence say that god exists certainly does not constitute proof of god's existence.
I don't think you understand atheism. People aren't (at least I'm not) atheist because they believe that science and technology can provide all the answers, but because there's simply no evidence for a god. Why don't you believe in santa clause or invisible pink unicorns? Because there's no evidence for them. Same with the existence of god. There's no logical reason for believing in something that doesn't have evidence. The only reasons I can think of that would make people believe in religion/god are that they want to stay loyal to their religious family's customs or they think it's good/healthy to believe or maybe it provides them emotional comfort, all reasons which I can understand, but personally, I just find it hard to accept something without evidence, no matter how comforting it may be.

I am an agnostic myself, and I've think many athiests like to claim with certainty that their is no god. But you cannot make such an assertion that you know that their is no god because human beings are not omniscient and are falliable to error . Athiests can make the claim that their is no god because they lack the evidence currently , but they cannot be certain about the origin behind the creation of the universe.

]Hearing species of a higher intelligence claim that they spoke to god is itself an observation.hearing a species of a higher intelligence say that god exists certainly does not constitute proof of god's existence.

Why not ? If the species of higher intelligence demoonstrates itself to be far more superior to our civilization in terms of science, a complete understanding of their species psyche that their is no further research needed to understand the psyche and mind of their human species, why would you take their observations of a deity into serious consideration?

So, because it can't describe the origin of the big bang, it was god who caused it? What reason do you have to assume that a divine being caused it?

I never claimed that a god(s) is behind the big bang. I claimed that you cannot conclude that a divine force behind the big bang if we don't have sufficient evidence to prove that their was no god behind the big bang either.

 

[Quincy]

I am an agnostic myself, and I've think many athiests like to claim with certainty that their is no god. But you cannot make such an assertion that you know that their is no god because human beings are not omniscient and are falliable to error . Athiests can make the claim that their is no god because they lack the evidence currently , but they cannot be certain about the origin behind the creation of the universe.

Nobody can be 100% certain about anything. I'm not 100% sure there is no god - more like 99%. Being atheist means that you believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you know god doesn't exist. Just as theists believe god exists, theists don't know god exists.

Why not ? If the species of higher intelligence demoonstrates itself to be far more superior to our civilization in terms of science, a complete understanding of their species psyche that their is no further research needed to understand the psyche and mind of their human species, why would you take their observations of a deity into serious consideration?

It would still require faith to believe in god. If a species of higher intelligence simply told you there is a god, you would be convinced? How do you know they're not lying? You don't have very high standards... I wouldn't be convinced until I saw it for myself.

I claimed that you cannot conclude that a divine force behind the big bang if we don't have sufficient evidence to prove that their was no god behind the big bang either.

Yes, but why would anyone even think that god was behind the big bang in the first place? If god has no association with gravity, laws of motion, thermodynamics, electricity, etc (All of which humans understand thoroughly), why would you assume that he was behind the big bang? Yes, we don't have evidence that god wasn't behind the big bang, but we also don't have evidence that a flying spaghetti monster wasn't behind the big bang. From your reasoning, it would be safe to assume that a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn was behind the big bang. You keep making this mistake, you think just because there isn't proof that something doesn't exist, you think it's safe to assume that it exists.

 

[noblegas]

Nobody can be 100% certain about anything. I'm not 100% sure there is no god - more like 99%. Being atheist means that you believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you know god doesn't exist. Just as theists believe god exists, theists don't know god exists.

You would not know if they were lying or not because you would not be equipped senses the higher intelligent species possesses that would enabled him to be more sensitive to his surroundings than human beings and therefore you could not determined if they are lying or not just like a dog would not know if its owner is looking out for its best interests.

It would still require faith to believe in god. If a species of higher intelligence simply told you there is a god, you would be convinced? How do you know they're not lying? You don't have very high standards... I wouldn't be convinced until I saw it for myself.

Again in our world god doesn't seem to exist because our brain might not be properly developed to envisioned such phenomena; maybe we have not developed the proper equipment yet to detect a deity just like particle physiscists have yet to developed detector to envisions strings and eleven dimensions. I think we been over this scenario in other posts.One could argue particle physiccists have a model to work with though. But just because we lack a model for the deity now does not mean we can tossed the possibility of a deity in the trash bin. 400 years ago,Galileo would have scoffed at the idea of a substance possessing a particle/wave duality and Newton would have scoffed did idea as mass being equivalent with energy because in their time , the mathematics and the experimenational techniques and eqipement for detecting such physical phenomena did not exist.

Yes, but why would anyone even think that god was behind the big bang in the first place? If god has no association with gravity, laws of motion, thermodynamics, electricity, etc (All of which humans understand thoroughly), why would you assume that he was behind the big bang? Yes, we don't have evidence that god wasn't behind the big bang, but we also don't have evidence that a flying spaghetti monster wasn't behind the big bang. From your reasoning, it would be safe to assume that a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn was behind the big bang. You keep making this mistake, you think just because there isn't proof that something doesn't exist, you think it's safe to assume that it exists.

the laws of gravity, motion and thermodynamics tell us how the universe operates and functions , they do not tell us why such laws came into existence and why does such laws convienence human beings. I wasn't assuming anything, I don't know everything so I will not draw a conclusive argument about the validity of the existence of god. As I stated above, would might not have developed the proper understanding for the existence of god; Humans have created artificial intelligent beings and machinery , why is it so illogical to you to possibly posit that perhaps life beings and the laws that govern our universe might have been constructed in the mind of an intelligent being, analogous to the human mind, even if we currently lack sufficient evidence to experimentally proved such a position?

 

[Quincy]

You would not know if they were lying or not because you would not be equipped senses the higher intelligent species possesses that would enabled him to be more sensitive to his surroundings than human beings and therefore you could not determined if they are lying or not just like a dog would not know if its owner is looking out for its best interests.

Well, what if a species of an even higher intelligence told that species that god doesn't exist? And what if another species of an even higher intelligence told that species that god does exist but another species of a higher intelligence told that species that god doesn't exist, and so on? This talk about a higher species of intelligence claiming there is a god is completely meaningless, and is very likely never going to happen, so why even talk about it? Again, as I said before, make conclusions based on real observations, not "What if this" or "What if that"...

Again in our world god doesn't seem to exist because our brain might not be properly developed to envisioned such phenomena; maybe we have not developed the proper equipment yet to detect a deity just like particle physiscists have yet to developed detector to envisions strings and eleven dimensions. I think we been over this scenario in other posts.One could argue particle physiccists have a model to work with though. But just because we lack a model for the deity now does not mean we can tossed the possibility of a deity in the trash bin. 400 years ago,Galileo would have scoffed at the idea of a substance possessing a particle/wave duality and Newton would have scoffed did idea as mass being equivalent with energy because in their time , the mathematics and the experimenational techniques and eqipement for detecting such physical phenomena did not exist.

Well then, since we don't have the "proper equipment" to detect a deity yet, we should believe in what we currently can detect.

the laws of gravity, motion and thermodynamics tell us how the universe operates and functions , they do not tell us why such laws came into existence and why does such laws convienence human beings.

Like most of what you post, this has numerous grammatical errors, but I think what you're trying to say is that the laws of thermodynamics, motion, and gravity are convenient for human beings. That is absolutely false. It is a completely subjective statement.

why is it so illogical to you to possibly posit that perhaps life beings and the laws that govern our universe might have been constructed in the mind of an intelligent being, analogous to the human mind, even if we currently lack sufficient evidence to experimentally proved such a position?

Do you find it illogical to say that invisible pink unicorns might exist? If so, why?

 

[Jasongreat]

In the US, according to the first ammendment scientists can believe in any religion or not to, so yes a scientist can be religious or not, it is up to them.

To say that science is not faith based in some instances, is false IMO. There are not very many theories that don't have an assumption or two in them. Since we don't know what caused the assumption(or it wouldn't be an assumption) just that it works in the equation, we have to use a little faith(less and less the more times it works) that the theory is valid. It seems that with the big bang one person states people that believe something was behind it are basing that on faith because they have no proof, but another states that since we have no proof that something caused it, then it couldn't have happened that way, which is faith based also since they can't prove that something didnt cause the big bang. I would agree with noblegas as to the fact that we don't know for sure one way or the other, anyone claiming other wise is basing some beliefs on faith(isnt that basically what a belief is, something you believe to be true but can't completely prove(faith based), a truth is something you can prove to be true(not faith based) but even that is subjective to the information available at the time, if we don't have complete information what may seem to be a truth one day might be proven wrong the next when more information is discovered, which means that even the truth had elements of faith involved.

 

[muppet]

There is indeed a science called psycology that covers human behavior. But it is a study of how people interact. It makes no effort to dictate how we interact or why we should treat others the way we do. Religion is where many people find those rules.

I don't think it's quite so simple. Neuropsychology relates human behaviour to the brain itself- although it doesn't dictate a behavioural code per se, it does suggest a direct causal connection between a material system and human behaviour.

That being said, I don't think I'd go so far as to say that ethics or morality are themselves something that science can explain away or systematically analyse. The problem with such an approach as I see it is that whilst you can relate our instincts to our brain function, or evolutionary heritage, or the proliferation of particular memes, human intelligence has developed the ability to think in abstraction. Thus, "right" and "wrong" can be subjected to rational inquiry, just as we've developed schemes such as quantum mechanics that allow us to accurately describe a world which our mind never evolved to handle intuitively.

As a related aside on the connection between religion and ethics: philosophers like to talk about Euthyphro's dilemma: are actions good because God commands them, or does God command actions because they are good? Theologians and philosophers alike generally come to the latter conclusion, implying the existence of a moral structure external to and independent of God. Then, people who derive their moral guidelines from religious sources do so not because it is (morally) important to do what God says per se, but because God's asserted supreme intelligence gives Him a better knowledge of what is right and wrong than we could hope to attain.

 

[muppet]

In the US, according to the first ammendment scientists can believe in any religion or not to, so yes a scientist can be religious or not, it is up to them.

To say that science is not faith based in some instances, is false IMO. There are not very many theories that don't have an assumption or two in them. Since we don't know what caused the assumption(or it wouldn't be an assumption) just that it works in the equation, we have to use a little faith(less and less the more times it works) that the theory is valid. It seems that with the big bang one person states people that believe something was behind it are basing that on faith because they have no proof, but another states that since we have no proof that something caused it, then it couldn't have happened that way, which is faith based also since they can't prove that something didnt cause the big bang. I would agree with noblegas as to the fact that we don't know for sure one way or the other, anyone claiming other wise is basing some beliefs on faith(isnt that basically what a belief is, something you believe to be true but can't completely prove(faith based), a truth is something you can prove to be true(not faith based) but even that is subjective to the information available at the time, if we don't have complete information what may seem to be a truth one day might be proven wrong the next when more information is discovered, which means that even the truth had elements of faith involved.

There's not a single theory that doesn't contain an assumption or two. But what do you mean by "faith"? Take evolution as an example. The assumptions are:
1)That variation occurs within a population
-Consideration of human beings shows this to be obviously true in at least some cases.
2)That variation leads to some individuals being better adapted to survive in a competitive environment than others
-Thinking about variation in characteristics such as running speed, musculature, intelligence readily suggests ways in which this condition could be fulfilled
3)That those animals which have a survival advantage are more likely to reproduce
-At the very least, a plausible assumption
4)That there is some mechanism of heredity by which offspring exhibit similar physical traits to their parents
-Both an observed phenomenon and now the subject of the well-established field of genetics.

If by "faith" you mean "confidence", then scientists certainly have faith in these four assumptions. If, however, you mean "belief that is not based on proof", then only the most ardent skeptic (or creationist) doubts that the truth of these assumptions is not proven -to that standard of "proof" which can be attained by a scientific theory. The problem with "proof" in science is that if a theory is shown to make a prediction, which is then confirmed, you can't exclude the logical possibility that another theory makes the same prediction. The big bang theory (in its most modern form) has some excellent empirical support going for it. It's not a mere guess that just might be true; it's a postulate that unavoidably leads to non-trivial predictions which have been demonstrated to be true. There's really no more "faith" involved than in the hypothesis that every time I drop an apple, it will fall in roughly the direction of the centre of the earth.

 

[noblegas]

Like most of what you post, this has numerous grammatical errors, but I think what you're trying to say is that the laws of thermodynamics, motion, and gravity are convenient for human beings. That is absolutely false. It is a completely subjective statement.

I meant convenient in the sense that if the sun was slightly hotter and/or the region of the universe we humans inhabit was slightly colder than it actually is, life would not exist; If we were the second planet from the sun rather than the third, humans would not exist; If the gravitational constant was that of the moon or that of jupiter, we would have either a difficult time keeping are belongings and ourselves to the ground or we would barely be able to lift our feet above the ground. Not to mentioned we would not survive on Jupiter or the moon anyway regardless of their gravitational fields because Jupiter has too much hydrogen and is too cold for humans to inhabit and the moon has no oxygen. Their is synchronicity for humans on the earth, because we just happened to be in the right region of the universe inhabitable for humans.

Well, what if a species of an even higher intelligence told that species that god doesn't exist? And what if another species of an even higher intelligence told that species that god does exist but another species of a higher intelligence told that species that god doesn't exist, and so on? This talk about a higher species of intelligence claiming there is a god is completely meaningless, and is very likely never going to happen, so why even talk about it? Again, as I said before, make conclusions based on real observations, not "What if this" or "What if that"...

exactly my point! We truly have no way of answering whether god or not exists , other than our own mind ,because a species of higher intelligence could in principle point out the mistakes the second intelligent species made about their being a deity and vice versa. I think it is likely that we could encountered another intelligent species because we have yet to explore all of the universe and we have only explored less than four percent of the universe

 

[Quincy]

I meant convenient in the sense that if the sun was slightly hotter and/or the region of the universe we humans inhabit was slightly colder than it actually is, life would not exist; If we were the second planet from the sun rather than the third, humans would not exist; If the gravitational constant was that of the moon or that of jupiter, we would have either a difficult time keeping are belongings and ourselves to the ground or we would barely be able to lift our feet above the ground. Not to mentioned we would not survive on Jupiter or the moon anyway regardless of their gravitational fields because Jupiter has too much hydrogen and is too cold for humans to inhabit and the moon has no oxygen. Their is synchronicity for humans on the earth, because we just happened to be in the right region of the universe inhabitable for humans.

Most of the solar systems in the universe can not sustain life, so if anything, the laws of physics are NOT suitable for life. Our solar system just happens to be one that can sustain life on one of its planets. Most of the universe does not contain life, so I would say that the laws of physics are very inconvenient for sustaining life.

I think it is likely that we could encountered another intelligent species because we have yet to explore all of the universe and we have only explored less than four percent of the universe

Even if we were to encounter another intelligent species, I highly doubt that they would even know about the concept of god. The concept of god was created by us humans to explain mystery; intelligent species from other parts of the universe might not have that desire to explain mystery so they might be completely oblivious to the idea... Stop relying on this idea of "what if a more intelligent species claimed they saw god", and base your thinking on what is true, not what might be true.
And where did you get less than 4 percent? We have explored way less than one percent. Do you have any idea how big the universe is? You obviously don't know what you're talking about...

 

[Lancelot59]

So essentially our fun little planet was a huge coincidence?

I think that is why most people think that scientists can't be religious. Because god implies some all powerful omniscient being that can do anything without consequence or boundaties. Or because religion is an artificial construct that tries to describe the universe, without any actual backup besides "I believe".

 

[noblegas]

Most of the solar systems in the universe can not sustain life, so if anything, the laws of physics are NOT suitable for life. Our solar system just happens to be one that can sustain life on one of its planets. Most of the universe does not contain life, so I would say that the laws of physics are very inconvenient for sustaining life.

Even if we were to encounter another intelligent species, I highly doubt that they would even know about the concept of god. The concept of god was created by us humans to explain mystery; intelligent species from other parts of the universe might not have that desire to explain mystery so they might be completely oblivious to the idea... Stop relying on this idea of "what if a more intelligent species claimed they saw god", and base your thinking on what is true, not what might be true.
And where did you get less than 4 percent? We have explored way less than one percent. Do you have any idea how big the universe is? You obviously don't know what you're talking about...

The universe contains 4 percent of matter , 25 percent of DARK matter, and 75 percent of DARK ENERGY! Scientists are not completely sure what dark matter or dark energy is MADE of. I did not say we have explored 4 percent of the universe. I said we explored LESS than 4 percent. I included 4 percent because the universe is made of 4 percent of matter. I suspect if the species we hypothetically encountered follows a similar mode of life , shares the same values as humans, i.e. altriusm, investing in their young , not murdering people randomly for strictly survival purposes, looking down on cannabalism, then its possible for this hypothetical species to believe in that a deity is responsible for the creation of the universe as well.

 

[Lancelot59]

Well we didn't know what atoms were at one point. People came up with all kinds of crazy things until the model we have today was developed.

The same holds true for lightning, spontaneous life generation, and many other things throughout history.

Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that it's some super-natural phenomenon. Everything can be explained and described. It's just a matter of actually doing it properly.

 

[noblegas]

Well we didn't know what atoms were at one point. People came up with all kinds of crazy things until the model we have today was developed.

The same holds true for lightning, spontaneous life generation, and many other things throughout history.

Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that it's some super-natural phenomenon. Everything can be explained and described. It's just a matter of actually doing it properly.

I'm not really sure what ontological argument to buy because even if you supposed that their is a creator responsible for the creation of the universe, one wonders who created the creator, and ad infinitum. Let's end this debate. I see no point in proceeding with it.

 

[Quincy]

I did not say we have explored 4 percent of the universe. I said we explored LESS than 4 percent. I included 4 percent because the universe is made of 4 percent of matter.

This sentence just shows me you really don't know what you're talking about; we have not even explored our whole solar system and our solar system is less than one percent of the universe. Matter being 4 percent of the universe has nothing to do with what we have explored! Please, before you post again, do some research on inductive reasoning or logic, you lack in that area (no offense). This whole debate you have been presenting opinions that have been refuted centuries ago...

So essentially our fun little planet was a huge coincidence?

There are billions of planets in the solar system; we just happen to be on one that sustains life.

 

[noblegas]

This sentence just shows me you really don't know what you're talking about; we have not even explored our whole solar system and our solar system is less than one percent of the universe. Matter being 4 percent of the universe has nothing to do with what we have explored! Please, before you post again, do some research on inductive reasoning or logic, you lack in that area (no offense). This whole debate you have been presenting opinions that have been refuted centuries ago...

Let me make myself clear: I NEVER claimed that humans explored 4 percent of the universe. I said we explored LESS than 4 percent of the universe; Less than 4 percent can be 3.5 percent, 2.0 percent or .018 percent. I included the 4 percent of matter part of the universe because that's the only region of space humans have explored! Did I ever say we explored all of the solar system? Direct me to the post where I make this claim.

 

[Quincy]

Let me make myself clear: I NEVER claimed that humans explored 4 percent of the universe. I said we explored LESS than 4 percent of the universe; Less than 4 percent can be 3.5 percent, 2.0 percent or .018 percent. I included the 4 percent of matter part of the universe because that's the only region of space humans have explored! Did I ever say we explored all of the solar system? Direct me to the post where I make this claim.

Everyone knows:

- humans have explored part of the solar system
- solar system is less than 1 percent of the universe

With these two pieces of information, you can make the conclusion that humans have explored less than one percent of the universe.
Whether 4 percent of the universe is matter or 2 percent or 70 percent is completely irrelevant to how much humans have explored the universe.

 

[noblegas]

Everyone knows:

- humans have explored part of the solar system
- solar system is less than 1 percent of the universe

With these two pieces of information, you can make the conclusion that humans have explored less than one percent of the universe.
Whether 4 percent of the universe is matter or 2 percent or 70 percent is completely irrelevant to how much humans have explored the universe.

Whatever. less one percent is PART of the less than 4 percent range. We are straying off of the original topic of this thread. So I will end our little ontological argument like this: Even though one can assumed their could possibly be a creator responsible for the creation of the universe, one still might wondered who created to the creator and ad - infinitum. Therefore , discussions of the existence of non-existence of a creator is futile. the end.

 

[lubuntu]

The solar system is ridiculously less than 1 percent!

Roughly:

(1/8 Planets) * (1/10^9 Stars in the Galaxy) * (1/10^9 Galaxies)

1/80^18 Of the universe Explored!(...and even that not entirely)

I'm guessing we aren't getting an Xbox achievement for that one.

Humans are so ignorant and it is wonderful as there is so much to learn!

 

[Quincy]

The solar system is ridiculously less than 1 percent!

Roughly:

(1/8 Planets) * (1/10^9 Stars in the Galaxy) * (1/10^9 Galaxies)

1/80^18 Of the universe Explored!(...and even that not entirely)

I'm guessing we aren't getting an Xbox achievement for that one.

Humans are so ignorant and it is wonderful as there is so much to learn!

Exactly, that's what I was thinking. Why say less than 4 percent when it's way less than one percent?...

who created to the creator and ad - infinitum. Therefore , discussions of the existence of non-existence of a creator is futile. the end.

So I'm curious to hear if you are still agnostic? Has your belief towards the existence of god changed in any way?

 

[noblegas]

So I'm curious to hear if you are still agnostic? Has your belief towards the existence of god changed in any way?

I considered myself an agnostic athiest. Unlike you , I believe that even though their is currently no evidence to back up the existence of god, I am not going to rule it out completely because we presently have no evidence for god's existence. I still think we would either need to developed our technology to better understand the universe or come in contact with a species who may be more knowledgeable about the universe than we are.

Exactly, that's what I was thinking. Why say less than 4 percent when it's way less than one percent?...

I defined the universe by 3 regions. matter region, dark matter region and dark energy region. the solar system is in the matter region; that's why I included the less than 4 percent of matter range

 

[lubuntu]

Nobel,

From reading your past posts your scenario where we encountered another species who tells us about god isn't consistent. First of all, how can you say that the "God" they might no of isn't just a more advanced race? Secondly, just because they tell us something or give us their version of religion doesn't make it true, any claim they make would have to be backed up with pretty strong evidence.