Faith vs Proof: Religion & Universe Explored

[megashawn]

Royce, no offense here, but you are doing the exact same thing that man has done all through time.

You don't know why like forces repel, and therefore attribute it to god.

Perhaps, in our pursuit of knowledge, we will discover a logicical reason why, but at this point in time, you say there is no logical reason.

To me, there is no logical reason to abandon hope in finding a "logical reason why" and simply attribute it as a quality/ability of god.

Hey, if it makes it easier for you to wake up and breath, even though there is no logical reason why you should have to breath, by all means pursue it.

It is just as the man who walked out his cave one day, and saw a tree get struck by lighting, and start fire.

He doesn't know what just happened, and since all he knows is a flash of power came from the sky, he thinks its either a gift or threat from some person above.

Well, now we've got a Lighting God.

I don't really see a need in arguing about an actual god. I mean, let's face it, unless God himself comes and tells us what's going on, none of us are going to agree 100%.

And really, if you look at the powers all most every religion grants there gods, frankly, there is no logical reason why the true god has not revealed himself.

I'll not argue that there may be some grand designer behind the universe we know.

Maybe. Thats all any of us can really do. Honestly, we don't know enough about the universe to determine if it was designed to be the way it is, or if it is a fluke.

This leaves one glaring unanswered question. Why?

But even the God theory does not fufill this question. Where did god come from? How was he created? Why was he created? Why did he create the universe? If, from a christian POV, god is all powerfull, why didn't he skip the drama (last however many years) and simply create a perfect society? Why?

I could keep going. It seems to me adding an all powerfull god into the scheme only makes things more complex.

And I'd say let's take a ride on Occams razor, until god himself wants to set the record strait.

 

[Royce]

At one time in my life I agreed completely with you and I can still see your point of view. I still agree with much that you say.
The one thing, in purely intellectual reasoning, that points to God, the creative mind, in my opinion, is the exactness and precision with which the universe came into being. If things were not exactly as they are the universe would not exist at all or in any form that could lead to life and intellegence coming about. That and the fact that a purely abstract creation of the mind of ancient man has developed into the logic and mathematics we use today to describe the univerce with such accuracy. I seems to support the idea that a mind of the same type of reasoning and intellegence but far greater power created it and its laws. Maybe I should call it the super anthropic principle.
The above is not the only reasons that I am convinced that God is and cares. It is only the rational reasons I do.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Royce
I used the word "theory" because it is commonly used to describe what I would call pure speculation or at best hypothisis.

This is a danger. Theory, as common usage (which you say is the definition you are using) isn't the same word (by definition) as that used in science.

In science, theories always have a high degree of evidence to support them. Even a hypothesis has a good amount of evidence. In science terminology, your definition doesn't match the words theory or hypothesis. Perhaps speculation. Take care to make certain the terms aren't used interchangably, in a scientific context. It leads to great misunderstanding.

To my knowledge the "Big Bang Theory" is pure speculation supported only by the observation that the universe is now expanding and assuming the it has been expanding since it began and then running the clock backwards to the assumed point of the beginning. It also is supported by the results of COBE measuring the background radiation of the local universe. It is assumed that it is universal and not local and that as it is very nearly the exact temperature to be left over from BB that it is just that. It may be a coincidence or a local phenomena. That is evidence only that there is local background radiation. The rest is assumption and speculation.

That's it. That is all the evidence of the Big Bang.

Based on the evidence we have, which is fairly considerable, the BB fits better than other theories, hypotheses, or speculations, assuming Occam razor is still available for use. We have to make assuptions on generalization of the local conditions, unless we wish to simply throw up our arms and consider the problems not worthy of investigation. Unless you have a better way of investigating it, it is necessary, and though often unspoken, known to any scientist. I have always known that there was an assumption, as a chemist, that the physical constants I see in effect when I measure the rates of reaction, are the same here as at the opposite ends of the galaxy. Until such time as we can check, this is not a bizarre or strained assumption.

Again I disagree with your conclusions. The above is evidence of a single species adapting to a toxin and passing that adaption along. That is evidence of a possible mechanism of the theory of evolution. That is not direct evidence of Darwin's evolution or that is actually happened.

Modern evolutionary theory is based on two things, mutation, and natural selection. Both are about as close to proven as anything I accept as real.

Evolution, as in the origin of man vs. the evolution we see everyday (animal husbandry, microbial resistance to antibiotics, et. al.), isn't proven. Without a time machine, it would be fairly hard to. It does have a vast amount of evidence to support it, and explains the evidence better that any other theory, assuming Mr. Occams razor isn't prematurely discarded.

I would very much like to see the evidence, for the species, which in one generation acquired toxin resistance (with no evidence that it was a small, but already existent capability in some of their genetic makeup).

We have a bunch of fossils that seem to be related and seem to show fundamental structual change correlated to the age of the fossil.

There is no proof that these latter fossils are in fact related to and desended from the earlier ones. It is an assumption that they are and thus support the theory not prove it.

You are correct. However, the theory is the best explanation we currently have for that evidence. Without a time machine, it is never possible to prove things that happened in prehistory, without some axiomatic assumptions (such as their were no magical fairies mucking with the laws of nature, etc.).

Mentat, I have told you before that just because you read something in a book does not make it proven fact. I have, in my reading, found very little indication that the actual scientists are stating any more than I am. It is you and others like you that assume it to be proven and fact. Read more carefully the words that they actually say.

To say they are proven is certainly an error. Aspects of many theories are proven, but I have never heard of any theory that has been proven - it's just not part of science.

By the same token, many theories have more supporting evidence than the things we take as fact in daily life. I cannot say if you are using the terms this way, but too many non-science types tend to like to use the word theory, with it's non-science definition, as if it's merely speculation or opinion.



In Response to thinks written by mentat and megashawn. While we are likely of similar minds on most scientific realities, your terms have really given me the willies. ANYONE that bandies the word 'facts', 'truth', and 'proven' around with impunity, starts revving up my BS detector. These are terms I expect to hear from religious zealots, but almost never heard from the scientific community.

 

[megashawn]

Uhm, What do you mean? Could you perhaps provide an example?

 

[Royce]

Radagast, I agree completely with you in everything you've said.
I used quotes around theory to show that I was using in inapproperiately as Mentat had and does unless he is chastising others not to.
My reasoning is speculation based on the same evidence as science has on the beginning and evolution of both the universe and evolution.
I have very little doubt that they are valid and for the most part true though not complete nor completely understood. For those reasons I think that the common use of the term theory applied to them including most scientist is improper in the strict scientific use of the term and that is what I was trying to point out.
None of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread nor my post "Reasoning for the existence of God the Creator."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Your right Mentat, I haven't actually said what my reasoning is. I have implied it but not said it here in this threat. I hasve in other thread given parts and pieces but not the basis of my reasoning.

I am thinking og starting a new thread opening with my reasoning laid out step by step in paper or essay but have not yet done it because it is not yet clear in my mind how to actually put it into words without writing a book.

I will use this opportunity to give it a try, a rehearsal, if you will. Being buddies I know that if you blow it apart you will do it mildly. If you crucify me you will do it gently.

Reasoning for the existence of God the Creator

The universe is ordered and organized to a high degree. The Universe is logical, consistant and mathematical or can be described to extreme accuracy using matematics and logic. The universe has physical laws and rules that are knowable and consistant and that are obeyed and followed precisely at least on a macro scale.
The universe, if one assumes that the Big Bang actual took place and is the origin of the universe as we know it, has evolved from near total chaos to nearly total cosmos, to the point that stars have planets orbiting them that can and, at least on one, do support a thriving complex life form.
Both cosmological evolution and life's evolution here on Earth has led to us, Mankind, Homo Sapiens who can know, comprehend, search for and discover both the universe itself and what makes it work as it does. This leaves one glaring unanswered question. Why?
It is my reasoning that the creation and evolution of the universe shows purpose and intent as does the evolution of life at least here on Earth.
It is written that Man was created in God's image. I believe that it is not a physical image but a mental image that the statememnt refers to. Our logic and mathematics are solely abstranct products
of our mind yet these abstraction are able to discribe physical reality to a degree of accuracy that the margin of error has been compared to the thickness of a playing card when measuring the distance to the moon.
We of course have to modify our theories, laws, mathematics and logic from time to time in order to better model reality but we can do it and do do it. We humans can and do know the universe how it works and why it works the way it does from the largest structures of the universe to the smallest wave particle.
Our knowledge is not yet total nor complete nor is our understanding. It may never be. But, we do and can know the universe and understand it.
It is my reasonable hypothesis that Mankinds mind is created via purposful and intentional evolution, both cosmological and biological, in the image of the Creator, God. We are created in his mental image, the same method of reasoning, so that we can know both his creation and him.
Assuming that the Big Bang did actually start somewhere, somewhen, then it was God who started it; created that moment and energy or caused it to happen exactly how it happened with the exact properties to make it possible to expand and evolve into what it is today. It is God's laws that we discover and call natural or physical laws. It is our minds of the same order as Gods mind, but obviously not the same order of magnatude, that allows us to discover, know and understand Gods laws.
There is no apparent logical reason why like charges should repel and unlike charges should attract. There is no apparent logical reason why the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity or cosmological force should act the way they do. There is no apparent logical reason that QM and QED should behave the way they do. Yet all of this does behave the way it does and all of this is necessary for the universe to exist and for us to exist.
The universe is exactly the way it is because if it were not the exact way it is it would not exist at all much less be so ordered and organized that life, intelligent life can come to be, to know that it is and the universe is, and know, or wonder about, God.
This is all too much for me to believe that all of this is an accident of probability. Not only is the Universe exactly how it must, and can only, be; but, the series of events that came about that inevitably lead to us happened; and, happened in the exact order necessary to bring about intelligent life. This is to me at least too much to be coincidence or accident. It is evidence or support for purpose and intent and that is evidence and support for the existence of God the Creator. This too me is much more reasonable than random happenstance or accident. It is, to me, just as reasonable and says more than the anthropic principle.

Where have I seen this before...hm .

Seriously, I've already picked this apart, since it's exactly what you wrote in your first post. All you are doing is explaining (through the use of partially faulty reasoning - as I've already shown) why you won't accept that it came about without intelligent design. You are not reasoning as to why it must (logically, scientifically, or in any way philosophically) be true.

That is what I meant by "present your reasoning".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
At one time in my life I agreed completely with you and I can still see your point of view. I still agree with much that you say.
The one thing, in purely intellectual reasoning, that points to God, the creative mind, in my opinion, is the exactness and precision with which the universe came into being. If things were not exactly as they are the universe would not exist at all or in any form that could lead to life and intellegence coming about. That and the fact that a purely abstract creation of the mind of ancient man has developed into the logic and mathematics we use today to describe the univerce with such accuracy. I seems to support the idea that a mind of the same type of reasoning and intellegence but far greater power created it and its laws. Maybe I should call it the super anthropic principle.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why it is logical to assume that the fact that humans have been able to develop logic, to describe the behavior of the Universe so accurately, is any indication that it (the Universe) was initially created to be logical. After all, it could have been (as I've said numerous times) one of an enormous number of Big Bangs, possibly the only one that continued existing.

The above is not the only reasons that I am convinced that God is and cares. It is only the rational reasons I do.

Rational reasons are independent of "I refuse to believe" statements. I say this because rationality and logic are completely free of personal biases.

(PM)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Radagast, I agree completely with you in everything you've said.
I used quotes around theory to show that I was using in inapproperiately as Mentat had and does unless he is chastising others not to.

Excuse me, but search as hard as you wish, you will (most likely) never find a post where I have misused "theory" in the way that I chastise others for doing.

I am very meticulous about my own use of that word, and I despise hypocrisy (so I would never chastise others for doing as I myself do).

Of course, should you find such a post, I should be rather embarrased, but I sincerely doubt that you will.