Cosmological constant....

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's very hard to critisise ID without sounding anti-American, and I would not want to do that. But it is a sociological phenomena, (not a scientific theory) that is based on the culture of some of the American people and the immigrant roots, (mostly persecuted religious minorities), that they sprung from. Nowhere else in the world is ID thought of as even credible, in fact the attempt to open a school teaching ID last year in England was rejected even by the CE clergy as biased.

Sorry, but that's the truth as I see it.
 
ID is as much a religion as any - if you stipulate the necesstity of a designer, an entity that is by nature beyond scientific investigation - you left the ground that science treads on.

I still cannot fathom why religion, or some of its followers - to whom faith means or should mean that it's tenets are beyond investigation - always try with all their might to somehow laminate two opposites.

Faith is by nature not interested in any proof that lies outside the word upon which the religion is based on.

One almost has the sense that those trying to combine science and religion, and it is only those that come from the side of the religious, be they scientists or not, are interested in the a scientific underpinning because they are somehow not satisfied with the word in their religious teachings, or does this indicate some doubt?

I have no idea why else someone would even try such an undertaking.

Nowhere else in the world is ID thought of as even credible

Not even the US closest neighbours - Canada and Mexico - is there anyone but a tiny minority that give any creedance to that new attempt to harness science for religious purposes.

Those who try can only be glad anything like the inqusition no longer exists. For the the term heretic is as fitting as any.
 
SY said:
It's more of the tired Paley argument, well disposed of more than a century ago. It's fine religion and I can't argue with it on that basis, but it isn't science and is most decidedly NOT taken very seriously by the vast majority of working scientists.


I'm answering this as a scientist; your request for only scientists of one particular religion (and a minority religion among scientists) to answer is puzzling, so I'll ignore it.


Don’t mind comments from any genre just more interested in what the agnostic opinion is because of the stark contrast to my own beliefs. I don’t know much about the technical side but I'm pretty good with logic, no need to go to school to learn logic and common sense, and common sense points in the general direction of this paper IMO. I just though it interesting that there are so many anomalies and holes in the logic of an accidental universe. What parts of this hypothesis do you find weak?]

The conclusion of a designed universe seems obvious and unavoidable, and if science cannot explain in any reasonable sense the possibility that this complex interacting purposeful world could ever be anything but a deliberate design then I must wonder why, why even try to explain all existence in such a sterile illogical way. There seems to be far more logical proof of a deliberate designed universe, why has it taken so long for a few of the mainstream to come to this possible conclusion, and why is it seemingly so unpopular with many others.
 
The conclusion of a designed universe seems obvious and unavoidable

And - let me repeat again - who designed the designer?

Your posting does only one thing - it confirms that those who need a god will have one, and those who do not need - will not. That is logic as well.
Since your kind are blind to evidences in biological science, physical science etc, that are not congruous with your ideas - i.e. evolution of the universe and the species on earth - and selectively pay attention to only those that fit the bill of your beliefs - there is simply no basis for a discussion.

Yes, any of those evidences can be interpreted in many ways and can be discussed and be subjected to the stringenst sceptgic al scrutiny - but in the end the evidence points the way of a universe that develops and keeps changing, starting from a point a long time ago.

Your believes even make a lie of the evidence - genetically, taxonomically, anatomically, geologically, paleontologically, physically - so a common base between the believer and the sceptical investigator is non existant.

If you pose a designer that "put together a package of rules" and than started the whole at one point without any further interference - that is a possibility I cannot deny, but is for me unimportant and irrelevant for my life as well and definetely beyond praise or prayer.

But a supernatural being that on a constant basis interferes, keeps changing the rules, throws out designs he doesn't like and overall messes in things - just a bad tradesman, nothing else.

There seems to be far more logical proof of a deliberate designed universe

What logic is that? And, have you recently read up on the above mentioned topics? If a designer exists evolution is not happening - but it is undoubtedly, if you have evolution by natural selection or breeding - it is one package. If evolution does not exist, breeding to achieve certain goals would not be possible - there goes your logic.
.
 
If you pose a designer that "put together a package of rules" and than started the whole at one point without any further interference - that is a possibility I cannot deny

Yes, but even for that, probabilistic arguments can be constructed to show that it's not worth it to even consider such a scenario (similar lines of argument as those used to refute Pascal's Wager).
 
audio-kraut said:


And - let me repeat again - who designed the designer?

One think at a time, first lets get to some middle ground on if there is any intelligent design to the universe or is it all chaos and accident.


audio-kraut said:
If you pose a designer that "put together a package of rules" and than started the whole at one point without any further interference - that is a possibility I cannot deny, but is for me unimportant and irrelevant for my life as well and definetely beyond praise or prayer.

Yes, this is the only way it makes sense to me, no other way can explain what I see.


Originally posted by audio-kraut
But a supernatural being that on a constant basis interferes, keeps changing the rules, throws out designs he doesn't like and overall messes in things - just a bad tradesman, nothing else.

Just like there is bad science there is bad religion, there is no proof or logic of a God that operates like a puppet master overseeing every move and occurrence.

However, if science really is the quest to understand the fabric of the universe and where we came from, then why not fully investigate the possibility of a creator. At this point in science there is far more proof of a creator then not, from what I can tell. If science continues to ask the question of where did life come from then it will always cross religion since most look to religion to explain existence since science cannot. To me existence without purpose is the most illogical thing I can fathom. Why is a scientific theory that is so full of questions and discontinuity more relevant then faith in an unseen creator which can logically explain everything? My guess is pride and selfishness, smart people like to think they are smart of their own doing, many like to think they are god and don’t want to give into the idea that they don’t have complete control over this reality, IOW they wish to make their own reality and rule it to their liking. The sad truth that I have learned from experience is that we are not so smart as we think, and we have no control over the truth, we do not get to dictate what is true or false, its already been done and fighting it will only make you miserable.

Truth is a thing not a concept or idea, believe what ever you want but it will not change what is true no matter the evidence you provide. Once you start thinking like this things will be plain and obvious without confusion, you may not know the structure or details but you will know what is possible or impossible.
 
audio-kraut said:
Your posting does only one thing - it confirms that those who need a god will have one, and those who do not need - will not
.


Everybody needs something to believe in, so it goes both ways, those who need science will have it. Both are looking towards something to explain what we don’t understand and cant see.

Which is more possible

That some superior entity could design this world.

OR

That we are so smart that we could ever explain or understand the fabric of the universe by reverse engineering and observation. Heck we still cant make a toaster that will work properly let alone figure out how life came to be. What makes the scientist think there are ever capable of even understanding the origins of life, seems very arrogant to me.
 
kingdaddy said:
Truth is a thing not a concept or idea, believe what ever you want but it will not change what is true no matter the evidence you provide. Once you start thinking like this things will be plain and obvious without confusion, you may not know the structure or details but you will know what is possible or impossible.

To me, that is a definition of true scientific reasoning.
 
kingdaddy said:
I don’t know much about the technical side but I'm pretty good with logic, no need to go to school to learn logic and common sense, and common sense points in the general direction of this paper IMO.
Logic and common sense are two vastly different things. You can NOT be good with logic without having at least some serious learning of what logic is all about. Despite what you believe, we excercise very little logic most of the time.
I repeat - logic is NOT just "common sense". Not that there even IS any "common" sense...
If you base your reasoning on "common sense", you end up with rubbish. Soone or later, but always.

The conclusion of a designed universe seems obvious and unavoidable, and if science cannot explain in any reasonable sense the possibility that this complex interacting purposeful world could ever be anything but a deliberate design then I must wonder why, why even try to explain all existence in such a sterile illogical way.
Usual problem is that you don't know enough of the complexity to see why the designer becomes needless redundant idea.
This universe does not need creator, inability to comprehend that is problem of inadequate knowledge - awe.

This is difference between "explanation" by creator and science: creator explanation is a sort of "ground up" construct - start from nothing and reach what is observed. It is very attractive idea, but fails every single time in the forest of logical fallacies and overwhelming complexity and infinities of possibilities with inability to confirm intermediate steps. It always cuts shortcuts of possible development branches in a manner of "because I said its so, dammit". Its what kids do, "explanation" without details.

Science works "top-down", reverse-engineering and modeling what is observable. Relying on what is known to be rocksolid and 100% verifyable. Thats what makes any outside "creator" absolutely incompatible with science.

Ideally, somewhere the two approaches meet, and it becomes a matter of engineering. If it is at all possible. The Science way is much harder, but it is the only way to be absolutely dependable, and the only way able to discover real things that would never occur in the wildest fantasies of human mind.

The creator idea explains nothing, because it just barks "it is so because he made it so", and constantly adjusting to any new discovery of science ala "uh yeah, he did that too".

kingdaddy said:
One think at a time, first lets get to some middle ground on if there is any intelligent design to the universe or is it all chaos and accident.
There is no intelligent design TO the universe. Seemingly intelligent design is result of evolution of the universe, or perhaps your dislocation within it.
Chaos is not acausal. Universe IS Chaos, and chaos does give rise to intelligence and structures.

However, if science really is the quest to understand the fabric of the universe and where we came from, then why not fully investigate the possibility of a creator.
Please first DEFINE creator without making a logical fallacy. Then please advise what constitutes "science fully investigating the possibility of a creator".
Do you really think that noone has ever thought of this? Of course creator idea has been considered, thousands of years. It failed to _explain_, it failed to progress technology. It only helped demography management. It still does.

At this point in science there is far more proof of a creator then not, from what I can tell.
I'm sorry, but please don't fancy an idea that you can tell enough to be conclusive.
If science continues to ask the question of where did life come from then it will always cross religion since most look to religion to explain existence since science cannot. To me existence without purpose is the most illogical thing I can fathom.
This is the crux of your problem. You cannot fathom _your_ existence without purpose. Many can.
Many can't accept existence without purpose because 1) they refuse to die, and 2) they need that purpose of their existence was somebody else's problem.

There is no other excuse to religion. People who want to touch questions of unexplainable, excercise philosophy, keeping possible creator idea as one on the list with other possibilities.

Creator is a distinct possibility, despite everything. But it is not possible within logical reasoning system we operate on. It is not only outside this universe, its outside our logic.

Why is a scientific theory that is so full of questions and discontinuity more relevant then faith in an unseen creator which can logically explain everything?
LOGICALLY??? You can't be serious.

The sad truth that I have learned from experience is that we are not so smart as we think, and we have no control over the truth, we do not get to dictate what is true or false, its already been done and fighting it will only make you miserable.
Right. So don't blindly believe in something that may well not exist at all, and instead of trusting your own "common sense" make a good deep investigation about whether it really "makes sense". And perhaps you might also want to learn what millions of manyears of thought that our civilisation has spent on science has to say.

That some superior entity could design this world.
What a relief that would be, right? Man, there is somebody else to blame... for that toaster..

That we are so smart that we could ever explain or understand the fabric of the universe by reverse engineering and observation. Heck we still cant make a toaster that will work properly let alone figure out how life came to be. What makes the scientist think there are ever capable of even understanding the origins of life, seems very arrogant to me.
Perhaps you cant make a toaster. Or can't get yourself select a toaster that works.
Very arrogant is your attitude to science. If everybody were like this, we'd be still climbing the trees instead of Internet.
Because whats the point of coming down the trees if we are never capable of understanding the world around us?

Of course we believe we are capable of understanding. And if the origin of life leads to some superior being, then tadaa, science will deal with that. Until then, believe in whatever you want, but don't run around asserting that creator is the only "logical" possibility, or that it explains how quantum mechanics works.
 
wimms said:
Creator is a distinct possibility, despite everything. But it is not possible within logical reasoning system we operate on. It is not only outside this universe, its outside our logic.

Not outside my understanding or logic, far from it.



wimms said:
Of course we believe we are capable of understanding. And if the origin of life leads to some superior being, then tadaa, science will deal with that.

So science creates God? If there is a God I doubt any science will ever know with the attitude most have, and God nor humans need science to explain anything if there is a God.


wimms said:
Until then, believe in whatever you want, but don't run around asserting that creator is the only "logical" possibility, or that it explains how quantum mechanics works.

I thought I made it very clear with all the IMO and from what I know blurbs. It’s still ok to have an opinion isn’t it?


I love the line in another post about how we believers in God cant discuss anything scientific because were are so obtuse (paraphrasing a bit). Looks the other way around to me.
 
Don’t mind comments from any genre just more interested in what the agnostic opinion is because of the stark contrast to my own beliefs.

Why do you assume that someone who understands evolution, modern cosmolgy, and the like would necessarily be an atheist or agnostic? Or do you think that the Pope is agnostic?

One think at a time, first lets get to some middle ground on if there is any intelligent design to the universe or is it all chaos and accident.

Are those the only two choices?

Could you define what you mean by "intelligent"?
 
pinkmouse said:
Kingdaddy

I think one of the reasons why ID fails, and makes its proponents look a little naive, is that it uses scientific reasoning to argue against the use of scientific reasoning. You can't have your cake and eat it...


The way I understood the paper was:

Incredible amounts of interlocking phenomena must happen at the exact time and place as necessary to facilitate even the possibility of simple forms of life. And that there is overwhelming evidence of the near impossibility of any life ever existing, mathematically speaking. At least that’s what I got as the general gist.


I don’t know of the paper some are calling “ID” or its agenda, but I don’t see anything in that particular paper that rings improbable or biased.

Still have no clue as to how accurate the science method used to present it's (ID’s) view, but some here have plainly show a biased opinion on this paper as if they already know some dirty secret about this author or publisher. I don’t subscribe to any written word as proof of anything, including any bible or science theory, but the general idea of life being a mathematical fluke seems hard to disprove in any form.


********IMO********

There is actual real life evidence unfolding before your eyes every day that proves design and purpose, I find it amazing that so many can not see or feel it. I just don’t get how all this interconnecting and amazingly unlikely miracles can be so easily discounted as a purposeless cosmic accident.
 
SY said:


Why do you assume that someone who understands evolution, modern cosmolgy, and the like would necessarily be an atheist or agnostic? Or do you think that the Pope is agnostic?


I don’t assume at all, but many resident pseudo science experts here posted their non religious stance in the past, and I was curious.


Intelligence = acceptance of truth.
 
SY said:
OK, so separating out their ruminations on philosophy, personal opinions, and the like, and just sticking to the scientific points, where do you think they have cited pseudoscience?


I'm obviously not qualified to nit pick any science arguments. The attitude and lack of desire to entertain another’s POV is what raises a red flag of BS. If these self proclaimed science experts are so knowledgeable and informed with the truth then why so smug and rude about sharing it, that is if it’s really the truth. You would think they would be happy to enlighten with more abase, it’s the attitude and the way someone presents their opinion that tells the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.