Creation

NoNukes writes: You've said such things before, and I have to admit that I find this form of argument very unsatisfying. You are just layering belief on top of belief on top of how you feel. "To my mind it is logical," says absolutely nothing.

Again, I put it that way as I know the conclusion that I draw is not confirmed by absolute evidence. We exist. We can consider the fact that we are made up of particles that have formed incredibly complex cells and have then created sentient beings with consciousness, intelligence and morality. We can consider the anthropic principle. It is those among other things that have influenced my conclusions.

I find it unsatisfying as well, as I know I don't have irrefutable evidence for my conclusion so I'm am left with only being able to say that "to my mind it is logical" I agree that Modulous could say that as there is insufficient evidence in his opinion for a deity and I suppose he could say, (not trying to put words in his keyboard ), that to his mind it is logical that we are the result of nothing but mindless processes.

Again, I put it that way as I know the conclusion that I draw is not confirmed by absolute evidence.

I'm really not complaining about the lack of evidence at all. I am complaining about a defense of an assertion that something is "more logical" by nothing more than "it seems that way to me".

A more accurate statement (in my opinion) is that your conclusion resonates with you. You don't seem to be saying anything more than that in your response to me.

Again I agree that this is wild speculation but even with two dimensions of time ,as the mathematics suggest we should have, we could go backwards and forwards reversing entropy and would mean that we could be eternal.

Going backwards and forwards requires only one dimension. Having two dimensions would mean we could forwards in a time and leftwards in time. But it doesn't mean we can go backwards in time or rightwards in time.

It's not that I don't like the answer that you come up with, I just don't agree with it. Are you saying you can prove there is no god?

No - I'm just commenting that your claim that naturalism doesn't 'answer the question of what if anything is behind it all.' by saying that it does.

However where it becomes much more of a grey area is when we consider the question of why the evolutionary process came into being in the first place. If we then discover what process initiated evolution then we ask what process initiated that and it is turtles all the way down.

But why is it more reasonable to resolve the infinite regress by appealing to a supernatural intelligence than some fundamental and simple entity?

We can choose a mindful or a mindless origin of our world. You choose one and I choose the other, by belief, as we do not have empirical evidence that proves the issue one way or the other.

But I gave my reasons, you seem to want to resort to 'I just believe it'. I think that shows something about our approaches.

We are both putting forward a defence, but it is about defending what we believe knowing that there is no absolute evidence for either of our positions. I do prefer to say the "I believe" to saying that this is how is, out of honesty.

I don't see the defence. You claim you think it is more logical and more reasonable to see things the way you do, but when asked for your reasons and logic you either repeat how reasonable or logical you think it is and conclude that ultimately you just believe it.

There's no dispute that it's belief, but if you believe it is more reasonable - that means you have reasons. If you want to concede its purely faith without reason that's fine - but you talked about reason and logic and I don't think I'm out of line for asking about your reasons. 'I believe' is a statement of fact, but it is not an argument that justifies that your belief is more reasonable.

Stile writes: My understanding of what you're saying here is that "ultimate purpose" is the purpose you were created for. God created the world, and people... for a reason. That reason would be our "ultimate purpose." If no intelligence created the world, and people... there would be no reason. Therefore, no "ultimate purpose." Does that sound about right?

Yes. I would just add that it isn’t the reason that “I” was created. It is for all of us regardless of our beliefs. If all conscious life were to end, then all of the things that we find meaningful in this life are now ultimately meaningless.

Stile writes: But what if we don't care about the reason we were created for? What if we go beyond that reason anyway?

In a very real sense I don’t care about the reason that we were created. It is a conclusion that I have come to. I just live my life in the here and now trying as best I can, although most inadequately, in living a life guided by a heart that loves and respects others, and that genuinely wants the best for them even at my own expense. How this fits in ultimately I don’t know but it is all that I can do in this life. As I say, it sounds great in theory but I know that I fall far short of the mark.

My favourite theologian is NT Wright. I’ll paraphrase something I read of his.

A master stone mason comes up to a junior stone mason and asks him to carve a stone with specific dimensions and other characteristics. The junior stone mason doesn’t really know why or how this stone is going to be used but dutifully goes ahead with the job. Eventually the master stone mason comes back and takes the finished piece of work from the junior stone mason and goes away. Years later the master stone mason comes back and takes the junior stone mason by the hand and leads him away and there before them is this magnificent cathedral and there up in the top corner is the stone that the junior stone mason carved as part of this great enterprise.

He didn’t know the ultimate purpose but did it because that is what he believed he was called to do. In that sense I don’t really care about the reason we were created as I agree it doesn’t really matter.

In a sense then the ultimate meaning for the junior stone mason was to get his assigned task completed, but in the end found that the stone he carved was part of a much bigger enterprise. I would say that the discovery of penicillin is something like the carving of that stone. It was a good and beautiful thing in and of itself in the present, but it also meant that people could live better and longer in the future.

NoNukes writes: 'm really not complaining about the lack of evidence at all. I am complaining about a defense of an assertion that something is "more logical" by nothing more than "it seems that way to me". A more accurate statement (in my opinion) is that your conclusion resonates with you. You don't seem to be saying anything more than that in your response to me.

OK. That probably is a better way of putting it but at least your post shows that you understood what I meant.

Thanks

Merely stating that you think I'm talking about Catholics rather than Catholicism is the problem and if you read anything I wrote you should know I took pains to try to prevent that very reading. I don't care about the rest of your post, the statement you were making about not discussing the issue, it's totally irrelevant. Just saying I'm talking about CATHOLICS is the problem,. Why can't you get that simple point? I'm serious, why can't you? There really seems to be something wrong with your head. Truly. And you do this sort of thing to me a LOT. You actually very nastily accuse me of lying, even about something right there that I was discussing, instead of considering that maybe we are simply miscommunicating.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Modulous writes: Going backwards and forwards requires only one dimension. Having two dimensions would mean we could forwards in a time and leftwards in time. But it doesn't mean we can go backwards in time or rightwards in time.

I don't want to belabour the point as discussing this with you is like taking a knife to a gun fight, but as I understood from what I read, is that math tells us that time should flow backwards of forwards but due to entropy we only experience it in one direction. I just kinda assumed that if we experience two dimensions of time, we would then be able to reverse entropy.

Modulous writes: No - I'm just commenting that your claim that naturalism doesn't 'answer the question of what if anything is behind it all.' by saying that it does.

OK, but it isn't any less of a belief than what it is that I believe. If we can show that evolution naturally resulted in life today it tells us nothing about why that is the case or why or how the process of evolution existed in the first place.

Modullous writes: But why is it more reasonable to resolve the infinite regress by appealing to a supernatural intelligence than some fundamental and simple entity?

What simple entity would you use. Would that entity have intelligence? The idea that all of attributes of sentience evolving from mindlessness doesn't resonate with me in the way that sentience from pre-existing intelligence does.

Modulous writes: But I gave my reasons, you seem to want to resort to 'I just believe it'. I think that shows something about our approaches.

I gave reasons too. You just didn't like them.

Modullous writes: I don't see the defence. You claim you think it is more logical and more reasonable to see things the way you do, but when asked for your reasons and logic you either repeat how reasonable or logical you think it is and conclude that ultimately you just believe it. There's no dispute that it's belief, but if you believe it is more reasonable - that means you have reasons. If you want to concede its purely faith without reason that's fine - but you talked about reason and logic and I don't think I'm out of line for asking about your reasons. 'I believe' is a statement of fact, but it is not an argument that justifies that your belief is more reasonable.

1/ The anthropic principle.
2/ The world appears to be designed.
3/ Mankind has always looked to something beyond ourselves.
4/ The accounts of the life of Jesus.
5/ The fact that the vast majority of religions have as part of their faith the Golden Rule.
6/ In general people do have a sense of purpose and deep down believe that we are teleological
7/ Our mythologies usually involve something beyond ourselves
8/ Regardless of culture we do have a general sense of things that are right or wrong and we know that right is the one we should choose whether we do it or not.
9/ That fact that we have emotions.

Given time I could come up with more but at least that's a start.

Faith writes: Merely stating that you think I'm talking about Catholics rather than Catholicism is the problem

Quote:

Faith writes: Catholics in Catholic countries are still as illiterate and superstitious and misguided as ever, and persecution of Protestants still happens in those countries

No commentary needed.

That isn't even about Catholics as Christians, it's about how the Catholic Church influences societies where it reigns supreme, which of course keeps their people in a primitive state. You find the one rare place where I mention Catholics as people at all and it isn't even about them, it's about how the Roman Church rules them. It's not even the same subject I'm talking about. But I give up. There's no way to get this simple point across to you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,

Calm down before you have a heart attack.

God Bless,

I don't want to belabour the point as discussing this with you is like taking a knife to a gun fight, but as I understood from what I read, is that math tells us that time should flow backwards of forwards but due to entropy we only experience it in one direction. I just kinda assumed that if we experience two dimensions of time, we would then be able to reverse entropy.

Heh. But no, that's not really how it works. The laws of physics seem to be time independent. You look at the interactions of particles and there is no intrinsic directionality. However, in the big picture - what we see today looks different than yesterday because entropy has increased. That's a probabilistic thing - energy is going to distribute itself evenly. It seems a fundamental fact. So given that energy at one point in the universe's history was very undistributed - it was very ordered, there is a directionality towards disorder.

I don't think adding more time dimensions will prevent entropy from increasing - it just means it will increase in two different axis. Whatever that would mean.

OK, but it isn't any less of a belief than what it is that I believe.

Which was my point. You seem to be suggesting that there is a superiority (of sorts) to your belief because the supernatural answers the question of what's behind it all. I was saying, on this we're actually equal.

If we can show that evolution naturally resulted in life today it tells us nothing about why that is the case or why or how the process of evolution existed in the first place.

On the contrary - part of showing evolution occurs naturally involves explaining why this is the case and how it can exist. The end result is that one should see that evolution is inevitable.

The anthropic principle.

I'm not sure how that helps. I mean it must be true that a universe that is observed by intelligence must be compatible with the emergence of intelligences that can observe it. It doesn't suppose a deity of any sort.

The world appears to be designed.

Well this is dangerously close to being circular. You are defending the notion that it is more reasonable to suppose some ultimate designer by saying it appears there was one. But does it? What would an undesigned world appear like?

Mankind has always looked to something beyond ourselves.

Sure, but then how does that suggest there is an intelligence behind our intelligence? Without reference to anything else - it seems equally reasonable to suppose we're in error to think there is something beyond ourselves. After all - we make cognitive errors all the time.

The accounts of the life of Jesus.

How do those accounts make it more reasonable or logical to suppose an intelligence is behind it? If I was to point to biographies of Richard Dawkins would that not have equal potency for the argument of the absence of a supernatural intelligence at the root of it all? I think it does - and that the strength of either argument approaches zero as far as reason and logic go.

The fact that the vast majority of religions have as part of their faith the Golden Rule.

Reciprocity is common among social animals, the fact that it is a common ideal for us doesn't seem compelling in any way towards the idea that an intelligence was required to develop intelligence.

In general people do have a sense of purpose and deep down believe that we are teleological

I'm not sure how our feelings on the matter make it more reasonable to believe they're true. It certainly explains why we might think its true, but its not a reason to suppose it actually is. In general people believe they have a higher than average IQ. And in general people think their beliefs are right. But the former must be false by definition, and the latter must be sometimes false in a world with mutually contradictory beliefs.

Our mythologies usually involve something beyond ourselves

That's the definition of mythology. But why do the stories we tell ourselves make it more reasonable to suppose those stories hold some truth than the idea that they're just stories we tell ourselves?

Regardless of culture we do have a general sense of things that are right or wrong and we know that right is the one we should choose whether we do it or not.

Well, we're social animals. It comes with the territory. We do, however, wildly (and often violently) disagree on what those right and wrong things are. I'm not seeing how this makes it more reasonable to suppose an intelligence beyond our own is involved.

That fact that we have emotions.

Again, not sure what the logic is that would lead us to err towards an intelligence being behind this.

Given time I could come up with more but at least that's a start.

See, the problem I have is that these don't look like logic or reason to me. They may be reasons you tell yourself to justify why you think it's more reasonable, but I don't see any sort of connection from them to the conclusion that an intelligence is more likely as a result. These seem like rationalisations for how your beliefs which stem from how you feel about things. That is you - you believe first, and use these kinds of things try and justify the belief. In contrast to these things being the reason you believe.

I guess however, it's the best shot you - or indeed anyone - can give for the idea. So I commend you for putting them out there.

What simple entity would you use. Would that entity have intelligence? The idea that all of attributes of sentience evolving from mindlessness doesn't resonate with me in the way that sentience from pre-existing intelligence does.

I saved this for last. I don't hold a belief about what the most fundamental simple entity would be. However, an example might be a field. It doesn't have intelligence.

As apes who evolved under the conditions of being part of social hierarchy it's natural for us to extend the notion to some transcendent ape as being the cause and explanation for everything. It is decidedly unnatural for such creatures as ourselves to suppose that we're made of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles that are perturbations in some omnipresent field. It is no surprise that you find this....soulless...idea doesn't resonate. But what resonates with us is only relevant to our lives as social apes - it doesn't indicate what is actually true. Time and again, what is actually true has always been... something non-intuitive. Something that doesn't seem to 'make sense' at a visceral, gut level.

Quantum physics doesn't really resonate with any of us - but if we assume it holds truths and act accordingly, we build lasers. So there must be something in it.

On the other hand - operating under the notion that there is an intelligence behind it all...at best gives us reassurance and makes us comfortable. But since comforting falsehoods are everywhere, it wouldn't be reasonable to trust something as true just because it is comforting though it is understandable that we may sometimes choose to do so.

Hi ringo

ringo writes: In Message 737 you made a claim that an unnamed astronomer doesn't like the balloon analogy.

I said Ask an Astronomer which is a program of cornell.edu. Where people can ask a question and an Astronomer will answer it for them.

But here is the entire question and the answer given.

quote:

---

QUESTION: I've heard that the universe is expanding similar to a balloon being blown up with all reference points growing further apart. If this is true, then all movement is perpendicular to the point of origin (the "center of the balloon").

An observer on the balloon (Earth) would see lateral movement of all stars in all directions except ahead and behind. The quantity of material moving laterally could be evaluated to determine our target direction.

1. Do we see lateral movement of the stars in all but the two 180 degree opposed directions?

2. Where is the line of the two non-lateral shifts relative to our solar system?

ANSWER:
Your question is the result of a misunderstanding, but the misunderstanding isn't your fault; rather, it's the fault of the famous (or more accurately, infamous) "balloon analogy" for the universe's expansion, which, in my humble opinion, should be banished forever into the dustbin of history because it's the source of so much confusion!

The problem with the balloon analogy is that it's a two-dimensional analogy for a three-dimensional situation. The way you're supposed to think about the balloon analogy is that everything which happens in two dimensions on the balloon's surface actually happens in three dimensions in the universe. For example, the balloon's surface "stretches" proportionally in TWO directions as the balloon gets blown up, but our universe stretches proportionally in THREE directions. The third dimension in the balloon analogy (i.e. the direction which is perpendicular to the balloon's surface and which allows us to see the balloon's curvature) is the equivalent of the FOURTH dimension in our universe.

Naturally, of course, no normal-thinking human being is going to pick up on this subtle aspect of the analogy without having it pounded into their head when the analogy is first told to them. So I typically hear all sorts of questions like whether or not we can measure the motion of galaxies or the thickness of the universe in the direction perpendicular to the balloon's surface, when in reality these questions make no sense because they actually refer to the "fourth dimension," which we have no way to observe (if it exists at all).

I suppose the reason the balloon analogy got started in the first place was that people used to believe the universe had a significant amount of "curvature" (and by that I mean curvature in a hypothetical FOURTH dimension, i.e. something which we can't see directly but whose geometrical effects on our three-dimensional world might theoretically be detectable). The balloon analogy does sort of give us a way to picture that curvature, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. Furthermore, recent observational evidence strongly suggests that the universe's curvature is extremely small, if it exists at all, thereby making the balloon analogy even more needlessly complex.

The analogy for the universe's expansion which I prefer is the "dough and raisins" analogy (which has been around at least since Martin Gardner's 1962 book Relativity for the Million, if not earlier). In this analogy, we picture the universe as a gigantic blob of dough which is placed in an oven and begins to expand. Embedded throughout the dough are a bunch of raisins, each of which represents a galaxy (including one for our galaxy, the Milky Way). As the dough expands, the distances within it all stretch proportionally, and the raisins move away from each other IN ALL THREE DIRECTIONS.

It turns out that this analogy corresponds to what we see when we observe the motion of faraway galaxies in our universe. They appear to be moving away from us in all directions equally, with no preferred direction for the expansion.

---

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/...ing-balloon-intermediate

This is my last post on the balloon analogy to anyone period.

God Bless,

That isn't even about Catholics as Christians

My comments did not mention anything about Catholics as Christians. All I said was that I would not address what you said about Catholics. Then you ran yourself off the rails claiming that you never said anything about Catholics as Christians for some unknown reason. (By the way, that post was deleted by Phat before I ever saw it. I did not know what it was about until you told me.) Well, it turns that you did exactly what I said you did. And I did not dig out a random quote of you talking about Catholics. That quote is from the same discussion where I made my perfectly appropriate comment.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,

Faith writes: At first I thought you were talking about an imaginative verbal tour of something that doesn't yet exist, asking the buyer to visualize it, but then it seems you must be talking about something like a video tour you put together?

The particular house I was describing was one I built in the Cayman Islands just outside of Georgetown.

I have a computer program the company I was working for in the Caymans that cost over $5,000 with a little over $4,000 add on bundles. It is the best of the best. I can draw a blue print and it will give me the cost to build what is on the print to the penny.

Once the blue print is completed I can click 3D walk through and after about 30 seconds you can enter the house (or walk around in the yard and look at the pool, exterior of the house, roof, a garden area with plants growing in the garden, trees, shrubs, etc) and walk around inside just as if you were in the finished product. Furniture, fixtures, TV, computer desk with computer on it. In other words it is just like the real thing with whatever you put in the blueprint. You can choose from many types and brands. If it is available on the marker you can choose it as is all in the libraries.

I have a picture I drew of the ark to the dimensions in the Bible. I have over 15 acres of storage in the ark. It does not look anything like the ark encounter ark.

God Bless,

I can draw a blue print and it will give me the cost to build what is on the print to the penny.

The program estimates the cost and gives numbers to the precision of one penny (or less). No program can give a cost that is actually accurate to the nearest penny for a project of anything other than the simplest complexity.