Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No ID = A Paradox
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 51 (31772)
02-09-2003 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Satcomm
02-07-2003 11:11 PM


quote:
I was also under the impression that the universe, not just properties of the universe, exploded into being at one given moment.
Agreed.
quote:
That even the universe, itself, is subjected to time according to big bang.
Everything inside the universe is, yes (except massless particles) - the universe itself isn't, if it can be viewed from the outside. How could it be?
quote:
Because it exploded (past tense) into being approx 13 billion years ago (indicating a length of time or period of time that has passed). That being the case, big bang theorizes that the universe, itself, is subjected to coming into existence or creation in the past.
Yes, from a vantage point inside the universe. If you were outside the universe looking in, from a vantage point of outside time, you'd see the universe as an object - a geometric shape, if you like.
quote:
But the theory of relativity disproves that saying that space and time are relative and are properties of the universe, and that the universe is not subjected to it.
So, which is it?
I don't see the contradiction. If you are inside the universe you are subject to time. If you are outside you're not. To a being outside of time, you can see the universe as an "outside of time" object, but you can't do that from inside the universe.
Given then that the universe, from this preferred vantage point, exists outside of time - all the properties which one can assign of objects existing outside of time (e.g requiring / not requiring a designer) can be attributed to the universe.
I've been labouring this, I know and its only probably only a very minor quibble in the grand scheme of things - but it does highlight a more generalised quibble I have. As you've probably guessed, I don't believe in God - partly because I don't know what God is supposed to be. Sure, I know some of his properties, omnipotent, all-merciful, compassionate, terrible wrath etc, but what exactly is he/she/it? An intelligent being? Something that "sits" in a higher dimensionsal space, creating life to worship him, "thinking" deep thoughts and feeding off "love".
Its at this point that you're probably thinking about appeals to the incomprehensibility of God, but then how am I supposed to accept the existence of something, for which I've never seen any evidence and whose very definition can be moulded to suit the times, or indeed the very explanation?
quote:
Science cannot answer many things about the universe and has only attempted to do so. From a physical science perspective, either side of the debate deals with ineffability and therefore becomes speculation. That wont stop either side from forming hypotheses and working theories. For myself, I won't stop at physical science. I also embrace the theological perspective.
Science makes observations, forms theories to fit the obsevations and then modifies, or even throws out those theories if later observations contradict the extant theories. Its nothing more than applied common sense. Religious dogma is set in stone on Day One, interpreted by priests / shamans according to the time and are unchangeable (or changeable with great effort) - for example, a great many muslims do not believe man ever landed on the moon because they interpret the Koran as saying it is impossible for man to reach the moon. I need hardly remind you of Galileo and the Christian church either.
I think there is a fundamental difference between religion and science - I don't hold that science is just another religion.
quote:
But according to Big Bang, the universe is subjected to a moment of creation in the past, therefore still subjected to time. If the universe was (past tense) created (past tense) so many millions of years ago (indicating a timeline), then how is it "outside of time"?
See above (and my prev two posts), I'm talking from the perspective of an observer sitting outside the universe and observing it.
PE
edit: added comments in italics
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Satcomm, posted 02-07-2003 11:11 PM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Satcomm, posted 02-10-2003 11:29 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 51 (31773)
02-09-2003 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Satcomm
02-07-2003 11:27 PM


quote:
True, but there is evidence for the omnipotent God who created everything, who loves us, and wants to redeem us.
To the skeptic, it isn't that there's no evidence of God, but the issue is that there is not sufficient evidence of God. This is one of the outcomes of the dispensation of grace, and one of the purposes for the tribulation.
We disagree on this. It depends partly on what you mean by evidence, I suppose.
Let's say I had the theory that things fall to the ground because an invisible fairy blows onto them. Question is, is the fact that things do indeed fall to the ground proof for my theory?
My guess is that it is only if corroborated with other evidence such that it makes the theory unique i.e I additionally have to provide solid evidence that something is blowing on these objects, and that something is a fairy, and not a leprechaun etc.
Arthur C. Clarke has a deceptively powerful idea, which is that the technology of a sufficiently advanced intelligence ("SAI") would be indistinguishable from magic. This is pretty self-evident when you imagine what a 10th Century peasant farmer might make of television, toasters, guided missiles etc.
Given this notion, we can extend this without much difficulty - the actions of an SAI are indistinguishable of actions from God (idea attributable to M. Shermer, an ex-fundamentalist Christian).
So, even if you had proof of miracles (which I don't think you do), you could never distinguish those miracles from (a mischievious, if you like) SAI technology - ability to read minds, part oceans, cause catastrophic floods, tell the future etc
Which is no evidence at all.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Satcomm, posted 02-07-2003 11:27 PM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Satcomm, posted 02-10-2003 10:47 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 51 (31774)
02-09-2003 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jdean33442
02-08-2003 9:41 PM


quote:
As much thought was given as your original post. You fail to see your hypocrisy.
You need to look at the context my possibilities were in - you had no context and nor did your possibilities make sense.
quote:
What proof?!? It is a freaking theory, nothing more. You have faith in a theory just as Satcomm has faith in God. Do not construe popular theory for fact.
A bunch of men within the recent past unlocked the complex secrets of the Universe, however, the cure to simple cancer eludes them.
There is evidence for a Big Bang event at the beginning of the universe. You may choose to ignore it, but its there. This is not a matter of faith, as faith is believing in something in spite of the evidence.
It is only your supposition that figuring out how the universe began is a more dificult task than curing cancer. There's no basis for this.
quote:
The earth has a beginning and an end. The universe (to our knowledge) does not. The analogy is irrelevant.
Where is the beginning of the Earth?
PE
edit: typos as usual
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jdean33442, posted 02-08-2003 9:41 PM jdean33442 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jdean33442, posted 02-10-2003 10:56 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 51 (31777)
02-09-2003 8:08 AM


quote:
as faith is believing in something in spite of the evidence.
...or "lack of evidence," wouldn't you agree?
We finally have an evolutionist admitting his faith in abiogenesis.
Primordial Egg is quite the conundrum, especially since such an event never happened. I do admire your faith, however.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-09-2003 8:25 AM Zephan has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 51 (31778)
02-09-2003 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Zephan
02-09-2003 8:08 AM


quote:
...or "lack of evidence," wouldn't you agree?
No. I meant in spite of the evidence.
(edited to add: on further thinking, i agree with you now - faith is belief in spite of, or sometimes because of lack of evidence)
quote:
We finally have an evolutionist admitting his faith in abiogenesis.
Who's "we"?
If you can define for me what life is, I'll tell you if its plausible that it arose from "non-life". My current favourite is Kaufman's "self-replicator which performs at least one thermodynamic work cycle" whcih can be shown to arise through chemical precursors. Give me a laboratory the size of the Earth and 1000 million years and I'll show you how life came about - or failing that we'd have to model the conditions inside a computer.
I don't rule out panspermia either - best keep an open mind, but my hunch is that life began on Earth independently.
There are several plausible mechanisms for how the first replicators on Earth came about.
Also - point to note - evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis - but you knew that anyway right
quote:
Primordial Egg is quite the conundrum, especially since such an event never happened. I do admire your faith, however.
It never happened because you weren't there??? What do you find implausible about chemical replicators competing for resources in a primordial soup?
PE
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Zephan, posted 02-09-2003 8:08 AM Zephan has not replied

  
Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 51 (31869)
02-10-2003 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Primordial Egg
02-09-2003 6:48 AM


quote:
Let's say I had the theory that things fall to the ground because an invisible fairy blows onto them. Question is, is the fact that things do indeed fall to the ground proof for my theory?
My guess is that it is only if corroborated with other evidence such that it makes the theory unique i.e I additionally have to provide solid evidence that something is blowing on these objects, and that something is a fairy, and not a leprechaun etc.
I understand where you're coming from with that reasoning, but not all evidence is considered "scientific". This is the case whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike, etc.
quote:
Arthur C. Clarke has a deceptively powerful idea, which is that the technology of a sufficiently advanced intelligence ("SAI") would be indistinguishable from magic. This is pretty self-evident when you imagine what a 10th Century peasant farmer might make of television, toasters, guided missiles etc.
Arthur C. Clarke is a science fiction author. Most of his work should be treated as such. For example: 2001 has passed and humans still haven't even travelled to Mars.
In my opinion, embracing his fiction as fact is a proposterous notion and wishful thinking. Kinda like accepting Star Trek as our definite future.
The human race is going to remain the same and have the same traits regardless of technological acheivement and circumstantial changes. And here comes my point: Humans had many of the same behavioral patterns in the 10th century as we do today.
quote:
Given this notion, we can extend this without much difficulty - the actions of an SAI are indistinguishable of actions from God (idea attributable to M. Shermer, an ex-fundamentalist Christian).
Yes, it's easy to fall into circular reasoning, isn't it?
quote:
So, even if you had proof of miracles (which I don't think you do), you could never distinguish those miracles from (a mischievious, if you like) SAI technology - ability to read minds, part oceans, cause catastrophic floods, tell the future etc
Which is no evidence at all.
Ok, we disagree. We also disagree on the definition of evidence.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-09-2003 6:48 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by John, posted 02-10-2003 11:00 AM Satcomm has replied
 Message 41 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-10-2003 11:44 AM Satcomm has replied

  
jdean33442
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 51 (31871)
02-10-2003 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Primordial Egg
02-09-2003 6:53 AM


quote:
There is evidence for a Big Bang event at the beginning of the universe. You may choose to ignore it, but its there. This is not a matter of faith, as faith is believing in something in spite of the evidence.
Circumstantial evidence does indeed exist. Proof the big bang actually happen does not. It is a theory. Nothing more.
quote:
It is only your supposition that figuring out how the universe began is a more dificult task than curing cancer. There's no basis for this.
You actually believe anything is more complicated than the creation of the universe?!? Stop argueing just to argue.
quote:
Where is the beginning of the Earth?
Any point on a sphere is both the beginning and the end. The earth is easily mapped, unlike the universe. Why do you fail to acknowledge this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-09-2003 6:53 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-10-2003 11:49 AM jdean33442 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 51 (31872)
02-10-2003 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Satcomm
02-10-2003 10:47 AM


quote:
In my opinion, embracing his fiction as fact is a proposterous notion and wishful thinking. Kinda like accepting Star Trek as our definite future.
Then don't think about Clark, think about cargo cults. These are a real world example of his SAI/God idea-- maybe not his idea at all, really.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Satcomm, posted 02-10-2003 10:47 AM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Satcomm, posted 02-10-2003 11:36 AM John has replied

  
Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 51 (31877)
02-10-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Primordial Egg
02-09-2003 6:27 AM


quote:
Everything inside the universe is, yes (except massless particles) - the universe itself isn't, if it can be viewed from the outside.
And since we don't know if it can be viewed from the outside, there's no way to tell scientifically if this is the case at this time. Interesting "if, then" statement though. And "if, then" statements are all that I've been suggesting scientifically in this discussion. I'm not posting in this thread in an effort to provide proof.
quote:
Given then that the universe, from this preferred vantage point, exists outside of time - all the properties which one can assign of objects existing outside of time (e.g requiring / not requiring a designer) can be attributed to the universe.
Ok, then. How does this apply to a being (theoretically) whose main attributes exist outside of the universe or are not affected by the universe? Would they still need a creator or is it possible that they just are?
quote:
I've been labouring this, I know and its only probably only a very minor quibble in the grand scheme of things - but it does highlight a more generalised quibble I have. As you've probably guessed, I don't believe in God - partly because I don't know what God is supposed to be. Sure, I know some of his properties, omnipotent, all-merciful, compassionate, terrible wrath etc, but what exactly is he/she/it? An intelligent being? Something that "sits" in a higher dimensionsal space, creating life to worship him, "thinking" deep thoughts and feeding off "love".
And that's the problem with skepticism of the matter. It doesn't matter what information is brought into the discussion, the sketpical party will always debate it and/or discard it.
Ok, I don't feel it's necessary to continue this particular discussion. It was a very interesting discussion, however we're obviously polarized in our postures on the matter.
quote:
Its nothing more than applied common sense.
I disagree. Modern science does not always apply common sense.
quote:
I need hardly remind you of Galileo and the Christian church either.
Using the church as an example for refutation would be meaningless. People are people.
quote:
I think there is a fundamental difference between religion and science - I don't hold that science is just another religion.
I agree with this statement. I don't hold science as "just another religion" either. This is not a contradiction in my stance. I don't think that theology = religion. Nor do I think that faith always = religion. It's a problem with semantics.
quote:
I'm talking from the perspective of an observer sitting outside the universe and observing it.
So, someone in the Good Year blimp looking at a street parade: They can see the entire parade as it's happening, whereas people on the street can only see the various parts of the parade, as it moves down the street. Meanwhile, that parade does not affect the person in the blimp that way because they can see everything. If someone can look at the universe and "it's properties of time" from an outside perspective, how would time relate to them? Would they come into existence, or would they have always existed?
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-09-2003 6:27 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-10-2003 11:51 AM Satcomm has not replied
 Message 45 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-10-2003 1:41 PM Satcomm has replied

  
Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 51 (31878)
02-10-2003 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by John
02-10-2003 11:00 AM


quote:
Then don't think about Clark, think about cargo cults. These are a real world example of his SAI/God idea-- maybe not his idea at all, really.
Interesting.
So... I should think about cargo cults whose ideology is based on that particular science fiction, because they are real world organizations? That doesn't make sense.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by John, posted 02-10-2003 11:00 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by John, posted 02-11-2003 9:52 AM Satcomm has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 51 (31879)
02-10-2003 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Satcomm
02-10-2003 10:47 AM


I don't follow your reasoning for much of your post - partly because we have such different views I suspect, and partly because I'm being dense.
quote:
I understand where you're coming from with that reasoning, but not all evidence is considered "scientific". This is the case whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike, etc.
I'm not sure what evidence being scientific has to do with my original assertion that there was no evidence for God - are you saying that there is unscientific evidence for God? If so, you need to explain to me the distinction between the two variants of evidence and what you think the unscientific evidence for God actually is.
...if I've understood you correctly.
quote:
Arthur C. Clarke is a science fiction author. Most of his work should be treated as such. For example: 2001 has passed and humans still haven't even travelled to Mars.
In my opinion, embracing his fiction as fact is a proposterous notion and wishful thinking. Kinda like accepting Star Trek as our definite future.
This is an uncharacteristically weak argument - I was merely attributing the idea to its originator. The technology of an SAI would be indistinguishable from magic to us - its all there in the word "sufficiently". If you disagree with this, you need to do better than an ad hominem on ACC* for being a science fiction writer. He could be a dustman and the idea, the idea, would still be pertinent. (No offence to any dustmen reading).
quote:
The human race is going to remain the same and have the same traits regardless of technological acheivement and circumstantial changes. And here comes my point: Humans had many of the same behavioral patterns in the 10th century as we do today.
I don't dispute this. But if aliens from the planet Zarg came and visited us tomorrow with their' mind-rays and ability to turn water into wine, heal the sick, and make Saturn change direction it'd be something our technology couldn't possibly conceive of. If they did it invisibly, then yes, its pretty apparent to me that this would be indistinguishable from magic.
I'm not sure what behavioural traits have to do it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this notion, we can extend this without much difficulty - the actions of an SAI are indistinguishable of actions from God (idea attributable to M. Shermer, an ex-fundamentalist Christian).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's easy to fall into circular reasoning, isn't it?
How is this circular reasoning?
PE
*this may be the first time ever I've used the term "ad hominem" correctly!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Satcomm, posted 02-10-2003 10:47 AM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Satcomm, posted 02-10-2003 1:00 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 51 (31880)
02-10-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by jdean33442
02-10-2003 10:56 AM


quote:
Circumstantial evidence does indeed exist. Proof the big bang actually happen does not. It is a theory. Nothing more.
In the interests of substance, what do you think the circumstantial evidence for the Big Bang is?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jdean33442, posted 02-10-2003 10:56 AM jdean33442 has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 51 (31881)
02-10-2003 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Satcomm
02-10-2003 11:29 AM


OK - another thread, another topic, another time maybe?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Satcomm, posted 02-10-2003 11:29 AM Satcomm has not replied

  
Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 51 (31885)
02-10-2003 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Primordial Egg
02-10-2003 11:44 AM


quote:
I'm not sure what evidence being scientific has to do with my original assertion that there was no evidence for God - are you saying that there is unscientific evidence for God? If so, you need to explain to me the distinction between the two variants of evidence and what you think the unscientific evidence for God actually is.
...if I've understood you correctly.
Evidence does not need to be scientific to point to or prove something. I.E. there is historical evidence, theological evidence, archeological evidence, etc. I accept the fact that not everything needs to be proven or explained scientifically. Then, again, I'm no scientist and that's probably why.
Saying that there is no evidence for God whatsoever is incorrect, IMO. Otherwise, how do you know of God?
quote:
This is an uncharacteristically weak argument - I was merely attributing the idea to its originator. The technology of an SAI would be indistinguishable from magic to us - its all there in the word "sufficiently".
I thought the argument about SAI was weak. Even from a perspective like yours, humanity has "evolved" their thought patterns sufficiently enough to know the distinction. Many scientists would see the "magic" and classify it as "superior technology". Hence you recognizing that there could be technology that we will not understand because it's so advanced.
quote:
If you disagree with this, you need to do better than an ad hominem on ACC* for being a science fiction writer. He could be a dustman and the idea, the idea, would still be pertinent. (No offence to any dustmen reading).
I didn't intend for it to be an ad hominem, but I guess it was under that context. I apologize, as I didn't post it to criticize you, but to criticize the idea.
quote:
I don't dispute this. But if aliens from the planet Zarg came and visited us tomorrow with their' mind-rays and ability to turn water into wine, heal the sick, and make Saturn change direction it'd be something our technology couldn't possibly conceive of. If they did it invisibly, then yes, its pretty apparent to me that this would be indistinguishable from magic.
I'm sure you and others would be intelligent enough to simply say "it's merely highly sophisticated technology".
quote:
I'm not sure what behavioural traits have to do it.
Not much. I was just pointing out an example of a trait in the human race that hasn't changed much.
quote:
PE: Given this notion, we can extend this without much difficulty - the actions of an SAI are indistinguishable of actions from God (idea attributable to M. Shermer, an ex-fundamentalist Christian).
Satcomm: Yes, it's easy to fall into circular reasoning, isn't it?
PE: How is this circular reasoning?
It is circular because you are using the premise based on science fiction to conclude that SAI is indistinguishable of the actions from God (based on history), which then in turn proves the original premise of SAI to be true.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-10-2003 11:44 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-10-2003 2:11 PM Satcomm has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 51 (31887)
02-10-2003 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Satcomm
02-10-2003 11:29 AM


He wants to stop. He wants to carry on. he wants to stop. He wants to carry on....
We're still speaking at cross purposes you realise...
quote:
I'm not posting in this thread in an effort to provide proof.
Me neither - just pointing out the insufficiency of stating that God exists outside of time so doesn't require a designer. Objects which exist outside of time can require a designer. So the choice, as they say, is yours:
1. Things outside of time were created.
2. Things outside of time were not created.
According to you, the universe is case (1) and God is case (2). Without further info, this is an artificial distinction.
quote:
Ok, then. How does this apply to a being (theoretically) whose main attributes exist outside of the universe or are not affected by the universe? Would they still need a creator or is it possible that they just are?
Up to you. As long as you apply the same standards to anything which exists outside of time. Or give reasons.
But like you say, this has been done to death. Lets just stop this.
quote:
And that's the problem with skepticism of the matter. It doesn't matter what information is brought into the discussion, the sketpical party will always debate it and/or discard it.
The ultimate skeptic believes nothing at all. I'm not the ultimate skeptic. I don't believe in things for which I have no evidence. All your skeptic allegations can equally be levelled at somebody who doesn't believe in fairies.
quote:
Modern science does not always apply common sense.
This would be a great topic for you to elaborate upon. Another thread perhaps?
quote:
Using the church as an example for refutation would be meaningless. People are people.
IIRC, I was illustrating how dogma can get in the way of solid evidence. People are indeed people and my example of the Church and Galileo is still apt.
quote:
So, someone in the Good Year blimp looking at a street parade: They can see the entire parade as it's happening, whereas people on the street can only see the various parts of the parade, as it moves down the street. Meanwhile, that parade does not affect the person in the blimp that way because they can see everything. If someone can look at the universe and "it's properties of time" from an outside perspective, how would time relate to them? Would they come into existence, or would they have always existed?
Again, up to you. As long as you're consistent about it.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Satcomm, posted 02-10-2003 11:29 AM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Satcomm, posted 02-10-2003 2:26 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024