Quote from axeman:
Yeah... all the California economy needs now is
a swift kick in the ribs while it's down.
San Diego is one of the most gorgeous places on earth. Can't imagine a fire tearing it up...
666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
San Diego is one of the most gorgeous places on earth. Can't imagine a fire tearing it up...
http://www.vagabondpages.com/january03/felkins.html
"While my education was in science (engineering and physics), I still have a great appreciation for how much we don't know. I am particularly fascinated by paradoxes and have a web page devoted to it. In fact, I enjoy two beliefs that I find are annoying to my technical friends: 1) Paradoxes lie at the bottom of every "explanation" and 2) The gods that designed the universe made it that way intentionally (I got that concept from "Non Serviam", by Stanislaw Lem).
What I mean by 1) is that when any scientific explanation is pursued deeper and deeper, you will most likely run into a paradox (I think always). Quantum theory is a good example. Light is both a particle and a wave. There are other quantum theory paradoxes, but that one proves the point.
The more fundamental the explanation becomes the more difficult the understanding. For example, what is "truth"? It has always seemed obvious to me, yet I find that the great thinkers have great difficulty defining it. I now realize I'm not so sure I know either!
And finally, the most challenging of all philosophical paradoxes -- the concept of free will (and determinism, I suppose). I seem to have "free will" but to believe that is to believe in magic. To believe in that I have to abandon the most fundamental scientific belief -- cause and effect. Either I am under the jurisdiction of physical laws or I am not. If I am then I can't have free will. If I am not, then I must give up the belief in the principles of science. If I accept magic, then to me that is like saying "I give up, I haven't a clue".
By the way, scientists also do not have a clue as to what "time" is either. Philosophers, I don't know. What do you think "time" is? We seem to only be able to talk about what happens in time. A clock's hands move, molecules transform. But what is time? I like the idea of it simply being a fourth dimension but that requires a belief in determinism for the 4 dimensional cube does not allow change."
"While my education was in science (engineering and physics), I still have a great appreciation for how much we don't know. I am particularly fascinated by paradoxes and have a web page devoted to it. In fact, I enjoy two beliefs that I find are annoying to my technical friends: 1) Paradoxes lie at the bottom of every "explanation" and 2) The gods that designed the universe made it that way intentionally (I got that concept from "Non Serviam", by Stanislaw Lem).
What I mean by 1) is that when any scientific explanation is pursued deeper and deeper, you will most likely run into a paradox (I think always). Quantum theory is a good example. Light is both a particle and a wave. There are other quantum theory paradoxes, but that one proves the point.
The more fundamental the explanation becomes the more difficult the understanding. For example, what is "truth"? It has always seemed obvious to me, yet I find that the great thinkers have great difficulty defining it. I now realize I'm not so sure I know either!
And finally, the most challenging of all philosophical paradoxes -- the concept of free will (and determinism, I suppose). I seem to have "free will" but to believe that is to believe in magic. To believe in that I have to abandon the most fundamental scientific belief -- cause and effect. Either I am under the jurisdiction of physical laws or I am not. If I am then I can't have free will. If I am not, then I must give up the belief in the principles of science. If I accept magic, then to me that is like saying "I give up, I haven't a clue".
By the way, scientists also do not have a clue as to what "time" is either. Philosophers, I don't know. What do you think "time" is? We seem to only be able to talk about what happens in time. A clock's hands move, molecules transform. But what is time? I like the idea of it simply being a fourth dimension but that requires a belief in determinism for the 4 dimensional cube does not allow change."
Charming, thanks a lot shoe, I luv you too. Smug eh ? I would have you know I am regarded very highly in certain circles of society ....many people have said I am a cult in my own right ( least I think they said cult ....it sounded like cult.) So watch it man
But just .... what are you like !!?? Back to square one. Hundreds of pages and you still do not see the simple obvious .... You cannot attach odds to something of which you do not know all the conditions . You do not know it is chance. You do not know if the acids âseek outâ their correct bond (like the way atoms/electrons do) Forget it shoeshine, itâs a no brainer!!
Thatâs fine shoeshine, research the numbers, at the same time you research !!GENESIS!! ....but donât you think you should do that FIRST before putting horseshit forward as fact let alone scientific fact.
I do not want to be unreasonably rude but that kind of stupid statement is what causes your problems in holding any credibility. Why would anyone take anything you put forward as a serious point of view when most of your posts are on that theme.
Anyone reading your stuff can see for themselves how you postulate then rely specifically on big numbers as an attempt to back up your non issue. Youâve demonstrated it yet again with your 10^30 at the top of this message. Axeman has already quite clearly repeatedly demonstrated to you that no one is saying everything has a complete scientific answer. but that does not alter the fact that science offers the most useful method of understanding things.
And of course any "odds are/not " numbers that you put forward as fact, which are then shown not to be fact .... changes that fact.!! Honestly shoe, give it up dude.
Letâs cut a deal here, for one ....I wonât tell the guys at Harvard University and elsewhere throughout the world that DNA/RNA origin of life research is dead .... if you donât.
From what you have come up with so far, I donât see any reasons why you should have even half a clue how these guys have given up on efforts , especially considering their ongoing research.
This is where you are showing the closed mindset of a fundamentalist type shoeshine. I have put forward to you clear reason why that is so obviously ridiculous and meaningless .... and what do you do ....ignore everything and just repost the stupid thing again. It would make more sense if you just pasted in the Utah weather forecast.
Look ....go do your research FIRST .... deal with the other misrepresentations you already put forward ... FIRST ... before you jump to yet another conclusion. I pointed out in my last response(s) though perhaps not quite so pointedly .... you springing about from one daft statement to the next like a frog with its arse on fire, is displaying nothing more than grievous numb brain tendencies.
What is it that you donât understand in the statement "science does not hold all the answers to everything " If that is ALL you are saying there is no debate.
But it isnât. You seem to want to go on to post up a load of crap (apologies but thatâs all I have seen from you) in some way to back up a non issue. Itâs the same crap which excites most theists into their own world of inverted, contorted logic, but which inevitably destroys their own arguments, so it is reasonable to assume you are merely attempting the very same.
I do not see where I have changed my view. Let me make it clear to you shoeshine, I donât like the way you try to squirm about.. In my opinion axeman has done a first class job of exposing yours and doubter's disconnected meanderings.
You and doubter both now conjure up to me an image of two impetuous children in the playground, aimlessly hurtling around from one trivial contestation to the next, each one struggling to get just one more bee in their bonnet. And when johnny explains why this belligerency looks like nothing but wee wee on the floor, they swiftly jump back to the first one to start over! Instead of attempting to keep to reason, their piece de resistance (ugh French,..,spit ), like many frustrated and belligerent children, is to puke all over the place.
You only need read where axeman has properly and thoroughly addressed the points and there always seemed to be a general basic agreement that no viewpoint holds all the answers to everything, (it appears however religion holds none
) But axeman goes on to demonstrate in a very effective way that it is a simple and obvious fact that science and the materialistic holds most if not all the information which leads to the useful and meaningful knowledge yet found .... As things have gone so far for so long in this way, it will probably always be that way .... ( I could bring up one of your shit silly numbers here to "prove " my point .... but guess what ....it would be meaningless ....so I wonât)but what do you do next ....you just repeat yourself or jump over to another spot and another and another .... great blocks of misinformed, contradictory, un researched text in some weird need to show science as wrong. Then you persistently wriggle about when confronted and start over yet again .... whilst doubter hangs around the bicycle sheds trying to think up one more friggin absurd and aimless failing attempt at proof by innuendo, with which he might stain his own pants
What is your point.... is it an ego thing, some oligodendrocyte disorder maybe, or do you just take pleasure in pissing around ?
thanks for your response darkhorse, and as always, I appreciate the courtesy you display and hope you understand that my intention is to reciprocate in like manner 
I agree with your definitions of anthropocentric and an "anthropocentric view: " Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. Thatâs a good start !! Now letâs both stay focused in the logic reservation ....
Ok darkhorse, I assumed we would be shortcutting past this part and getting to the core , but you are right, letâs pace this out.
1. For the sake of this argument, I have agreed to consider that God exists.
2. For the sake of this argument, I have agreed to consider that God is assumed as the central element of the universe ( ie: not anthropocentric). I am also required to accept a general assumption that he has morality.
3. You then posit that it must follow ,you say, because of 1 & 2, any questions regarding the morality of God therefore, cannot be anthropocentric.
This is where I was trying to say your proposition falls over ( 3. is also where the deist might enter)
It simply does NOT follow
You asked me to accept 1 & 2. But then you tell me to accept 3.
Now look at your statement to axeman. "i respect axeman's general line of argument, however i think the flaw in the argument is that ;it is unintentionally anthropocentric and thus rests on flawed presuppositions "
That statement , I am saying , is False.
Itâs been my contention that if I accept 1&2 then I may also accept the following under the same logic ....
IF God has already decided that everything will be considered in/ by an anthropocentric viewpoint, including his standards of morality, and moreover a notion of God itself, he may have resolved, will be considered from an anthropocentric viewpoint, then under your own ârules of Godâ (1&2) your proposition Fails.
You canât have it that God cannot be anthropocentric therefore his morality cannot be anthropocentric too. With respect ....you must say in place .... God cannot be anthropocentric AND neither is his morality. But that contains very clear problems for God !!...and would in addition ( more importantly in context to this discussion) confirm axemanâs proposition
On the same grounds you use for Godâs ânon anthropocentrismâ I am able to situate God as having made his morality - and indeed notions of God also - to be based on the idea that he and all his attributes, including morality, will pertain from a viewpoint which is formed by a regarding of humans as the central element of the universe. Thereby mankind is required by God to "interpret reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience". This in my opinion is a far better overall argument for God, (but unfortunately for the theist, it will also inevitably fail)
And by this, arenât you also incorrect in saying..... "Proposing God inherently proposes anthropocentrism false" ? btw. I would not accept inherently here in any event. There is nothing in any proposition which makes it an inherent proposition
Now it appears God indeed can be anthropocentric, if he decided that is how it was to be. However, all this -again unfortunately for the theist - simply reverts back to the same old problem.. which is ....God is anything you want it to be !
How do you know I am not âstrainân ma brainâ ! Does it show that much
Iâll take the timeâs sake excuse please
I agree with your definitions of anthropocentric and an "anthropocentric view: " Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. Thatâs a good start !! Now letâs both stay focused in the logic reservation ....
Ok darkhorse, I assumed we would be shortcutting past this part and getting to the core , but you are right, letâs pace this out.
1. For the sake of this argument, I have agreed to consider that God exists.
2. For the sake of this argument, I have agreed to consider that God is assumed as the central element of the universe ( ie: not anthropocentric). I am also required to accept a general assumption that he has morality.
3. You then posit that it must follow ,you say, because of 1 & 2, any questions regarding the morality of God therefore, cannot be anthropocentric.
This is where I was trying to say your proposition falls over ( 3. is also where the deist might enter)
It simply does NOT follow
You asked me to accept 1 & 2. But then you tell me to accept 3.
Now look at your statement to axeman. "i respect axeman's general line of argument, however i think the flaw in the argument is that ;it is unintentionally anthropocentric and thus rests on flawed presuppositions "
That statement , I am saying , is False.
Itâs been my contention that if I accept 1&2 then I may also accept the following under the same logic ....
IF God has already decided that everything will be considered in/ by an anthropocentric viewpoint, including his standards of morality, and moreover a notion of God itself, he may have resolved, will be considered from an anthropocentric viewpoint, then under your own ârules of Godâ (1&2) your proposition Fails.
You canât have it that God cannot be anthropocentric therefore his morality cannot be anthropocentric too. With respect ....you must say in place .... God cannot be anthropocentric AND neither is his morality. But that contains very clear problems for God !!...and would in addition ( more importantly in context to this discussion) confirm axemanâs proposition
On the same grounds you use for Godâs ânon anthropocentrismâ I am able to situate God as having made his morality - and indeed notions of God also - to be based on the idea that he and all his attributes, including morality, will pertain from a viewpoint which is formed by a regarding of humans as the central element of the universe. Thereby mankind is required by God to "interpret reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience". This in my opinion is a far better overall argument for God, (but unfortunately for the theist, it will also inevitably fail)
- Then it follows ....
- 1. IF God Exists ( your argument)
- 2. .IF God is not anthropocentric (your argument)
- 3. IF God decided that his morality .... (or he himself, with his morality along with all or any other attributes too for that matter) .... is to be regarded as anthropocentric (my logic [lol] ) ....
your proposition Fails.
And by this, arenât you also incorrect in saying..... "Proposing God inherently proposes anthropocentrism false" ? btw. I would not accept inherently here in any event. There is nothing in any proposition which makes it an inherent proposition
Now it appears God indeed can be anthropocentric, if he decided that is how it was to be. However, all this -again unfortunately for the theist - simply reverts back to the same old problem.. which is ....God is anything you want it to be !
And doesnât it now seem you must, but to re-read it for yourself ? ..... again ....?
Is it still simply wrong ???
Sorry for the puff the magic dragon thing darkhorse I was obviously being a little facetious there to make the point. I apologize for that, but I assure you I do not hand wave away what you are saying
How do you know I am not âstrainân ma brainâ ! Does it show that much
I hope I have now disabused you of the sense that I am being dismissive.
Here's what I am saying: you are concentrating too much on any numbers that I have posted. They are just a small part of my argument(s). I'm just using them to get the creative juices flowing.
Let me go back to a previous example:
Let's start with the astronomical data. I've compiled a more (but not completely!) exhaustive list of astronomical fine tuning probabilites:
galaxy type .1
star location .2
number of stars in system .2
star birth date .2
star age .4
star mass .001
star luminosity .0001
star color .4
supernovae rates/locations .01
white dwarf binary types .01
planetary dist. to star .001
planetary orbit inclinatn .8
axis tilt .3
rotation period .1
rate of change in rot. pd .05
orbit eccentricity .3
surface gravity .001
tidal force .01
magnetic field .01
albedo .1
density .1
crust thickness .01
oceans/continents ratio .2
rate of change in above .1
continent distribution .3
aster./comet collison rate .1
rate of change in above .1
pos./mass of large planet .01
orbits of large planets .05
atmospheric transparency .01
atmospheric pressure .1
atmospheric elec. discharge .1
atmos. greenhouse gas quantity .01
soil mineralization .1
seismic activity .1
Let's start with the astronomical data that you challenged me with earlier. I've compiled a more exhaustive list of astronomical fine tuning.
galaxy type .1
star location .2
number of stars in system .2
star birth date .2
star age .4
star mass .001
star luminosity .0001
star color .4
supernovae rates/locations .01
white dwarf binary types .01
planetary dist. to star .001
planetary orbit inclinatn .8
axis tilt .3
rotation period .1
rate of change in rot. pd .05
orbit eccentricity .3
surface gravity .001
tidal force .01
magnetic field .01
albedo .1
density .1
crust thickness .01
oceans/continents ratio .2
rate of change in above .1
continent distribution .3
aster./comet collison rate .1
rate of change in above .1
pos./mass of large planet .01
orbits of large planets .05
atmospheric transparency .01
atmospheric pressure .1
atmospheric elec. discharge .1
atmos. greenhouse gas quantity .01
soil mineralization .1
seismic activity .1
As I mentioned, if you calculate the probabilities (even w/ a generous factor for dependencies), the odds are 1/10^53. Contrast this with the very optimistic maximum # of planets in our universe: 10^22. This means that the odds of our universe containing a planet that can bear life is at best 1/10^31 or, for all practical purposes, ZERO.
Now you can nitpick one or more of the #s if you want. But what bugs me is that you are avoiding a discussion of an obvious conclusion: this is an EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY low probability event. there should not be even one life bearing planet in this universe! In other words, we should not even have the OPPORTUNITY for life on this earth. We are defying all reasonable probabilities.
Yet you guys just say, "Well, there is life" as if that proved your model was better. I keep asking over and over: why?
galaxy type .1
star location .2
number of stars in system .2
star birth date .2
star age .4
star mass .001
star luminosity .0001
star color .4
supernovae rates/locations .01
white dwarf binary types .01
planetary dist. to star .001
planetary orbit inclinatn .8
axis tilt .3
rotation period .1
rate of change in rot. pd .05
orbit eccentricity .3
surface gravity .001
tidal force .01
magnetic field .01
albedo .1
density .1
crust thickness .01
oceans/continents ratio .2
rate of change in above .1
continent distribution .3
aster./comet collison rate .1
rate of change in above .1
pos./mass of large planet .01
orbits of large planets .05
atmospheric transparency .01
atmospheric pressure .1
atmospheric elec. discharge .1
atmos. greenhouse gas quantity .01
soil mineralization .1
seismic activity .1
As I mentioned, if you calculate the probabilities (even w/ a generous factor for dependencies), the odds are 1/10^53. Contrast this with the very optimistic maximum # of planets in our universe: 10^22. This means that the odds of our universe containing a planet that can bear life is at best 1/10^31 or, for all practical purposes, ZERO.
Now you can nitpick one or more of the #s if you want. But what bugs me is that you are avoiding a discussion of an obvious conclusion: this is an EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY low probability event. there should not be even one life bearing planet in this universe! In other words, we should not even have the OPPORTUNITY for life on this earth. We are defying all reasonable probabilities.
Yet you guys just say, "Well, there is life" as if that proved your model was better. I keep asking over and over: why?
Now, here's why I get exasperated: you guys ignore (imo) low probability events with statements like "you can't attach an exact probability to it" and "that's not proof". Of course, it's not "proof". That's a given. Neither of us can "prove" our position.
But let's try to find who has the best model for the origin of the universe and the origin of the first life on planet earth.
So here's my question: what is your model to explain the extremely odd coincidence that life ever arrived here on planet earth? And why is it better than theism?
But let's try to find who has the best model for the origin of the universe and the origin of the first life on planet earth.
So here's my question: what is your model to explain the extremely odd coincidence that life ever arrived here on planet earth? And why is it better than theism?
And if you wonder why I am not my normally "humble and lovable" self, it's because of posts like the above. I'm sorry, but any reasonable person would assume most of these posts were highly insulting, directed at them and that you guys were inferring their thinking was based on psychological fabrications.
But I'll try to ignore them and go on....
Quote from ArchAngel:
And here's an interesting snipet - Sigma Xi, the scientific honorary society, ran a large poll a few years ago which showed that, on any given Sunday, around 46 percent of all Ph.D. scientists are in church; for the general population the figure is 47 percent. So, whatever influences people in their beliefs about God, it doesn't appear to have much to do with having a Ph.D. in science.
_____________________________________________
Yet 97% of our best and brightest scientists are
non-believers.
axeman
__________________________________________
97% less 46% = 51%. One seems to be lockstep the other doesn't. Maybe the membership of the 97% organization is in lockstep and not in total agreement with the non-members.
However the second quote probably isn't the final word on this position.
And here's an interesting snipet - Sigma Xi, the scientific honorary society, ran a large poll a few years ago which showed that, on any given Sunday, around 46 percent of all Ph.D. scientists are in church; for the general population the figure is 47 percent. So, whatever influences people in their beliefs about God, it doesn't appear to have much to do with having a Ph.D. in science.
_____________________________________________
Yet 97% of our best and brightest scientists are
non-believers.
axeman
__________________________________________
97% less 46% = 51%. One seems to be lockstep the other doesn't. Maybe the membership of the 97% organization is in lockstep and not in total agreement with the non-members.
However the second quote probably isn't the final word on this position.
Quote from stu:
What is it that you donât understand in the statement "science does not hold all the answers to everything " If that is ALL you are saying there is no debate.
We both agree with this. Many theists have a fear of science, but I do not because I believe that if there is a God, then of course His universe will not contradict a belief in theism. In other words, Psalm 19 says, "The heavens declare the glory of the Lord...", so if there is a God, it will show as evidence in âthe heavensâ. I donât need to live in fear of science â I can love science.
But the question here is the interpretation of the results that are coming from the scientific community. Does science show a universe with strong elements of intelligent design or not?
We both love science obviously. But to discuss the above question, we need to compare and contrast our models of the universe and the first life on this earth.
It's easy to cuss and rant and take pot shots at an opponentâs model and then claim victory . But it's time for you guys to "ante up". Lay your cards on the table and show me these great materialistic theories of the universe that are so much better than deism, theism and even pantheims...
What is it that you donât understand in the statement "science does not hold all the answers to everything " If that is ALL you are saying there is no debate.
We both agree with this. Many theists have a fear of science, but I do not because I believe that if there is a God, then of course His universe will not contradict a belief in theism. In other words, Psalm 19 says, "The heavens declare the glory of the Lord...", so if there is a God, it will show as evidence in âthe heavensâ. I donât need to live in fear of science â I can love science.
But the question here is the interpretation of the results that are coming from the scientific community. Does science show a universe with strong elements of intelligent design or not?
We both love science obviously. But to discuss the above question, we need to compare and contrast our models of the universe and the first life on this earth.
It's easy to cuss and rant and take pot shots at an opponentâs model and then claim victory . But it's time for you guys to "ante up". Lay your cards on the table and show me these great materialistic theories of the universe that are so much better than deism, theism and even pantheims...