Conquer Club

got tonkaed wrote:Recent conservative christian belief, especially in America, has made people in order to explain or justify some of their beliefs, look sometimes not very bright or silly. I think this has less to do with a person being dumb, but rather is a consequence of an increasingly narrow system of beliefs which is easier to pick at with exceptions and counterarugments.

In short, are the fundies dumber than the athiests...no quite probably not. If they hold a more narrowly concieved version of their beliefs (im not going to say its wrong for them to do so) is it possible they will look less bright at times defending themselves...possibly.

I sort of agree with you on this, but then disagree with where you take your line of reasoning (and having said that, it's my turn for people to gang up on me and tell me to just take a side...sort of what they've charged you with lately )

Where I agree with you: I have a cousin who lives in Florida that just pushes me to support political candidates who are born-again believers like myself. He shows me these Christian Coalition scorecards and says Mike Huckabee is the only one who can 'save' us as a nation. I try to reason with him that just because someone is a Christian doesn't guarantee that they're the best choice for political office. It does mean that the person probably agrees with my principles that life is sacred & that we're created in the image of God so we should respect it. But on the other hand, it doesn't guarantee that they will have a sound economic policy or foreign policy. Look at FDR, he wasn't a Christian (as I understand it) but he was absolutely committed to defeating fascism & imperialism during WWII. I thought overall he did some good things and lead us to victory.

Where I disagree with you: Once again you define what Christians believe to be immutable, unchanging principles as 'narrow'. At the same time you insinuate that non-theistic beliefs are more 'open'. Since I believe in God and believe that He revealed Himself through creation, the Bible, and His Son - Jesus Christ...I believe His words to be absolute truth. Since you don't share this belief, I can see how you would set yourself in opposition to principles or political beliefs that derive from them.

In summary though, I understand your point. From my own understanding of what it means to follow God...He doesn't call people to be political conservatives, He calls us to help those who are hurting. I've got relatives who are also Christians that vote totally different than me. Political power is only temporary.

MeDeFe wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Wasn't Gould pretty much arrogant towards everyone? I recall a rather scathing essay arguing against adaptationism.

Not to nitpick or anything... but he's in hell now.

Oh well, but his essays remain.

'Tis true.

that's why it's useful to study a bit about quantum mechanics. even a cursory understanding of quantum mechanics will convince you that the universe is not deterministic, but rather probablistic. You've had basic chem, yes? If you've learned orbital theory, then you've learned that electrons do not strictly occupy a particular place or energy, but rather a probability of locations and energies. This inherent probability is at the crux of quantum mechanics. Combine that with heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which says that we can never measure position and energy absolutely for the same particle (for example), then you can easily be convinced that the universe is based not on deterministic physics at the most basic level, but on probability and furthermore that we (mankind) will never be able to measure anything precisely. Indeed, the non-determinism of the universe is evident even when one considers that there is no measurement that man can make exactly. There is always approximation to some degree. The universe is non-linear systems that operate according to non-rational values. Despite the quantization of existence, it still behaves in a probabilistic, non-determinate way.

Colossus wrote:that's why it's useful to study a bit about quantum mechanics. even a cursory understanding of quantum mechanics will convince you that the universe is not deterministic, but rather probablistic. You've had basic chem, yes? If you've learned orbital theory, then you've learned that electrons do not strictly occupy a particular place or energy, but rather a probability of locations and energies. This inherent probability is at the crux of quantum mechanics. Combine that with heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which says that we can never measure position and energy absolutely for the same particle (for example), then you can easily be convinced that the universe is based not on deterministic physics at the most basic level, but on probability and furthermore that we (mankind) will never be able to measure anything precisely. Indeed, the non-determinism of the universe is evident even when one considers that there is no measurement that man can make exactly. There is always approximation to some degree. The universe is non-linear systems that operate according to non-rational values. Despite the quantization of existence, it still behaves in a probabilistic, non-determinate way.

Yeah, I understand all that, but I don't see how this would lead to the prospect of a nonrandom universal genesis.

luns101 wrote:I try to reason with him that just because someone is a Christian doesn't guarantee that they're the best choice for political office. It does mean that the person probably agrees with my principles that life is sacred & that we're created in the image of God so we should respect it. But on the other hand, it doesn't guarantee that they will have a sound economic policy or foreign policy. Look at FDR, he wasn't a Christian (as I understand it) but he was absolutely committed to defeating fascism & imperialism during WWII. I thought overall he did some good things and lead us to victory.

Where I disagree with you: Once again you define what Christians believe to be immutable, unchanging principles as 'narrow'. At the same time you insinuate that non-theistic beliefs are more 'open'. Since I believe in God and believe that He revealed Himself through creation, the Bible, and His Son - Jesus Christ...I believe His words to be absolute truth. Since you don't share this belief, I can see how you would set yourself in opposition to principles or political beliefs that derive from them.

In summary though, I understand your point. From my own understanding of what it means to follow God...He doesn't call people to be political conservatives, He calls us to help those who are hurting. I've got relatives who are also Christians that vote totally different than me. Political power is only temporary.

God bless you, Luns. Seriously. You get it. People like your cousin and people like Dawkins and Gould fuel this divisive debate in our society. If people on both sides of the religion/science debate would just be willing to think for themselves and try to see the whole picture, this country would be loads better off. For starters, they'd see that religion and science don't need to be fundamentally opposed and that parties who believe in God and parties who don't can still try to get together to decide what's right and what's best.

Neoteny wrote:Yeah, I understand all that, but I don't see how this would lead to the prospect of a nonrandom universal genesis.

That's the inherent faith part, man. No matter what way you slice it, science can't rule out God behind the probability. Since science cannot rule Him out, whether you view the probability as truly random dumb luck or as the intent of a loving, present God is entirely a matter of faith.

Colossus wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Yeah, I understand all that, but I don't see how this would lead to the prospect of a nonrandom universal genesis.

That's the inherent faith part, man. No matter what way you slice it, science can't rule out God behind the probability. Since science cannot rule Him out, whether you view the probability as truly random dumb luck or as the intent of a loving, present God is entirely a matter of faith.

I see. Well, to me, one leap of faith seems to be microns compared to meters next to the other, and just requires a whole lot less faith, in particular when you throw in the rest of organized religion. Deism I can respect, anything else is a bit much for me.

Anyway, this is probably the most constructive conversation on religion I've had since I came here. Stick around a bit.

Maybe you and Nappy should have a heart to heart...

Colossus wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Yeah, I understand all that, but I don't see how this would lead to the prospect of a nonrandom universal genesis.

That's the inherent faith part, man. No matter what way you slice it, science can't rule out God behind the probability. Since science cannot rule Him out, whether you view the probability as truly random dumb luck or as the intent of a loving, present God is entirely a matter of faith.

Well it takes more faith to think of a just and loving god than just a god; a just and loving god means he made this universe just for us, and this world is a dangerous one for man.

I think that depends on how you define 'dangerous' unriggable. What do you mean by dangerous for man?

For me, neo, the leap of faith is related to my personal experience. I've felt the presence of something larger than myself in my life. Between the times that I've felt what I perceive to be the presence of God and the overwhelming awe that I feel when I study the amazing complexity of living things, I believe. I see purpose. To me, the larger leap of faith is seeing the awesomeness of life and believing that its basically an aberration, an accident. That just doesn't make sense to me. What are beauty, love, wonder if not tiny little glimpses of God?

The neurological study of consciousness, emotion, thought is another area where science is still woefully inadequate in explaining human experience. We know tons about how the brain works, but the origins of what really makes us human are still well beyond our grasp. That's not to say that we won't eventually discover physical explanations for these things. We probably will to some extent, but the rules of quantum physics work in us, too, so we'll never totally be able to understand or describe ourselves either. I see God in that. Maybe that's just because it lets me believe in something other than just myself. Maybe it just helps me sleep better at night, but in the end... I know God exists because I know Him. This may sound like some kind of crazy whack-job religious rant, but I know what I believe, and its right for me. I can't say that you believing God doesn't exist is wrong for you, but I do know that science has ruled out a deterministic universe.

Colossus wrote:I think that depends on how you define 'dangerous' unriggable. What do you mean by dangerous for man?

Well why create diseases, predators, and astronomical interference? Surely if man is in God's arms then He would see the problems his design has caused.

I saw a show, The Universe, a few days, this particular episode focused on extraterrestrial biology. One thing they said is that life on earth has the tendency to live in the most unforgiving environments and get nourishment from it, such as the arctic ice and the deepest caves. So their conclusions were that life could possibly arise in bad environments with little water (maybe no water) and not as much sunlight. But as the show goes on the interviews turn from 'what circumstances life could arise' into 'what is the worst environment life could live in' into 'what is a bad environment'. They then realized that they used this planet as the 'best environment' example, which any scientists knows is a dumb mistake. Maybe we have a shitty planet in comparison to others out there.

The point is, we can't assume we have it best. Our planet could turn out to be outside a better 'goldilocks zone' - why didn't god make us there?

Take a look at the insect world - there are more arthropods than all other animals combined. Surely if this world was built for somebody, it would be them.

I'm just saying, you can't assume we've got it good. Far from it.

Colossus wrote:For me, neo, the leap of faith is related to my personal experience. I've felt the presence of something larger than myself in my life. Between the times that I've felt what I perceive to be the presence of God and the overwhelming awe that I feel when I study the amazing complexity of living things, I believe. I see purpose. To me, the larger leap of faith is seeing the awesomeness of life and believing that its basically an aberration, an accident. That just doesn't make sense to me. What are beauty, love, wonder if not tiny little glimpses of God?

The neurological study of consciousness, emotion, thought is another area where science is still woefully inadequate in explaining human experience. We know tons about how the brain works, but the origins of what really makes us human are still well beyond our grasp. That's not to say that we won't eventually discover physical explanations for these things. We probably will to some extent, but the rules of quantum physics work in us, too, so we'll never totally be able to understand or describe ourselves either. I see God in that. Maybe that's just because it lets me believe in something other than just myself. Maybe it just helps me sleep better at night, but in the end... I know God exists because I know Him. This may sound like some kind of crazy whack-job religious rant, but I know what I believe, and its right for me. I can't say that you believing God doesn't exist is wrong for you, but I do know that science has ruled out a deterministic universe.

Good for you, I suppose. It seems to me that adding god to the equation gyps natural wonder of its true lustrousness. It removes a natural sense of purpose (not a Darwinian one, mind you) and shimmies it over to an external purpose: "do what I say and I'll love you forever." That isn't noble to me. Even if it were true, it isn't what I'd want. That worldview seems pointless to me. I realize I'm starting to sound like the people I hate ("Without god, why not go kill everyone?") so I'll stop. I think you get my idea, anyway.

Meh, for determinism. As far as my well-being goes, all the probability I need involves an excel table... I'll leave that to philosopher-physicists proper. I just think it's ironic that god continues to retreat farther and farther into scientific obscurity...

Colossus wrote:I think that depends on how you define 'dangerous' unriggable. What do you mean by dangerous for man?

As unriggable said, bacteria can survive anywhere there is a reasonable supply of volatiles. Humanity, and in fact anything of reasonable multi-cellular complexity is a lot less survivable. We need massive closed-system life supports just to keep us alive, and even then the damn things are onlypseudo-stable, and random changes or crashes will decimate a population. The majority of the universe is incredibly hostile to anything that can't live off a few hydrogen atoms a day. And even in the bits that we can live in, asteriods, climate change, supernovas, neutron stars abound, meaning even the stablest system can be disrupted by outside interference.

Really, the universe is not designed for humanity's convenience.

The fact that the world has the capacity for things that are dangerous/horrible/harsh to life, etc. is a requirement if we are beings with free will. How could a God possibly create an existence in which all was idyllic and still endow us with free will? The idea of a free will and an idyllic creation are diametric opposites. They have to be.

As for crazy shows making up crap about what extraterrestrial life might be like...that's all pure speculation. It has to be because from all we know about life, there are two requirements: energy and water. Evolution (or God, if you prefer) has developed myriad different biochemical machines for converting/harvesting energy, but ALL LIVING THINGS require water. At least all living things that man has discovered. This means that existence has been designed pretty perfectly for us, as a matter of fact. If the force of gravity (for example) were a few percent stronger, the universe would have collapsed on itself long before we came along. If it were a fraction weaker, planets and stars would never have formed and the universe would be one big gas cloud. If weak nuclear force were stronger, nuclear reactions would have forbade the existence of life. If it were even fractionally weaker, heavy elements could not exist. The list of such ideal physical constants that had to be just right is quite a bit longer than this. Miller wrote about this in his book, but Hawking has also written about it, as have several others. Earth's distance from the sun and its orbit also happen to be just right for maintaining significant quantities of liquid water and a sustainable atmosphere...both perfect for us to develop. Again, supposition about what *might* be out there somewhere alive in space and built differently than us is not remotely scientific...again because it cannot be disproven. Placing faith in that is no different than placing faith in God or in the lack of a God.

Chalking the existence of us on earth to the old 'well, in a universe of infinite possibilities, it was bound to happen' requires the assumption of multiple universes, either at other times or other places or other dimensions. Again this can't be disproven, so it's outside the realm of scientific thought.

I think that fact that man dominates the Earth the way that we do and that we are capable of debating what's right and what's best are proof enough that the Earth has been hospitable enough for us to prosper. Saying that the earth is built for insects rather than us is like saying that India and China are clearly the most successful countries in the world and that the Earth is suited to their cultures best because they have the highest populations.

We are specks in the vastness of existence. I agree. That again offers no scientific evidence against an ever-present God who knows every hair on our heads. An infinite, present, loving God cares about every little speck, even me.

Weak anthropic principle. Though, it is as you said, unproved and unprovable.

And the universe is habitable to humanity only to the extent that it doesn't kill us instantly or stop us from ever forming. Take a single step out of our cosy little semi-stable habitat and we're dead. Why would an eternal diety create a pseudo-stable habitat for it's creations? In a billion years we, and everything else on Earth will be dead. Doesn't seem like a smart move for an creature used to thinking on infinite timescales. Utopia may be incompatable with free will, but basic long-term survivability certainly isn't.

[size=0]Note: Just making debate due to boredom.[/size]

Define long-term, neutrino. The best cosmological theories still can't figure out what's going to happen ultimately to the universe, man. With our technological advancement, there is no guarantee that man won't leave Earth someday. In fact, it's fairly likely as long as we don't kill ourselves first. And to an infinite God, a couple billion years to evolve is meaningless because God is timeless.

As for 'the universe is habitable to humanity only to the extent that it doesn't kill us instantly or stop us from ever forming'...how much more habitable would you have it be? At the heart of that argument is the idea that the only world a God would ever create would be one in which we could live an idyllic existence forever. What value would life have in such a universe, I wonder?

Colossus wrote:Define long-term, neutrino. The best cosmological theories still can't figure out what's going to happen ultimately to the universe, man. With our technological advancement, there is no guarantee that man won't leave Earth someday. In fact, it's fairly likely as long as we don't kill ourselves first. And to an infinite God, a couple billion years to evolve is meaningless because God is timeless.

As for 'the universe is habitable to humanity only to the extent that it doesn't kill us instantly or stop us from ever forming'...how much more habitable would you have it be? At the heart of that argument is the idea that the only world a God would ever create would be one in which we could live an idyllic existence forever. What value would life have in such a universe, I wonder?

Isn't that exactly the universe that is created after the Christian endtimes? What value would it have then?

Christian endtimes? what does that mean? are you referring to the afterlife?

Neutrino wrote:Weak anthropic principle. Though, it is as you said, unproved and unprovable.

And the universe is habitable to humanity only to the extent that it doesn't kill us instantly or stop us from ever forming. Take a single step out of our cosy little semi-stable habitat and we're dead. Why would an eternal diety create a pseudo-stable habitat for it's creations? In a billion years we, and everything else on Earth will be dead. Doesn't seem like a smart move for an creature used to thinking on infinite timescales. Utopia may be incompatable with free will, but basic long-term survivability certainly isn't.

[size=0]Note: Just making debate due to boredom.[/size]

When a chicken is about to hatch, he finds himself in a precarious predicament. His food is rapidly running out, and the walls are closing in around him. Surely he must realize that the end is near, untill he presses his beak up against the shell and breaks through into a brave new world. Is not earth the egg of humanity? A mere stepping stone for us to reach out to the vast, infinite universe. We as a species know little, yet we think we know much. A mere 50 years ago this thing called the internet was inconceivable, who is to say what lays in store for us in the next 50, 100, 1000 years? Don't fear humanity's looming demise, for even if earth is destroyed, there must be thousands of worlds sutible to be called our home.

^rock on. couldn't agree more, and the imagery is fantastic.

Colossus wrote:Christian endtimes? what does that mean? are you referring to the afterlife?

Essentially. After revelations and whatnot, if you're into that kind of thing.

yeah, man, I don't propose to know anything about the afterlife, and I think anyone who does is full of crap. I believe in a metaphorical reading of much of the bible, and when it comes to interpreting metaphor, it doesn't get a whole lot harder than Revelations, so you got me.

The only thing that I can figure is maybe that kind of existence has value after the existence we have on Earth. You know, a steak dinner always tastes better when you haven't eaten all day...that sort of thing. But that's just me grasping at straws. I figure I'll find out when I get there if I'm fortunate enough to get in.

off to bed with me now...later.

Billions or trillions of years. The Earth will be rendered effectively uninhabitable in around a billion years by the sun. If humanity manages to bail out before then, (and if we haven't we surely would have become extinct long ago. The average lifetime for a mammalian species is only 5 million years, after all) there are still all the things that can destroy a burgeoning interstellar empire. A local supernova or neutron star collision will knock us out quite effectively. Even if humanity manages to have infested enough space that no unfortunate natural event can take the entirety out, the ageing of the universe will still get it. Eventually all the stars will go out. Sure, humanity can survive on Hawking radiation from black holes for far longer than all stars burned, but eventually that too will run out. Then what? There'll be no free energy anywhere. Humanity dies.

Basically, Entropy > Humanity.

I admit this is by no means certain, but I find it hard to believe the entirety of modern cosmology is incorrect. Hell, even if some variety of the Steady State theory turns out to be correct, quantum mechanics dictates that eventually the entirety of humanity will undergo Total Existence Failure.

An infinite ocean, just off the top of my head, would be a stable habitat. True, humanity would have to be aquatic to survive, but that's not much of an impediment to God. Since the entire thing would be roughly uniform, humanity could expand easily and quickly, until no natural event can exterminate the entirety of humanity. There'll be no wild asteroids to crash into your fragile ball of rock. No Gamma rays to blast you out of existence. Instabilities in the environment could only be localised, so colonists from outside the area of effect could recolonise.
In fact, any uniform, infinite universe will do. Uniform so humanity can expand easily and infinite so humanity doesn't get screwed over by entropy.

Colossus wrote:yeah, man, I don't propose to know anything about the afterlife, and I think anyone who does is full of crap. I believe in a metaphorical reading of much of the bible, and when it comes to interpreting metaphor, it doesn't get a whole lot harder than Revelations, so you got me.

The only thing that I can figure is maybe that kind of existence has value after the existence we have on Earth. You know, a steak dinner always tastes better when you haven't eaten all day...that sort of thing. But that's just me grasping at straws. I figure I'll find out when I get there if I'm fortunate enough to get in.

off to bed with me now...later.

:/

So, why Christianity?

Damn, you guys are messing with my puny 13 year-old mind. Sure, I have thought about death before, and for literally hours and hours about how dark energy is expanding the universe and the whole universe gets fucked in the end. Then I see everyone around me, superficial assholes, wondering if they have even got a clue whats going on in my mind, and if they have even the faintest clue of how miserable their lives are going to be when they grow up (I'm not saying mine isn't). Then I think about God, and I can perfectly understand atheists' points of view on life, then I look at my religious upbringings (Judaism), and try and see the it, and all other religions, are just a way to try and define the undefinable and what we are and why we are here. Then I think about my life, and my friends, and whats going to happen to me in the future, then I scold myself for being so superficial, and only worrying about myself, while there are so many horrors in the world. Then I find myself up at 1:30 in the morning, usually the time when I am attempting to fall asleep but actually thinking all the things that I have just described to you, and then I am freaked the hell out. THEN, finally, the saying "ignorance is bliss" finally comes into affect and I fall asleep, forgetting about everything I had just though about until the following night, and my life is just a repetitive cycle. Then I think that the point of life is to be happy. No, its to find true love. No, its to get stoned and smashed every night and having fun. No, everybody just dies sad and alone and realize that they have done nothing with their lives. Then, of course, as I think everyone else who thinks like I think (not quite sure how many people that is), thinks of committing suicide just to simplify things.

Then i find myself at 1:35 in the morning writing a response to a 4-page long thread, wondering if anyone will take the writings of a 13 year-old seriously, even wondering if this has anything to do with the topic. Well, I said what needed to be said, and I hope it can somehow contribute to your conversation.