Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Often the answer to "why" is given in the "how".

Unfortunately, some people are not satisfied by an actual answer and just want the why to be "god(s)".

"of all these missing links, not one has been found"



It wouldnt be missing if someone had found it?
I lasted 9 mins of this bollocks and had to mute it.

The entire argument of "wheres the camera" wore a tad thin.

However, just her being there ruined the entire theory of "evolution"
I guess it must have its dead ends though.

Cosmic Light Exhibit at Museum of Science, Boston

http://www.mos.org/exhibits/cosmic-light



I believe this is an exhibit begging for a youtube critique as yet unproduced

 jasper76 wrote:
Cosmic Light Exhibit at Museum of Science, Boston

http://www.mos.org/exhibits/cosmic-light



I believe this is an exhibit begging for a youtube critique as yet unproduced

Looks cool actually.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I and others have answered your question.

Please rephrase it not using the word "why".

No your confusing the word why with how.

So far that is all you have all done.

No, that's not what is happening, I think what is happening is you are asking is why as a question of intent, everyone else is using why as a question of cause, both of which aren't wrong, well except intent is a human thing, there is no intent in natue, so really, it is you who is asking who is asking the wrong question.

 Asherian Command wrote:

I was going to ask if there was some kind of language barrier problem but then I saw that both of you are American...

More of a philosopher vs a scientist debate.

That doesn't even make sense since science is philosphopy, or a branch of it more precisely.

 Krellnus wrote:
That doesn't even make sense since science is philosphopy, or a branch of it more precisely.

Uhm, no. There is a philosophy of science which draws on the different branches but it is not a branch of Philosophy itself. The branches of Philosophy are:

Metaphysics
Ethics
Logic
Aesthetics
Epistemology

 d-usa wrote:
[So when some people load evolution with emotional baggage claiming that evolution proves that God doesn't exist and everything about their faith is wrong then some people will naturally go on the defensive about that. Individuals on both sides are stupid for trying to make a scientific issue the burden of proof for the existence of God.

Evolution might not, but quantum physics is taking a pretty good stab at it. At least at the omniscient, all-seeing aspect of God.

Heisenberg's Law states that it is physically impossible to know the vector and the position of a subatomic particle. An omniscient God, by definition, knows both. Which is impossible.

Another experiment is underway to detect gravity waves from the earliest preiods of the Universe. It uses a quantum-physical effect (I'm doing this off the top of my head, so any actual quantum physicists feel free to correct me) which says that a photon travels to its destination by all paths available to it until it is observed, at which point it picks one at random to have travelled (a variation of Schrodinger's Cat). In the experiment in question, the photon has two paths available to it via a mirror that randomly flips around. Then there is some gobbeldigook with a detector at the end of the path to measure any discrepancies in when the photon arrives to detect the gravity waves, but that is unimportant for the point I'm trying to make.
The important bit is the "uses all paths available until observed". If there is a God who sees everything, he therefore automatically observes which part the photon would take, and the effect ceases to exist because the quantum wave function is immediately collapsed due to the outside observer (ie, God). This works for every single quantum event, and therefore there should be no such thing as quantum physics. But quantum physics does exist, and it can be observed to work. Logically, one of our opening assumptions must be wrong. The only one that fits the bill is the all-seeing God.

The two combined also suggest that it is, if not outright impossible, astronomically unlikely for any hypothetical Creator God to have set up the universe so that evolution [i[could[/i] happen (based on random mutations which at any step along the way could have led to a completely different end result) and known beforehand what would come out of it (ie, us).

If God is then, not omniscient, and not all-seeing, in what way is he still, well, God?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:
That doesn't even make sense since science is philosphopy, or a branch of it more precisely.

Uhm, no. There is a philosophy of science which draws on the different branches but it is not a branch of Philosophy itself. The branches of Philosophy are:

Metaphysics
Ethics
Logic
Aesthetics
Epistemology

Doesn't some of science's origins come from the work and ideas of Greek philosophers.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
[So when some people load evolution with emotional baggage claiming that evolution proves that God doesn't exist and everything about their faith is wrong then some people will naturally go on the defensive about that. Individuals on both sides are stupid for trying to make a scientific issue the burden of proof for the existence of God.

Evolution might not, but quantum physics is taking a pretty good stab at it. At least at the omniscient, all-seeing aspect of God.

Heisenberg's Law states that it is physically impossible to know the vector and the position of a subatomic particle. An omniscient God, by definition, knows both. Which is impossible.

Another experiment is underway to detect gravity waves from the earliest preiods of the Universe. It uses a quantum-physical effect (I'm doing this off the top of my head, so any actual quantum physicists feel free to correct me) which says that a photon travels to its destination by all paths available to it until it is observed, at which point it picks one at random to have travelled (a variation of Schrodinger's Cat). In the experiment in question, the photon has two paths available to it via a mirror that randomly flips around. Then there is some gobbeldigook with a detector at the end of the path to measure any discrepancies in when the photon arrives to detect the gravity waves, but that is unimportant for the point I'm trying to make.
The important bit is the "uses all paths available until observed". If there is a God who sees everything, he therefore automatically observes which part the photon would take, and the effect ceases to exist because the quantum wave function is immediately collapsed due to the outside observer (ie, God). This works for every single quantum event, and therefore there should be no such thing as quantum physics. But quantum physics does exist, and it can be observed to work. Logically, one of our opening assumptions must be wrong. The only one that fits the bill is the all-seeing God.

The two combined also suggest that it is, if not outright impossible, astronomically unlikely for any hypothetical Creator God to have set up the universe so that evolution [i[could[/i] happen (based on random mutations which at any step along the way could have led to a completely different end result) and known beforehand what would come out of it (ie, us).

If God is then, not omniscient, and not all-seeing, in what way is he still, well, God?

Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law, and be above/more powerful than anything in nature (inc. nature itself). Consequently it could ignore the impossibilities set up by quantum physics (and chaos theory and any apparent randomness of the universe), and be aware of the position of a photon without collapsing the wave function. Or at least is aware of which way it will collapse when observed.

Ofcourse a omnipresent and omnipotent god forces a deterministic universe, but that's it's own can of philosophical worms.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Doesn't some of science's origins come from the work and ideas of Greek philosophers.

Sure, because ideas beget ideas. Science, and especially the Philosophy of Science, draw from several different areas of thought. Still not one of the main branches of Philosophy, but it is its own area of study.

Congratulations lady, you just picked apart a 3rd grade science exhibit.

 Pendix wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
[So when some people load evolution with emotional baggage claiming that evolution proves that God doesn't exist and everything about their faith is wrong then some people will naturally go on the defensive about that. Individuals on both sides are stupid for trying to make a scientific issue the burden of proof for the existence of God.

Evolution might not, but quantum physics is taking a pretty good stab at it. At least at the omniscient, all-seeing aspect of God.

Heisenberg's Law states that it is physically impossible to know the vector and the position of a subatomic particle. An omniscient God, by definition, knows both. Which is impossible.

Another experiment is underway to detect gravity waves from the earliest preiods of the Universe. It uses a quantum-physical effect (I'm doing this off the top of my head, so any actual quantum physicists feel free to correct me) which says that a photon travels to its destination by all paths available to it until it is observed, at which point it picks one at random to have travelled (a variation of Schrodinger's Cat). In the experiment in question, the photon has two paths available to it via a mirror that randomly flips around. Then there is some gobbeldigook with a detector at the end of the path to measure any discrepancies in when the photon arrives to detect the gravity waves, but that is unimportant for the point I'm trying to make.
The important bit is the "uses all paths available until observed". If there is a God who sees everything, he therefore automatically observes which part the photon would take, and the effect ceases to exist because the quantum wave function is immediately collapsed due to the outside observer (ie, God). This works for every single quantum event, and therefore there should be no such thing as quantum physics. But quantum physics does exist, and it can be observed to work. Logically, one of our opening assumptions must be wrong. The only one that fits the bill is the all-seeing God.

The two combined also suggest that it is, if not outright impossible, astronomically unlikely for any hypothetical Creator God to have set up the universe so that evolution [i[could[/i] happen (based on random mutations which at any step along the way could have led to a completely different end result) and known beforehand what would come out of it (ie, us).

If God is then, not omniscient, and not all-seeing, in what way is he still, well, God?

Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law, and be above/more powerful than anything in nature (inc. nature itself). Consequently it could ignore the impossibilities set up by quantum physics (and chaos theory and any apparent randomness of the universe), and be aware of the position of a photon without collapsing the wave function. Or at least is aware of which way it will collapse when observed.

Ofcourse a omnipresent and omnipotent god forces a deterministic universe, but that's it's own can of philosophical worms.

Couldn't of said it any better!

@Asherian Command

One of the reasons why you won't get serious people to answer your "why" question in the way that you like, is because of the baggage that term implies.

The "Why" questions implicitly sneaks in things like "intent" and "purpose".
Those are things that most people engaging in an existential discussion will not grant without justification.

Not all questions are coherent, sensible or justified.
I could ask; "what does the smell blue taste like?".

So in essence, i am asking you to shown why "Why" is even a coherent and/or sensible question to ask in this regard.


...

 Asherian Command wrote:
Couldn't of said it any better!

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm a hard agnostic, I don't think god exists. However I understand that you can't exactly disprove it's existence.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Pendix wrote:

Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law ...

Couldn't of said it any better!

Without wanting to get overly simplistic. If something as complex as the universe (or even a human) cannot exist without an intelligent creator (as some people claim). Then how come something as complex as god is just there, requiring no explanation? That seems to be a clear double standard in reasoning.

Who made god? and what does he exist for?

I would love to hear a solution to those questions that could not just be applied directly to a universe without god.

 Smacks wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Pendix wrote:

Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law ...

Couldn't of said it any better!

Without wanting to get overly simplistic. If something as complex as the universe (or even a human) cannot exist without an intelligent creator (as some people claim). Then how come something as complex as god is just there, requiring no explanation? That seems to be a clear double standard in reasoning.

Who made god? and what does he exist for?

I would love to hear a solution to those questions that could not just be applied directly to a universe without god.

Turtles!

 Smacks wrote:

Who made god? and what does he exist for?

I would love to hear a solution to those questions that could not just be applied directly to a universe without god.

Any response to those questions would necessarily involve personification, and so could not apply to a universe without God.

"God was created by turtles"
...
"The universe was created by god by turtles"

This works fine. As improbable as your solution is, the logic is undamaged. You have just swapped a creator in the image of an ape, for a creator in the image of a turtle. Which leads us back to "who created the creator?".

Some people try to get around this with statement such as:
"God, just is."

But surely if you can believe that, you should have no problem with;
"God The universe, just is."

OR

"God The universe, is eternal."
"God The universe, created himself itself."

I don't think there is any way around this, which just shows the futility of trying to invoke such a being.

 dogma wrote:
Any response to those questions would necessarily involve personification, and so could not apply to a universe without God.

Anything you can suggest can be applied directly to the universe. Try it yourself.

 Smacks wrote:
Anything you can suggest can be applied directly to the universe.

Aside from those qualities associated with personhood, unless you believe that the Universe is a person.

 dogma wrote:
qualities associated with personhood.

Such as?

 Smacks wrote:
"God was created by turtles"
...
"The universe was created by god by turtles"

This works fine. As improbable as your solution is, the logic is undamaged. You have just swapped a creator in the image of an ape, for a creator in the image of a turtle. Which leads us back to "who created the creator?".

Some people try to get around this with statement such as:
"God, just is."

But surely if you can believe that, you should have no problem with;
"God The universe, just is."

OR

"God The universe, is eternal."
"God The universe, created himself itself."

I don't think there is any way around this, which just shows the futility of trying to invoke such a being.

Theologians and Philosophers have been grappling with this question for a looooog time.

I think, that one of the proposed resolutions is much like what I posted above. God (if it exists) exists outside of the rules that universe follows. Be they chemistry, quantum physics, mathematics, and yes, even logic. If the internal logic of the universe requires it to be created by a sentient entity* God does not have the same requirement, as it does not follow the same rules of logic (or any rules for that matter - part of the paradox of omnipotence). Ergo, even if the universe needs a creator, God does not.


(*Personally; I reject this particular idea, but ymmv.)

 dogma wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Anything you can suggest can be applied directly to the universe.

Aside from those qualities associated with personhood, unless you believe that the Universe is a person.

Hey, if America can make companies people, I am sure we can make the universe a person

 Pendix wrote:
I think, that one of the proposed resolutions is much like what I posted above. God (if it exists) exists outside of the rules that universe follows. Be they chemistry, quantum physics, mathematics, and yes, even logic. If the internal logic of the universe requires it to be created by a sentient entity* God does not have the same requirement, as it does not follow the same rules of logic (or any rules for that matter - part of the paradox of omnipotence). Ergo, even if the universe needs a creator, God does not.

All this does is restate the double standard. The universe doesn't need a creator. There are cosmologists such as Lawrence Krauss who have proposed creator-less hypotheses. The only people who seem to be claiming that it does need a creator are doing so from a position of incredulity.

I.e: "I can't believe the universe just happened, so god much have created it."

Yet, these same people are happy to believe that god 'just happened' and wasn't created, which contradicts their original incredulity regarding stuff just "popping" into existence.

 Smacks wrote:
All this does is restate the double standard. The universe doesn't need a creator. There are cosmologists such as Lawrence Krauss who have proposed creator-less hypotheses. The only people who seem to be claiming that it does need a creator are doing so from a position of incredulity.

I.e: "I can't believe the universe just happened, so god much have created it."

Yet, these same people are happy to believe that god 'just happened' and wasn't created, which contradicts their original incredulity regarding stuff just "popping" into existence.

That's the thing though, they define God in such a way that it accepts the contradiction. The rationales you apply to the universe, don't apply to God, the double standard is inherent to the idea. Pealing back the surface layer of Theology reveal a world of paradoxes and contradictions (ones with theologians of many faiths have spent hundreds of years wrestling with), that often arrives back at the idea that God is the exception (him, and the Monguls ). All the rules break down . . .why? Because God.

Which, you know, to me, is pretty weird way of thinking, but I don't live inside the head of a person who is a serious, hard thinking believer.

Anyway I think I'm going to step back here, and invite the believers among us to step forward at take a shot at this, they may well be in a better place to explain.

It seems to be an almost unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach of theologians.
No matter what arguments are presented or what evidence is shown, the end (start?) result must always be "God".

Steelmage99 wrote:
It seems to be an almost unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach of theologians.
No matter what arguments are presented or what evidence is shown, the end (start?) result must always be "God".

That's not necessarily the case, seeing as there are some pretty well established agnostic theologians.

 Pendix wrote:

Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law, and be above/more powerful than anything in nature (inc. nature itself). Consequently it could ignore the impossibilities set up by quantum physics (and chaos theory and any apparent randomness of the universe), and be aware of the position of a photon without collapsing the wave function. Or at least is aware of which way it will collapse when observed.

Ofcourse a omnipresent and omnipotent god forces a deterministic universe, but that's it's own can of philosophical worms.

If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.

I mean, at first the Gods were on top of that really high mountain. That one, over there. Oh, there's not actually anyone there. Well, that's because they're actually only one God, and he lives in a magical city in the sky. What's that, Telescopes show no such city? Well, obviously, the city is a metaphor for the sun. What? That is literally a ball of hot flaming gas, and as far we can observe the universe, there is no actual divine hand needed anywhere? Obviously, God is outside the universe but can still observe and see (and therefore judge) everything. Yeah, but quantum physics debunks that, too. Oh, but he's outside, so he's obviously not subject to your silly rules. Ha! (But IIRC there are indications and theories that imply quantum physics applies outside of our own universe as well.)

So how much further do you want to take this? At what point does it just become a wishful thought that refuses to die? Or, if you're a cynic, certain people propagating with slight modifications a lie to stay in power?

Who in their right mind would take a reasoning like this seriously if it was applied to anything but religion? Yet somehow it gets a free pass when it comes to idiocies like this.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Pendix wrote:

Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law, and be above/more powerful than anything in nature (inc. nature itself). Consequently it could ignore the impossibilities set up by quantum physics (and chaos theory and any apparent randomness of the universe), and be aware of the position of a photon without collapsing the wave function. Or at least is aware of which way it will collapse when observed.

Ofcourse a omnipresent and omnipotent god forces a deterministic universe, but that's it's own can of philosophical worms.

If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.

I mean, at first the Gods were on top of that really high mountain. That one, over there. Oh, there's not actually anyone there. Well, that's because they're actually only one God, and he lives in a magical city in the sky. What's that, Telescopes show no such city? Well, obviously, the city is a metaphor for the sun. What? That is literally a ball of hot flaming gas, and as far we can observe the universe, there is no actual divine hand needed anywhere? Obviously, God is outside the universe but can still observe and see (and therefore judge) everything. Yeah, but quantum physics debunks that, too. Oh, but he's outside, so he's obviously not subject to your silly rules. Ha! (But IIRC there are indications and theories that imply quantum physics applies outside of our own universe as well.)

So how much further do you want to take this? At what point does it just become a wishful thought that refuses to die? Or, if you're a cynic, certain people propagating with slight modifications a lie to stay in power?

Who in their right mind would take a reasoning like this seriously if it was applied to anything but religion? Yet somehow it gets a free pass when it comes to idiocies like this.

I agree with you.

In the end, claiming that their particular deity exists outside of space and time (a completely incoherent proposition in the first place) still gets them nothing.
If their god interacts with the physical reality we can observe, we can measure that interaction.
If it doesn't interact in any measurable way, how can we tell if it actually exists.

There is no relevant distinction between a god that doesn't interact with our reality and a god that doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
It seems to be an almost unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach of theologians.
No matter what arguments are presented or what evidence is shown, the end (start?) result must always be "God".

That's not necessarily the case, seeing as there are some pretty well established agnostic theologians.

That's where the "almost" part comes in.

Also there is nothing inherent in agnostic theism that prevents the holder from adopting a top-down approach to the issue. It is almost implied that a top-down approach is necessary if one is the hold the belief that a god exists (theism) while proposing that the basis of said belief in unknown or unknowable (agnosticism).

How does one come to hold that belief without starting with the assumption that a god must exist (top-down approach)?

Steelmage99 wrote:
It seems to be an almost unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach of theologians.
No matter what arguments are presented or what evidence is shown, the end (start?) result must always be "God".

Not all Theologians are like that.

Theologians are Philisophers at heart.

So there always be differences in opinion on just about everything.

I agree with you.

In the end, claiming that their particular deity exists outside of space and time (a completely incoherent proposition in the first place) still gets them nothing.
If their god interacts with the physical reality we can observe, we can measure that interaction.
If it doesn't interact in any measurable way, how can we tell if it actually exists.

There is no relevant distinction between a god that doesn't interact with our reality and a god that doesn't exist.

but that is assuming that we haven't found anything to suggest that. Currently we have no idea. We have no idea how to quantify it. What the hell would we even look for?

If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.

I would laugh at you for laughing at someone who has a different opinion.

I mean, at first the Gods were on top of that really high mountain. That one, over there. Oh, there's not actually anyone there. Well, that's because they're actually only one God, and he lives in a magical city in the sky. What's that, Telescopes show no such city? Well, obviously, the city is a metaphor for the sun. What? That is literally a ball of hot flaming gas, and as far we can observe the universe, there is no actual divine hand needed anywhere? Obviously, God is outside the universe but can still observe and see (and therefore judge) everything. Yeah, but quantum physics debunks that, too. Oh, but he's outside, so he's obviously not subject to your silly rules. Ha! (But IIRC there are indications and theories that imply quantum physics applies outside of our own universe as well.)

So how much further do you want to take this? At what point does it just become a wishful thought that refuses to die? Or, if you're a cynic, certain people propagating with slight modifications a lie to stay in power?

Who in their right mind would take a reasoning like this seriously if it was applied to anything but religion? Yet somehow it gets a free pass when it comes to idiocies like this.

Your ideas of the bible are extremely strange.

We infact have no idea where or what heaven even looks like. Nor do we know that we will even go to heaven.

The problem here is your insulting religion and what people believe in. There is nothing wrong with believing in god. You are saying there is something wrong, when there have been just as many people killed in the name of god as there has been in the name of science.

 Asherian Command wrote:

I agree with you.

In the end, claiming that their particular deity exists outside of space and time (a completely incoherent proposition in the first place) still gets them nothing.
If their god interacts with the physical reality we can observe, we can measure that interaction.
If it doesn't interact in any measurable way, how can we tell if it actually exists.

There is no relevant distinction between a god that doesn't interact with our reality and a god that doesn't exist.

but that is assuming that we haven't found anything to suggest that. Currently we have no idea. We have no idea how to quantify it. What the hell would we even look for?

First, I don't know what part of my post you are addressing when you refer to "that".

Second, if we have no idea about X, no idea how to quantify X and no idea about how even to look for X.....is it then rational to believe in X or is it rational to withhold belief until X is shown to be justified and true?

If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.

I would laugh at you for laughing at someone who has a different opinion.

He is not laughing at someone having a different opinion. He is rightfully mocking the way that that particular opinion is presented and the way it is being justified.

I mean, at first the Gods were on top of that really high mountain. That one, over there. Oh, there's not actually anyone there. Well, that's because they're actually only one God, and he lives in a magical city in the sky. What's that, Telescopes show no such city? Well, obviously, the city is a metaphor for the sun. What? That is literally a ball of hot flaming gas, and as far we can observe the universe, there is no actual divine hand needed anywhere? Obviously, God is outside the universe but can still observe and see (and therefore judge) everything. Yeah, but quantum physics debunks that, too. Oh, but he's outside, so he's obviously not subject to your silly rules. Ha! (But IIRC there are indications and theories that imply quantum physics applies outside of our own universe as well.)

So how much further do you want to take this? At what point does it just become a wishful thought that refuses to die? Or, if you're a cynic, certain people propagating with slight modifications a lie to stay in power?

Who in their right mind would take a reasoning like this seriously if it was applied to anything but religion? Yet somehow it gets a free pass when it comes to idiocies like this.

Your ideas of the bible are extremely strange.

He is not talking about the Bible. He is talking about theology and beliefs.
.

We infact have no idea where or what heaven even looks like. Nor do we know that we will even go to heaven.

The problem here is your insulting religion and what people believe in.

Why is that a problem? Why are religions somehow exempt from criticism?

The major mono-theistic religions are extremely insulting to any modern human.