Media Leave "South Park" Creators Out to Dry
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
Archangel M
Senior Master
Odd that there are a number of physicists and cosmologists that are not so sure.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/200...a-creator-or-designer-a-collection-of-quotes/
Although they are starting to use the term "intelligence" instead of "God".
Surety that allows one to look down upon another equals arrogance in my math.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/200...a-creator-or-designer-a-collection-of-quotes/
Although they are starting to use the term "intelligence" instead of "God".
Surety that allows one to look down upon another equals arrogance in my math.
Natural laws are very different from intellegance.
Looked down upon? By who?
I have my beliefs, you have yours. I think I'm correct, so do you. I have zero issue with that so long as nothing is shoved down anyones throat, we're all good.
I have yet to see an atheist kill anyone because they didn't believe in disbelief.
Archangel M
Senior Master
"It's all good"...but you feel the need to add that little barb. "Arrogant"?? no, but part of the meme.
Archangel M
Senior Master
Intelligent design is not creationism.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1329
Although Atheists seem to want to pigeon-hole it as such because the religious like to hitch onto it as a "see I told you so". All I am saying is "I am sure there is no designer/God/cosmic intelligence" can be just as blindly dogmatic as being a religious fundamentalist.
Omar B
Senior Master
I did not say creationism and intelligent design are the same thing. In fact I don't see how you could construe that out of the one line I wrote about groups of people believing things. You also link to an intelligent design web site where ::gasp:: the people on that site believe in ID. That proves nothing except that the people who work with that site believe it it.
Atheists seem to want to pigeon-hole it as such - We don't have weekly club meetings so I don't know what you are talking about. You seem to categorize all atheists as the same it seems.
Numbers don't make something true and you can cite sites where people believe as such all you wish.
Atheists seem to want to pigeon-hole it as such - We don't have weekly club meetings so I don't know what you are talking about. You seem to categorize all atheists as the same it seems.
Numbers don't make something true and you can cite sites where people believe as such all you wish.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
I get where you are coming from.
Here's the big problem: they don't all agree on what counts as salvation and damnation. Are the Protestants right and salvation is through faith alone? Are the Catholics right and are works critical to salvation? Some sects will even claim you are damned if you aren't baptised correctly. So basically if one of them is right, your chances of following exactly the correct rules are pretty low.
Which brings me to, what sort of just and loving being would damn you to an eternity of torment and suffering for not following a set of rules exactly? A set of rules that in the particulars (not eating shellfish, not drinking [although Jesus drank]) hurts no one. If such a God does exist, he is an unjust and nasty creature, and your chances of avoiding damnation would again be pretty low.
Or, maybe the fire and brimstone Islamic preachers are correct. :uhohh: What will you do then? Which religion am I to believe?
That is basically what I think. There are so many similar religions and fairy tales. Why privilege this particular one?
A famous paraphrased quote: I just disbelieve one more religion than you do.
In the sense of certain knowledge, no. I am an agnostic atheist, not a gnostic atheist. But I have no belief, and I have absolutely no reason to believe. I have to be true to myself.
Choosing to believe to avoid damnation (Pascal's Wager) also does you no good if God exists. According to the Bible, we are supposed to love God with all our hearts. You don't think the omnipotent master of the universe wouldn't know that you are cynically hedging your bets?
Here's the big problem: they don't all agree on what counts as salvation and damnation. Are the Protestants right and salvation is through faith alone? Are the Catholics right and are works critical to salvation? Some sects will even claim you are damned if you aren't baptised correctly. So basically if one of them is right, your chances of following exactly the correct rules are pretty low.
Which brings me to, what sort of just and loving being would damn you to an eternity of torment and suffering for not following a set of rules exactly? A set of rules that in the particulars (not eating shellfish, not drinking [although Jesus drank]) hurts no one. If such a God does exist, he is an unjust and nasty creature, and your chances of avoiding damnation would again be pretty low.
Or, maybe the fire and brimstone Islamic preachers are correct. :uhohh: What will you do then? Which religion am I to believe?
That is basically what I think. There are so many similar religions and fairy tales. Why privilege this particular one?
A famous paraphrased quote: I just disbelieve one more religion than you do.
In the sense of certain knowledge, no. I am an agnostic atheist, not a gnostic atheist. But I have no belief, and I have absolutely no reason to believe. I have to be true to myself.
Choosing to believe to avoid damnation (Pascal's Wager) also does you no good if God exists. According to the Bible, we are supposed to love God with all our hearts. You don't think the omnipotent master of the universe wouldn't know that you are cynically hedging your bets?
Ramirez
Black Belt
LOL! Fred Hoyle! You better pick someone else to support your position, Hoyle didn't believe in a Creator , the only intelligence he believed in were space aliens... he was of the opinion that human beings were created by extra-terrestials.
He was also dead wrong in the Big Bang, in fact he opposed the Big Bang because it meant the universe had a beginning which the Catholic Church latched onto as proof of a creator and Hoyle was an atheist . A steady state universe which he believed in requires no creator.
Seems that link is misleading if not dishonest.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Scientists are people too. And people are very good at compartmentalizing their lives and not examining the implications of one area of life in another. Thus I know scientists that apply rigorous standards of proof to their work, but do not apply those same standards to their religious beliefs. To the extent that they do so, it is an error in their thinking and their rationality. That doesn't necessarily make them bad scientists. Nor does it make God exist.
However, belief in God among scientists is far lower than the general population. Physicists have one of the higher
levels of belief, but again still well below the general population. I think it is something about the precise and structured nature of physical laws which seduces them. Scientists in messier disciplines, particularly biology, have far lower levels of belief.
It's also not science. Science is falsifiable, whereas intelligent design is not. It might be more accurately described as philosophy, but it's proponents attempt to masquerade the idea as science and teach it as science.
Only if being sure that Thor and Odin do not exist is blindly dogmatic. Only if being sure that an invisible, undetectable gremlin dancing on my head does not exist is blindly dogmatic. It is not blind dogma to say that which has no evidence for its existence does not exist.
However, belief in God among scientists is far lower than the general population. Physicists have one of the higher
levels of belief, but again still well below the general population. I think it is something about the precise and structured nature of physical laws which seduces them. Scientists in messier disciplines, particularly biology, have far lower levels of belief.
It's also not science. Science is falsifiable, whereas intelligent design is not. It might be more accurately described as philosophy, but it's proponents attempt to masquerade the idea as science and teach it as science.
Only if being sure that Thor and Odin do not exist is blindly dogmatic. Only if being sure that an invisible, undetectable gremlin dancing on my head does not exist is blindly dogmatic. It is not blind dogma to say that which has no evidence for its existence does not exist.
Yeah it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt6o...2C1F0A87&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=10
The Discovery Institute??? Oh come on, a more biased creationist source can not be found!!
Ramirez
Black Belt
Really? I thought I read in Dawkins book, The God Delusion, that the harder the science (in the sense of the more physical, ie physics being a "harder" science than biology), the lower the belief in God.
IIRC Lee Smolin and Lubos Motl also say the same.
Ramirez
Black Belt
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
looks like physicists and mathematicians might be slightly higher a whole 7.5% believe in god as of 1998.
looks like physicists and mathematicians might be slightly higher a whole 7.5% believe in god as of 1998.
I'd say it is. Just because we have no evidence of it NOW does not mean we won't at a later date.
For example, In the Stone Age, I'm sure they had no "Evidence" of electricity. Or Viruses, etc... but those things existed without someone's evidence of such. Oh sure, you had sickness and lightning, but no understanding of them or their root causes. A divine, or supreme being could be the same... the world could contain a lot of evidence, but we lack the knowledge to understand it correctly, yet.
Just sayin.
With regard to the base of nearly all religions; there is a creation story. Something that explains how the universe and specifically the world, and the people on it, came into being.
In strict terms, the universe either had a primary cause that could be described as an entity/intelligence, or it did not. It is equally difficult for me to conceive of either option. As difficult as it is to believe that the universe was created by a being, it is also difficult for me to believe that it happened for no reason whatsoever. I'm claiming that either is true or untrue, just mentioning that both boggle my mind utterly.
Then, when we get into the theories of the multiverse which may be required by some theories of the origin of the universe, then there must be universes where both are true - some in which the universe was intentionally created, some in which it was not. Even more mind-boggling.
Science is wonderful and I love it. But it does not answer all questions; at least not yet. It is the fallacy of every generation that we think of all previous scientific 'fact' that has since been discredited as primitive and obviously wrong, and all current scientific 'fact' as durable and perpetually true. In other words, we always see ourselves as possessing all the truth. Future generations will laugh at us as we laugh at scientists that claimed that if a car went faster than 21 miles per hour, all the air would be sucked out of it. We always fail to acknowledge that many of our 'truths' are not only liable to be proven wrong, but that they probably will be. We're always smug; we shouldn't be.
With regard to the universe, despite many theories of the origin of the universe, there is no theory that extends to the instant before the Singularity, as I understand it. That is, it is generally accepted that at the moment of the origination of the universe, all time, matter, and energy were compressed into a microscopic dot that exploded. Time itself did not exist before the explosion, neither did matter or energy. So there was literally nothing.
What cause the speck that exploded? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. Everything is speculation beyond that moment, is it not?
I see no reason for animosity between those who believe the universe had an original intelligent cause and those who do not. I can believe both, and find both baffling and mind-boggling at the same time. In any case, it matters very little to my everyday life.
In strict terms, the universe either had a primary cause that could be described as an entity/intelligence, or it did not. It is equally difficult for me to conceive of either option. As difficult as it is to believe that the universe was created by a being, it is also difficult for me to believe that it happened for no reason whatsoever. I'm claiming that either is true or untrue, just mentioning that both boggle my mind utterly.
Then, when we get into the theories of the multiverse which may be required by some theories of the origin of the universe, then there must be universes where both are true - some in which the universe was intentionally created, some in which it was not. Even more mind-boggling.
Science is wonderful and I love it. But it does not answer all questions; at least not yet. It is the fallacy of every generation that we think of all previous scientific 'fact' that has since been discredited as primitive and obviously wrong, and all current scientific 'fact' as durable and perpetually true. In other words, we always see ourselves as possessing all the truth. Future generations will laugh at us as we laugh at scientists that claimed that if a car went faster than 21 miles per hour, all the air would be sucked out of it. We always fail to acknowledge that many of our 'truths' are not only liable to be proven wrong, but that they probably will be. We're always smug; we shouldn't be.
With regard to the universe, despite many theories of the origin of the universe, there is no theory that extends to the instant before the Singularity, as I understand it. That is, it is generally accepted that at the moment of the origination of the universe, all time, matter, and energy were compressed into a microscopic dot that exploded. Time itself did not exist before the explosion, neither did matter or energy. So there was literally nothing.
What cause the speck that exploded? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. Everything is speculation beyond that moment, is it not?
I see no reason for animosity between those who believe the universe had an original intelligent cause and those who do not. I can believe both, and find both baffling and mind-boggling at the same time. In any case, it matters very little to my everyday life.
Omar B
Senior Master
Every religion has an origin story because it's one of the fundamental questions, even children ask their parents where they came from. Using a creator just pushes back the questions of who created it though. After all, it had to come from somewhere to create the universe and a consciousness without anything to be conscious of (outside stimulus) is a contradiction in terms.
Science does nto have all the answers and it never will, because the nature of science is not to sit satisfied but to move onto more unknowns. So in that case all answers will never be solved. More answers, yes, all, no.
Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.
For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.
Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.
Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .
“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.” - Leonard Peikoff
Science does nto have all the answers and it never will, because the nature of science is not to sit satisfied but to move onto more unknowns. So in that case all answers will never be solved. More answers, yes, all, no.
Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.
For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.
Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.
Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .
“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.” - Leonard Peikoff
Empty Hands
Senior Master
In a certain philosophical sense, yes. But it quickly leads to ludicrous results. Suddenly I can't say there isn't a giant planet made out of strawberry ice cream just outside the solar system. I can't say there aren't invisible undetectable gremlins dancing on my head. It isn't blind dogmatism to say these things don't exist.
As for viruses in the stone age, no one would have had the evidence necessary to even come up with the idea of viruses not to believe in. Instead, all of the ideas-without-evidence they DID come up with were demonstrably false. Like the four humors, or Aristotle's conception of, well, conception. They would have been wise at the time to say that which had no evidence did not exist. At the very least, that would have prevented bleeding as a legitimate medical treatment!
If, somehow, someone at the time did propose viruses, it still would have been rational at the time to say that which had no evidence for it did not exist. As long as you are open to new evidence changing your conclusions, this is basically how science works.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
I don't think you can say that it happened for "no reason." Current singularities are governed by physical laws, so it stands to reason that the initial singularity was as well. Particle/anti-particle pairs also "warp" into existence from "nowhere" (the basis of Hawking Radiation), but those are governed by physical laws as well. Lastly, we can describe the physical laws governing the Big Bang all the way up to 10x10-42 (thats 0.00...42zeros...very small indeed) seconds after it occurred. All signs point to an event governed by physical laws.
True to a point, but it should not be taken to the level of relativism. Some things are true, and will always be true. The Sun is larger than the Earth. DNA codes for protein. Glycine is uncharged and glutamate is charged. Light has characteristics of both particles and waves. Our understanding changes and develops, but many things have been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. Relativism is false.
The animosity does not come from the belief (most people believe in God), the animosity comes from a specific anti-science agenda driven by those who wish their version of religious belief to be taught as fact and the science that disagrees with it discredited and ignored. That agenda is part of a larger campaign among some of the religious zealots to control what we can watch and enjoy, who we can have sex with, and what we can do with our bodies.
opcorn:
