Pragmatic Spiritualist Places His Rook on The Board

The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Pragmatic Spiritualist Places His Rook on The Board

     After having watched the RRS / Cameron - Comfort debate on You Tube, I came to the realisation that this may be the best place to bounce ideas around, and engage in some rational, good-natured debate on several key topics that pertain to Creationism v. Evolution, Theism v. Atheism and such.

 

     Please allow me to provide a bit of background on myself; I was raised in the Christian faith from childhood, having bounced around between the Mennonite, Assemblies of God, Southern Baptist and Lutheran denominations. Since arriving at adulthood, I have begun to question certain gaping holes in the Creation story, including the existence of dinosaurs, the oft-quoted 6k-year age of the earth, Cain's wife...all valid questions that seem to have several various answers, depending on the denomination and religious bent of who is providing those answers.

 

     There MUST be answers. These things (dinosaurs, the K-Pg soil boundary, the Chixulub crater, radio-carbon dating, etc.) exist, so they must have come from somewhere, somehow. Given what I know now (I am familiar with the Laws of Thermodynamics and their implications, the Big Bang and Inflation theories, Steady-State v. Expanding Universe, Micro and Macro Evolution, Intelligent Design etc.), I'm doing my best to marry what I grew up learning, with the proofs that scientific method has bequeathed to us as a species.

 

     Yes, I do personally have faith that there is a God. Can I prove it? No. I honestly think that's where Cameron - Comfort went wrong; assuming that by attempting to re-define "science", they could make their new definition lend itself to their attempt to prove God's existence...all the while knowing that "reason" is inherently subjective. As for me, I will hold to my faith, but not to the extent that I would ignore things that can be proven to exist, such as Skara Brae, Newgrange and the "Red Lady of Paviland."

 

     It is my sincerest hope and fondest wish, that I can strike up some constructive discussion in this forum...if you'll welcome me.

 

Gratis!

J. Patrick Morgan,

The Cybersattva

http://cybersattva.wordpress.com

 

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The_Cybersattva

The_Cybersattva wrote:

     After having watched the RRS / Cameron - Comfort debate on You Tube, I came to the realisation that this may be the best place to bounce ideas around, and engage in some rational, good-natured debate on several key topics that pertain to Creationism v. Evolution, Theism v. Atheism and such.

Brilliant!


Quote:
 Yes, I do personally have faith that there is a God. Can I prove it?

What other things do you believe in with faith and no proof?

 

Quote:
No. I honestly think that's where Cameron - Comfort went wrong; assuming that by attempting to re-define "science", they could make their new definition lend itself to their attempt to prove God's existence...all the while knowing that "reason" is inherently subjective.

I agree with you that trying to prove God scientifically is a failing proposition, it's why I agreed to the challenge of responding to their claims.  With that said, I see no reason to believe unless it can be proven.  And to say reason is subjective is to ignore the fact that some reason is more objective than others.  Those who choose to believe things with no proof are using less reason than me, and that's not subjective.

 

Quote:
It is my sincerest hope and fondest wish, that I can strike up some constructive discussion in this forum...if you'll welcome me.

Welcome aboard.  I think you'll do fine here, you're desire to attain answers will continue to lead you away from God, if you're honest with yourself that is.

You can edit your signature to link to your blog if you'd like.  

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
this is an expert

I am a dilettante - that is, I am interested in and I read about evolution and anthropology and archaeology.  Even as a very young child attending a Methodist church, I always found the stories in the bible to be entertaining - I never believed they were factual.  But this guy may be the expert you are looking for -

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

 

Always remember, the bible was written about 900 BCE by people who were pastoralists and early agriculturalists - they didn't know about the single cell blue green algae in the pond that caused their stock to die, they had no way of conceiving of a million years let alone ~4.5 billion years, and if you tried to explain genetics, they would have been lost in the first few words.  Of course the bible is not factual.  Give the authors a break, they were first and foremost bronze/iron age goat herders.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Welcome.

 

 

 

            All are welcome here, since you mentioned young earthers try this video and tell me if the guy with the $200 hair style sounds familier,  I'm the gorgous one in the middle.

 

 

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFLmcDSlrqc  

 

 

                               

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
RE: Rook On The Board

Sapient wrote:

What other things do you believe in with faith and no proof?

Well, let me bounce this off the wall, and see where it lands; my wife of 25 years posited this earlier..."Do you have faith that I love you?" to which I answered (of course I answered accordingly, spare the rolling pin and spoil the cranium!) "Of course I do!"

Do I have proof that she loves me? If proof can be qualified by actions and words, then sure. Other than that, it's what I refer to as an "intangible". Love cannot be seen, touched, heard, tasted or scented. It's an emotion.

Within this same marital situation, she has faith in my fidelity. (Now there's a proposition that can sometimes be sticky!) Does she have proof of my fidelity? No. Only my word, and the fact that I'm hardly ever away from home. Of course there are indicators of that fidelity, but can they be qualified and called "proof"?

There it is, thought-candy to be consumed, parsed, and analyzed.

Sapient wrote:

I agree with you that trying to prove God scientifically is a failing proposition, it's why I agreed to the challenge of responding to their claims.  With that said, I see no reason to believe unless it can be proven.  And to say reason is subjective is to ignore the fact that some reason is more objective than others.  Those who choose to believe things with no proof are using less reason than me, and that's not subjective.

Good point! 

Sapient wrote:

Welcome aboard.  I think you'll do fine here, you're desire to attain answers will continue to lead you away from God, if you're honest with yourself that is.

Or, there's also the possibility that it could reinforce my faith!

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

(Sir Francis Bacon)

 

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.


The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
RE: Welcome

Nice hair!!

 

Yeah, I'm watching that right now. Luckily, I've moved my home office into the back bedroom, so I've gained a 42" third monitor (my wife's Sharp Aquos!) to view stuff like this on!

 

"No older than 10k years," huh? This oughtta be GOOD!

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
The_Cybersattva

The_Cybersattva wrote:

      

     It is my sincerest hope and fondest wish, that I can strike up some constructive discussion in this forum...if you'll welcome me.

 

 

    Welcome to the forum.  This is the Kill 'em with Kindness section, so anyone atheist or theist, that starts flinging insults or gets out of line will be removed from the thread.

However. I would like to point out, that even OUTSIDE, the Kill'em with Kindness section, most people get respect if they give respect ( just like real life).

I can safely say that the only people that I have ever seen have a problem here are the ones that start hurling insults and get extremely angry when people may hurl some back.

 I used to be very ultra-religious before a whole series of events (both intellectual and personal) lead me to no longer believe in god.

Feel free to post, chime in on ongoing discussions, or whatever else that suits you.

You may leave here an Atheist Smiling Just kidding.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
RE: Harleysportster

Actually, I find myself on the same side of several issues these days, as the Atheist community! For instance, I've been quite active in the past year maintaining a blog, and have written a number of articles pertaining to Marriage Equality. As you can imagine, I've bumped up against varying levels of opposition from the religious community on this one. In short, it's been a challenge, but I'm in it for the long-haul. (I personally am heterosexual, but have many friends and acquaintances in the LGBT community.)

Trust me, I'm all about keeping it civil. When presented with an impasse, I pursue the "agree to disagree, agreeably" doctrine.

 

No matter when or how I leave here, my true aim is to leave here far more informed...and knowledge is power!

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
If someone marries you,

If someone marries you, insists that she loves you and behaves as if she does while you see no evidence to the contrary then what more in the way of proof could you want? Not only is that proof but it's the only kind of proof there is.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
RE: Contemporary Issues EP45

Jeffrick,

 

     Right from the git-go, you had Pastor Rogge's number. As a matter of fact, I was watching your body language as well, and at about 5:00, as Rogge was going through his (extremely ill-informed) explanation of population growth, you rolled your eyes. Thirty seconds later, you folded your arms. Having closed yourself off in this way, it was pretty apparent what you were thinking; "codswallop!" (I wholeheartedly felt your pain while watching this.)

     You were right. He wasn't taking into account the sum of the "human condition" throughout history. As further examples you might have brought up, Y. pestis leaps to mind. Plague has swept across Asia and Europe a few times during the last few millennium CE. Justinian's Plague in 542, and the Black Plague in the 1300's. Estimates suggest that the Black Plague alone wiped out an entire third of the European population.

     In addition, he didn't account for the vast amount of deaths brought on by countless wars. Wars kill, I can personally attest to that as a former soldier. (And no, I wouldn't know if there are "no Atheists in foxholes," because I never asked! LOL!)

     I'm surprised you didn't bring up radiocarbon dating as a means of measuring the age of fossils! The science and processes, as far as I have read at least, are solid.

     Overall, it looked to me like Rogge was out of his depth.

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The_Cybersattva wrote:Well,

The_Cybersattva wrote:

Well, let me bounce this off the wall, and see where it lands; my wife of 25 years posited this earlier..."Do you have faith that I love you?" to which I answered (of course I answered accordingly, spare the rolling pin and spoil the cranium!) "Of course I do!"

Do I have proof that she loves me? If proof can be qualified by actions and words, then sure. Other than that, it's what I refer to as an "intangible". Love cannot be seen, touched, heard, tasted or scented. It's an emotion.

Within this same marital situation, she has faith in my fidelity. (Now there's a proposition that can sometimes be sticky!) Does she have proof of my fidelity? No. Only my word, and the fact that I'm hardly ever away from home. Of course there are indicators of that fidelity, but can they be qualified and called "proof"?

There it is, thought-candy to be consumed, parsed, and analyzed.

Well you've said everything you needed to say and most of what I need to say.  I like how you have thought it out.  

Those indicators, like actions and words are your proof.  What actions and words do you have that we conclusively can agree are those of God?  Your actions every day prove to your wife that you are worthy of her trust that you will not cheat on her.  She doesn't have faith in your fidelity with the same standard of proof that you have faith in god.  She has a reasonable expectation of your fidelity based on experience.  

Can you name a person, place, or thing you believe in without proof of it's existence? (other than God)

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
RE:The_Cybersattva Wrote...

Sapient wrote:
  

Can you name a person, place, or thing you believe in without proof of it's existence? (other than God)

Can it be a concept or theory? I believe in the Big Bang and Inflation (as posited by Alan Guth of MIT), because everything that's been observed up to this point indicates that it's true. There's no solid "proof" per se that it happened that way, but it just makes sense to me. Being as any scientific effort in these areas is "best guess", I'll take that action on a bit of faith.

One of the indicators that I have that there must be a God is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the "Law of Entropy." This law indicates that in a closed system (our universe), entropy increases over time. At the beginning of the universe (according to the Big Bang theory, there was a beginning), everything was bound together. The four basic forces were all together. Gravity splits off, the whole thing starts expanding. As it expands, we should be moving towards more disorder, if law two holds true. Instead, we somehow get ordered life on this coalesced ball of various heavy and light elements. In short, order cannot come from chaos, unless there is an influence from outside of the closed system.

I may be all wet, there's always that possibility.

In the meantime, here's something to check out. Think you'll love it!

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: There MUST be

Quote:
There MUST be answers.

Would Allah fit in as an "answer"?

Would Vishnu fit in as an "answer"?

Would Yahweh fit in as "answer"?

 

Or would the following fit in as an answer?

Humans have always made up god/s/supernatural/superstitions.

Out of all those claims, which one do you think has the least baggage and is most consistent with reality?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:One of the indicators

Quote:
One of the indicators that I have that there must be a God is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the "Law of Entropy."

Do you honestly think this is the first time we have seen this argument? I've been on line on various websites since 01. I meet Brian Sapient, prior to him making this website, and many of the science geeks like Bob Spence have been on much longer.

 

Now a simple thought exorcise.  Ask yourself if you would buy this same argument if someone was trying to sell you Allah, or Vishnu. I think you know the answer.

Scientists are working on the question of finite vs infinite. What is not needed to fill  in the gap is a magical inventor, either way. Otherwise we could make up an infinite number of fictional magic men in as an explination, which humans in total futility always have, just like you are here now.

If you can accept that a hurricane does not need an ocean god named Posiden to happen, what makes you think the universe needs a magic man?

The universe is a product of motion and conditions and processes, just like a hurricane doesn't need a god to happen.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
The_Cybersattva wrote:One of

The_Cybersattva wrote:

One of the indicators that I have that there must be a God is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the "Law of Entropy." This law indicates that in a closed system (our universe), entropy increases over time. At the beginning of the universe (according to the Big Bang theory, there was a beginning), everything was bound together. The four basic forces were all together. Gravity splits off, the whole thing starts expanding. As it expands, we should be moving towards more disorder, if law two holds true. Instead, we somehow get ordered life on this coalesced ball of various heavy and light elements. In short, order cannot come from chaos, unless there is an influence from outside of the closed system.

 

However .....http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-second-law

 

  "A common argument against biological evolution is that the theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.  The second law says that disorder, or entropy, always increases or stays the same over time.  How then can evolution produce more complex life forms over time?  The answer is that the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy.  Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply.

A common argument against evolution is that the theory contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics that claims disorder, or entropy, always increases or stays the same over time.  This law has plenty of everyday examples. Buildings break down over time, and food spoils if not eaten soon enough.  In both cases, the amount of disorder increases with time, but the opposite is never true. Buildings don’t strengthen themselves, and no amount of waiting will cause rotten food become edible again.  But because evolution results in an increase in the order and complexity of species — which is a decrease in entropy — some critics claim evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Defining the System

However, this objection is grounded in a misunderstanding of the second law, which states any isolated system will increase its total entropy over time.  An isolated system is defined as one without any outside energy input. Because the universe is an isolated system, the total disorder of the universe is always increasing.

With biological evolution however, the system being considered is not the universe, but the Earth. And the Earth is not an isolated system.  This means that an increase in order can occur on Earth as long as there is an energy input — most notably the light of the sun. Therefore, energy input from the sun could give rise to the increase in order on Earth including complex molecules and organisms.  At the same time, the sun becomes increasingly disordered as it emits energy to the Earth. Even though order may be increasing on Earth, the total order of the solar system and universe is still decreasing, and the second law is not violated.


Misapplication of The Second Law

To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies.  Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler.

A living organism is not so much a unified whole as it is a collection of subsystems. In the development of life, for example, a major leap occurred when cells mutated in such a way that they clumped together so that multicellular life was possible.  A simple mutation allowing one cell to stick to other cells enabled a larger and more complex life form.  However, such a transformation does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than superglue violates the law when it sticks your fingers to the kitchen counter.

There are many examples of order arising from disorder in nature. Research conducted by Ilya Prigogine1 and others on systems far from equilibrium has shown that order can spontaneously arise in systems that are driven in the right way. It turns out that living systems are characterized as being far from equilibrium.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics also has interesting implications for cosmology, as it requires that universe began in a highly ordered state. "

Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos: Man's new dialogue with nature (New York: Bantam Books, 1984); Ilya Prigogine, End of Certainty (New York: The Free Press, 1997); Stuart Kaufman, At Home in the Universe (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1995); and Christian De Duve, Vital Dust: Life as Cosmic Imperative (New York: Basic Books, 1995.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
welcome to the forum I hope

welcome to the forum SmilingI hope you stick around.

 


The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Do you

Brian37 wrote:

Do you honestly think this is the first time we have seen this argument? I've been on line on various websites since 01. I meet Brian Sapient, prior to him making this website, and many of the science geeks like Bob Spence have been on much longer.

Never said or assumed it was, Brian37. I just posited that as merely one of the reasons that I tend to believe in a deity...

Brian37 wrote:

Now a simple thought exorcise.  Ask yourself if you would buy this same argument if someone was trying to sell you Allah, or Vishnu. I think you know the answer.

Of course I know the answer, because I'm comfortable enough in my own skin and with my own rationale to have already answered that with....yes. There's more than one road between here and WalMart. If some wish to refer to that outside influence as "Allah" or "Vishnu", then so be it. What matters is that they live their lives honestly, and for the betterment of all of their fellow life travellers.

No, I'm not going to toss "Pascal's Wager" into the slicer-dicer here, most have already parsed and responded to it.

Before I continue, I have to apologise for the pile-up that's happened in the past 24 hours. All day yesterday, I couldn't log in or even bring up the site. Seems there was a problem with one of the gateways or a DNS somewhere close to that end, I kept getting a 502 error. But I digress...

Brian37 wrote:

If you can accept that a hurricane does not need an ocean god named Posiden to happen, what makes you think the universe needs a magic man?

The universe is a product of motion and conditions and processes, just like a hurricane doesn't need a god to happen.

As for the hurricane, I know enough to know that it's caused by differing pressure systems, salinity of ocean currents and other factors. Poseidon? Nah.

As for the universe, no one can explain what drove the Big Bang. No one can explain what caused gravitation to split off from the uni-force, or what caused the sudden, FTL expansion of Georges Lemaitre's "primordial atom." (I know, the word "yet" seems a more than apropos response there, so I'll go ahead and acknowledge it now.)

Sorry if it seems like I'm reiterating a bit of the same ideas and material that are already present in the "genuine non-yelling kind and good..." thread, I just noticed the content there day before yesterday. (Last time I was able to log in and do some reading.) At this point, I'm thinking I might want to check out the discussion there for all applicable replies...

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.


The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
RE: Thermodynamics

Okay, now THAT was a read! (No, it wasn't quite TLDR, so I'm good!) I'm going to have to dig a bit deeper into the difference between the micro (Earth) and macro (universe) application of the "closed system" principle, but it does make sense on the face of it.

Please understand that I'm not denying that evolution occurred, or that it occurs to this very day. Far from it, that whole "kind only begets kind" argument from the religious right is wasted on me, it's just as far-fetched as the one about how dinosaurs roamed the earth with Adamic man, and died in the flood. (Oh? But I thought you said Noah was an obedient man!? Didn't God account for the size of T. rex when he gave those dimensions to Noah, or did Lowe's run out of gopher wood? zzzzt! Wrong answer, thank you for playing "Where's the Raptor." NEXT on SportsCenter....)

 

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
The_Cybersattva wrote:Okay,

The_Cybersattva wrote:

Okay, now THAT was a read! (No, it wasn't quite TLDR, so I'm good!) I'm going to have to dig a bit deeper into the difference between the micro (Earth) and macro (universe) application of the "closed system" principle, but it does make sense on the face of it.

Please understand that I'm not denying that evolution occurred, or that it occurs to this very day. Far from it, that whole "kind only begets kind" argument from the religious right is wasted on me, it's just as far-fetched as the one about how dinosaurs roamed the earth with Adamic man, and died in the flood. (Oh? But I thought you said Noah was an obedient man!? Didn't God account for the size of T. rex when he gave those dimensions to Noah, or did Lowe's run out of gopher wood? zzzzt! Wrong answer, thank you for playing "Where's the Raptor." NEXT on SportsCenter....)

 

   Ok, so perhaps my posting was invalid, since you accept evolution as a reality. So let's touch on a different aspect with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where did the order of the universe come from? It could have been produced spontaneously by natural processes of a type that are now beginning to be understood in physics. One such process is called "spontaneous symmetry breaking." It's like the formation of a snowflake. An expanding universe allows increasing room for order to form. The universe could have started as a tiny black hole with maximum entropy, produced by a quantum fluctuation, and then exploded in the big bang. The laws of nature are misnamed. They are not necessarily rules that govern the universe, that sit out there in some kind of Platonic reality. They could just as well simply be human inventions, descriptions we have made of observations. We can make up different laws if we want, but they are not scientific unless they agree with observations. The laws of physics can be written in many different ways, but they agree so well with the data that we are confident they describe aspects of reality.



 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
RE: Thermodynamics, Physics...and Some Codswallop

Rest assured, I'm taking some time and doing my due diligence in researching and correlating the scientific facts and theories. (I still maintain that science and faith don't have to be at odds. Science and religion however, have done so for the last few millennia!

I just picked an argument over at "Get Christian Answers" regarding their explanations of the earth's age and where dinosaurs went. Their reply, if they have the stones to reply, oughtta be good!

In the meantime, here's some interesting reading, I file this under "comedy"....
http://www.getchristiananswers.com/articles/what-does-bible-say-about-dinosaurs

 

 

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
The_Cybersattva wrote:Rest

The_Cybersattva wrote:

Rest assured, I'm taking some time and doing my due diligence in researching and correlating the scientific facts and theories. (I still maintain that science and faith don't have to be at odds. Science and religion however, have done so for the last few millennia! ... ... ...

I don't see science opposed to religion. Science --mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics etc. etc. --  is what it is.   If anything, historically speaking, some science was an attempt to validate religion.  The inability to do so caused the "dogmatically religious" to shun science or manipulate scientific findings to conform to  beliefs. 

 

 

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
RE: Rest...

peto verum wrote:

I don't see science opposed to religion. Science --mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics etc. etc. --  is what it is.   If anything, historically speaking, some science was an attempt to validate religion.  The inability to do so caused the "dogmatically religious" to shun science or manipulate scientific findings to conform to  beliefs.

Well that may very well be, but I sure see religion not only opposed to science, but at times either ignorant or dismissive of it as well! (Just like some can be dismissive of things like the separation of church and state. You show them it's there, show them the proofs, and they do the "fingers in the ears, "LALALALALALA"" thing. I just don't get that, and I'm vehemently opposed to it when it conflicts with people's right to equal protections under the law.)

Okay, I got off on a tangent there, but it's an applicable one. That's one of the reasons that I appreciate Brian Sapient and crew's Rational Response Squad, because they're committed to the idea that justice Souter voiced in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994); "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." They're committed to that necessary "wall of separation."

 

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Fundamentally, both religion

Fundamentally, both religion and science are attempts at explaining nature and everything we see/experience.  Unfortunately, they are exclusive in process and incommensurable in theories.  

Modern science, is a systematic way of quantifying realistic probability.  Religion is an ideology that has no need for such pragmatic pursuits.

They are not necessarily at odds with each other.  Science doesn't care about religion, except to perhaps study the chemistry behind irrational beliefs.  Religion, on the other hand, cannot honestly adopt science with its falsifiability, as part of its paradigm.  It must attempt to discredit science, or a the very least create "false" facts in order to appear compatible.  Hence all the creationist's drawings of people chilling with dinosaurs, or discrediting of carbon dating, evolution and other creationist claims.  

If anyone finds them complementary, they are either mistaken, or fail to comprehend either. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13686
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:They are not

Quote:
They are not necessarily at odds with each other.

To some, but as you said science is systematic. When you talk about either the theist or atheist saying "I don't care" that is a personal issue. Method itself IS at odds with religion and all super natural superstitious claims.Trying to replace method is in affect trying to measure the gravity of earth with pink unicorns.

Scientific method will always be at odds with ANY naked assertion. It has to be if ethically looking beyond one's own personal desires.

You are talking about the outside issue of our individual ability, both as theists and atheists as having the ability to protect a sense of fairness. In that sense we allow each other as individuals our personal whims. But when anyone steps into a lab, if they cant park their personal desires at the door, they have no business in the lab.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The_Cybersattva
Theist
The_Cybersattva's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:But when

Brian37 wrote:

But when anyone steps into a lab, if they cant park their personal desires at the door, they have no business in the lab.

If only there was a "like" button on RRS!

The Cybersattva
http://cybersattva.wordpress.com
____________________
This post is composed of recycled electrons,
stolen during the East Coast Blackout of 2003.