All, this is an excerpt from a conversation I have been having on an online forum, it gets quite interesting... - Mike
From: DAMMITDEWD Nov-3 10:28 am To: Muzza (MUZZA4) 302 of 345 377.302 in reply to 377.296
Good morning, MUZZA; Sorry to take so long getting back, I've been busy having fun with cows.
>> No scheme, we're here by chance<<
Of all your philosophies which you say "aren't clever," I like this one best but I'm afraid it is indeed clever and darn near equal to your "were just people" for understatement. In my opinion, you couldn't possibly be more right (if you're talking individually.) Collectively though, (as a species) I'm not so certain even though it should be casual to the most obvious observer that God does not exist in the classic sense, i.e., an emotional, human-like micro manager of the universe and guardian, as well as personal savior, to those who please him etc.
Another of the seemingly unimportant tidbits of useless information which, after a while, tend to snowball into 'knowing" is the mind numbing odds against a given individual ever seeing the light of day, (in spite of the fact that Christians, et al, believe they were individually planned) Muzza, to me, the chances of you or me, or any given individual, ever being born are unfathomable and the complexities of conception are staggering to contemplate.
As I'm quite sure you know, in the first few critical hours after two passionate lovers have "made out," "got lucky," "got laid" "copulated" or however you want to say it, an indescribable race takes place inside the female. An unbelievably difficult race for life which, in degree of difficulty, has been compared to a man swimming three miles up a river of molasses.
The start line of the race is just inside the vagina where a mass of sperm is initially held captive in a mucous trap, more than enough spermatozoa to sire the entire population of north, south and central America and depending on the health of the male, can be enough to sire the entire world's population. After a couple of hours, almost as if a start gun goes off, the mucous trap annihilates and the winner-take-all race is on. Hundreds of millions, sometimes billions of potential men and women are released simultaneously to begin the frenzied race for a single prize. There is no second or third place, within a matter of hours, all the others must die.
In the scrambling mass of diminutive humanity, there are Kubila Khans and Joans of Arc and George Washingtons and Helen Kellers, Jacks the ripper and Adolph Hitlers and in that teeming mass, fighting desperately for his right to live, there is someone damn close to being you and me and at one time, IT WAS YOU AND ME.
(It's okay if you don't choose look at it this way but I'm sure you get the point.) The entire human genome is represented in the mother of all races (it's only a matter of gene expression) and here's the impossible thing about it all. The odds against a given individual being born is only, (round it off to a mere five hundred million or so,) to one. Pretty difficult odds to overcome but at least doable. However, the odds against our mothers and fathers were equally as great so, at this link in the chain, our chances are only one in five hundred million factorial, a number already damn near infinite and we haven't even begun. Carry these impossible odds back to our grandparents and great grandparents, and really, all the way back across the millions of years in the evolution of the hairless ape and the odds are so great that it couldn't even have happened.
IF THE OUTCOME OF A SINGLE ONE OF THE MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF RACES HAD BEEN DIFFERENT, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TO ARGUE THE POINT.
Yes and yes and yes, a billion times yes, we are here by the chance, individually speaking, the chance of all time. Obviously the impossible happened and individually, we represent the best of the best of the best, we are winners by God and by damned but are we really "just people?" Is there any wonder that we love ourselves or that Vidy is good at art and probably many other things. DAMMITDEWD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MATUS1976 Nov-3 11:16 am To: DAMMITDEWD 303 of 345 377.303 in reply to 377.302
You are applying chances after the fact. What is the chance that particular photon wiggled its way to the surface of the sun after 10,000 years of struggling, shot out into space and happen to be going exacly where the earth would be eight minutes from then, not only that, but penetrate the vast maze of air molecules swimming and bouncing like billions of billiard balls to hit that ONE particular atom on that ONE particular snowflake (not any of the trillions of other) and hit that ONE particular electron at the exact right time jump the electron up another energy level, and have that electrons energy level at just the right time to emit an identical photon directly toward where YOU will be in five minutes in an airplance passing 10,000 feet overheard through another endless sea of billions and billions of air molecules all in motion, Hit that particular spot on the airplane where there is a window, not get reflected in the front of the window, in the middle of it, or at the rear surface, not get absorbed in the impurities in the glass, not get blocked by the air between the glass and you, not get reflected or absorbed by your cornea, travel through your vitrous humor and not get absorbed, travel through your improperly wired retinas, hit that particualr ROD just AFTER its protein sensing mechanism unfolded after recoiling a hit from a previous photon, folding it the opposite direction, fitting that proton in a key hole, causing a cascading series of chemical reactions which eventually lead to a polarity reversal traveling down the legnth of you nerve to your brain and being percieved as a blink of light. The odd against that must be trillions and trillions against. But it happens, and it happens ALL THE TIME. Odds schmods.
"In the scrambling mass of diminutive humanity, there are Kubila Khans and Joans of Arc and George Washingtons and Helen Kellers, Jacks the ripper and Adolph Hitlers and in that teeming mass, fighting desperately for his right to live, there is someone damn close to being you and me and at one time, IT WAS YOU AND ME."
Actually I feel that what makes me is not merely my genetic code, but the vast collection of experiences and thoughts and memories and choices that I have had and made. This is the foundation of the person that I am today, not my genetic code. Although genes do influence behavior to an extent, it is likely a very limited extent in regards to your personilty.
Regards
Matus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MATUS1976 Nov-14 8:57 am To: DAMMITDEWD 313 of 345 377.313 in reply to 377.305 Hey! way to go MAT.
>> odds smods<<
" Maybe you really should've said that something other than your genetic code made you a very odd smod?"
Did I say that? is that what you call an intelligent response? You cited the amazing improbability of YOU existing as some odd suggestion that something supernatural is at work. That is an ignorant assumption, and I was pointing out why shouting 'what are the odds of that' after flipping 10 coins and getting 6 heads and 4 tails is meaningless and certainly not significant in any way shape or form. ANY particular sequence that is specified after the fact is just as likely. For any specified arrangement in flipping coins there is a 2^(number of coins flipped) chance in that particular arrangement occuring.
Matus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
From: DAMMITDEWD Nov-15 10:42 am To: MATUS1976 315 of 345 377.315 in reply to 377.313
You've earned another at-a-boy for yourself Odd Smod. Obviously there's nothing miraculous about birth or life or death or anything else for that matter. It's all just plain old garden variety stuff. Right Mat?
DAMMITDEWD;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
From: MATUS1976 Nov-15 10:48 am To: DAMMITDEWD 316 of 345 377.316 in reply to 377.315
"Obviously there's nothing miraculous about birth or life or death or anything else for that matter. It's all just plain old garden variety stuff. Right Mat? "
Mind telling me how you draw that conclusion? Another intelligent response Dewd. Do you know anything about logical debate?
DEWD - "What are the chances of me being right her right now doing this"
Matus - "Well, you have to be somewhere right then doing something"
DEWD - "So there is nothing special about birth or life?"
HELLO? You pulled that one right out of your @#!$. Ever hear of logical conclusions? I dont think so.
In fact I think life is a wonderfull and absolutely amazing thing, something that is very precious indeed. And I also realize that this is the only one I have, and I better do with it what I can. Just because someone has to win the lotto doens mean I cant be happy for the person who did win it.
Matus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
From: DAMMITDEWD Nov-16 11:36 am To: MATUS1976 317 of 345 377.317 in reply to 377.316
Hello again Mat. I haven't decided how I should go about "handling" you. Being fully cognizant of the fact that, with a little flattery, I could swing your adversarial feelings full circle, my dilemma is whether I want to do so. It all hinges on whether you're worth the trouble. On the surface, it seems that you're not but then again, just take a look a Muzzy, what a pleasant surprise.
There's a cold north wind outside and I have nothing better to do inside so I'll indulge myself with a little silliness. You see Mat, the problem lies in the fact that you and I are afflicted with a very human disease which is almost impossible to self diagnose, personal objectivity being so illusive. The human disease that I refer to is characterized by the textbook syndrome of not knowing that we don't know while fully believing that we do. IF THE UNQUALIFIED HAVE A COMMON TRAIT, IT IS THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE UNQUALIFIED. You don't know it. I don't know it. He, she, it doesn't know it. Please let me show you what I mean and please bear with me. (This is likely to require more than a single posting)
Your statement; "ANY particular sequence that is specified after the fact is just as likely. For any specified arrangement in flipping coins there is a 2^ (number of coins flipped) chance a particular arrangement occurring," May I assume that you intended to say that the number of coins flipped, multiplied by two, (heads or tails) "is the chance of a particular arrangement occurring? Sounds good to me and if this is what you intended to say, please advise me.
DAMMITDEWD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
From: MATUS1976 Nov-16 3:32 pm To: DAMMITDEWD 319 of 345 377.319 in reply to 377.317
"Being fully cognizant of the fact that, with a little flattery, I could swing your adversarial feelings full circle, my dilemma is whether I want to do so."
I seriously doubt that Dewd. But I invite you to give it your best shot. Ya never know.
"The human disease that I refer to is characterized by the textbook syndrome of not knowing that we don't know while fully believing that we do. IF THE UNQUALIFIED HAVE A COMMON TRAIT, IT IS THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE UNQUALIFIED. You don't know it. I don't know it. He, she, it doesn't know it."
I dont fully believe anything that I dont have sufficient evidence to believe, always keeping in mind that I am the person most likely to be fooled by myself. Prove to me something beyond a reasonable doubt, and you got it. So I wonder what your intent is then, to prove to me that god exists? I suggest starting a thread and we may a stimulating conversation...
"ANY particular sequence that is specified after the fact is just as likely. For any specified arrangement in flipping coins there is a 2^ (number of coins flipped) chance a particular arrangement occurring," May I assume that you intended to say that the number of coins flipped, multiplied by two, (heads or tails) "is the chance of a particular arrangement occurring? Sounds good to me and if this is what you intended to say, please advise me. "
No, actually, as far as coins go, it goes like this. If you are predicting the sequence HTHTHTHTHT (H for heads T for Tails) it is the likely hood of any one coin multiplied by the number of coins. so if one coin is a 1/2 chance, then 10 coins in a pre-established order would be 1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2 or 1 / 2^10 (^ denotes an exponent) or 1 over 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2 which equals 1 in 1,024. Keep in mind this is predicting the exact sequence of HTHTHTHTHT not just 5 heads and 5 tails, as there are numerous combinations that would turn out to make half heads half tails. Which is why the more you flip a coin the closer it gets to thata 50/50 ratio, even though no particular flip effects any other flip.
Matus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DAMMITDEWD Nov-17 9:08 am To: MATUS1976 320 of 345 377.320 in reply to 377.319
Congratulations Odd Schmod, you've earned another at-a-boy but at least you made my point. You'll deny it of course but then that's just part of the syndrome. Don't feel that you're sick and all alone, we're all right here with you. You don't know what you're talking about and you truly believe that you do. I don't know why I bother. You're obviously not another Muzza but since I have nothing else to do (if you'll let me) I'll continue showing you what I mean.
I'll take your self serving, "Mind telling me . . ." comment as a good example.. You're silly little statement, " . . .It happens all the time, odds schmods" was what led me to your simplistic philosophy. But then you knew that already didn't you. You imagined that your deliberate, self serving misrepresentation of the debate would make you "look" better but it doesn't Schmod, it merely confirms what I already knew about you. (Go back and read your bullshit on the photon) You're mind is a f'ing nightmare.
For your treatise on the coin flip, which incidentally has nothing to do with anything that I said or even suggested, you deserve another odd schmod at-a-boy. I quote, "No, actually, as far as coins go, it goes like this. If you are predicting the sequence HTHTHTHTHT (H for heads T for tails) it is the likely hood (why not one word) of anyone coin multiplied by the number of coins. . . . for ten coins . . . . . .equals 1 in 1,024.
Well, odd schmod, if it makes you any difference, you're wrong as usual. For ten coins, the odds of a given sequence of H & T is 1 in 513, not 1 in 1,024 as you said. Of course the error is easily explained away, just as all human errors are but even with eleven coins the chances are 1 in 1,025. You'll disagree of course. I think I'd be dissapointed if you didn't. The 513th and 1025th possibility is the chance that all 10 or 11 coins could be heads or tails.
Show me how smart you really are Odd schmod, open your silly fucking mind.
DAMMITDEWD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
From: DAMMITDEWD Nov-17 10:52 pm To: MATUS1976 322 of 345 377.322 in reply to 377.319
Hey Odd schmodd, I am wrong peroid. And you are right peroid. The coin toss is exactly like you said it is. I guess I earned an odd schmod at-a-boy for myself if you see fit to present it. Perhaps I demonstrated the human syndrome very well. I thought I knew what I was talking about but I didn't.
Perhaps I'm wrong about other things too, like the seemingly impossibility that a given individual could've been predicted. To make up for the mistake I made, if you'll AGAIN explain to me why it isn't so amazing to you, I promise to not only enertain what you have to say, I'll try my best to believe every word of it and your next five postings as well. Please accept my apology. I'll not continue with the point I was going to make since my credibility is in now question.
DAMMITDEWD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------
From: MATUS1976 Nov-22 9:08 am To: DAMMITDEWD 323 of 345 377.323 in reply to 377.322
"like the seemingly impossibility that a given individual could've been predicted. To make up for the mistake I made, if you'll AGAIN explain to me why it isn't so amazing to you,"
I dont know what you mean by 'predicting an individual' I never suggested as much. It is not amazing that PARTICULAR combination occured, as some combination MUST occur. It is not amazing that particular sperm fertilized that particular egg, as chances are SOME sperm is going to do it. The results from that combination can be and indeed are amazing.
How about thread where you prove to me that god exists?
Matus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
From: DAMMITDEWD Nov-25 2:20 pm To: MATUS1976 324 of 345 377.324 in reply to 377.323
Hello Odd Schmodd; Thanks for the tolerance guy. (you could've rubbed it in) The fact that you didn't is testament to your largess. It's terribly lonely here in Wrongsville. My riddled body covered with ashes and draped in sack cloth, I search the deserted streets and byways for another soul who has been found wrong and admitted to it with no f'ing excuses. Far in the distance I see the bright skylights of Rightsville. Faintly the clamoring voices of the Yellow Breasted Rightbirds come to me. "I am Right!" "Forever right!" "Never wrong!" "I cannot be wrong!" "You're wrong!" "He is wrong!" "She is wrong!" "It is wrong" "Everybody is wrong except me!" TEL-A-LIE-IA'S shrill voice rises above all the rest. "I AM NOT WRONG" she screams to the heavens. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER! I WORK WITH PROFESSIONALS WHO HAVE TO THINK CRITICALLY EVERY DAY! YOU ARE MAD AT ME BECAUSE I DO NOT MAKE MISTAKES! I AM NEVER WRONG!"
To make up to you for the selfish mistake I made, I promised to try my best to understand your side of the debate and I further promised to entertain (and try to believe) your next five postings. I will do just that, regardless of how I may feel toward your position on the question of God.
It seems that you are saying that, of all the mired possibilities, something had to happen so it might as well be what did happen. Therefore a God is not required by way of explaining creation and that we simply find ourselves here, (wherever here is) intelligent and aware, for whatever reason except that the reason cannot not be the result of something that God might have done.
Does this paraphrase your position? If so, let me hurriedly say that it is equally as good as mine or any other, if only for the simple reason that the surest of all observations concerning the possible existence of God is that nobody knows a thing about him if he exists at all. It seems entirely reasonable to me that whatever God there may be should not have been called God because any clear eye can see that the God of the Christian, or any other known theism for that matter, cannot possibly exist even if it requires a fool to say so. There isn't a name for such an entity because the human has never needed a God who does not intervene in the normal course of human events and for human serving reasons.
I'm not at all sure that any intelligent assessment of the insoluble philosophical questions concerning God can be properly fomented in the rational public mind but something keeps gnawing at me personally and it has nothing to do with fear of death, loss of heaven or damnation to eternal hell fire. Several years after my mental maturity forced me to admit that there probably isn't a God, things started bothering me. While it is blatantly obvious that the human God doesn't exist, i.e., an angry, vindictive micro manager of the universe who punishes (or rewards) us humans for being bad or good, there seems to be a kind of order which could not be expected in a universe where the normal order is chaos.
Perhaps the most troubling thing is the unexplained presence, profound complexity and dogged tenacity of the wonderfully exotic carbon molecule of learning protoplasm that we call life. It is provable that the earth was once molten and should have been sterile. While it is possible that life is simply a part of the universe, much as rock and water, it certainly defies understanding in conventional terms.
Anyway Mat. Thanks again for your indulgence.
DAMMITDEWD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
From: MATUS1976 Nov-27 1:10 pm To: DAMMITDEWD 325 of 345 377.325 in reply to 377.324
"Therefore a God is not required by way of explaining creation and that we simply find ourselves here, (wherever here is) intelligent and aware, for whatever reason except that the reason cannot not be the result of something that God might have done. "
The key there is that 'God is not required' You can not prove that god had nothing to do with the universe, but you can prove that the universe did not require god to work. Science is parsimonious, it uses the simplest explanation for obsreved phenomena. If you start making up entities with no justification, then where do you stop (or start)? You could say that god created the universe, but then who created god? And the who created that being. Well, you could say that god created himself, but if you assume that god created himself, the it would be less of an assumption (1 less arbitrary entity) that the universe created itself. This is also referred to as occams razor.
Look at this example
Universe A people get sick people pray people still die people say 'god works in mysterious ways'
Universe B people get sick people die
These two universes are absolutely indistinguishalbe from one another. The universe where god exists can not be distinguished from the universe in which god does. Therefore, it is superflous to believe in god, irrational, untestable, illogical, and wholly human.
Matus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DAMMITDEWD Nov-29 11:05 am To: MATUS1976 331 of 345 377.331 in reply to 377.325
Mat; >> God is not required to explain creation . . . <<
I hear what you're saying. I've been there, I found nothing in that neighborhood to satiate my God questions but I did arrive at the same conclusion you did, i.e., there is no God/Gods or it really doesn't matter whether there is or not. And Mat, not only have I been there, I lived there for many years.
I call to you now from the far side of a wide chasm, so wide in fact that you'll probably not hear me. Please note that I haven't suggested that I'm ahead of you or that I'm some kind of philosophical avant-garde. I'm only saying that there's a big difference in our philosophies on the question of God/Gods and I think I've found a way to wrap that difference in a neat little package for your consideration. Before I do that however, I would make a pivotal point. Your 'sick people' universe falls into a category which lends itself to my suggestion that we humans write God's job description and then find that he doesn't exist because he isn't doing his Job.
My brainstorm idea for neatly packaging my God philosophy may sound strange at first. I'm not sure that it has ever been done before but I think it explains a lot.
I propose two sets of God/Gods, one of which should not be called God at all. The first God that I'll discuss is the God that we humans know. The angry one which must be appeased or there's hell to pay, the one that sanctions unthinkable evil, sponsoring the killing and maiming of thousands of men for being heretics and burning thousands upon thousands of women, in Europe and America, for being witches. Can you imagine such a death? I'm talking about the God Who set the sun back an hour to facilitate the slaughter of an entire "pagan" army. The God who caused the walls of Jericho to crumble, permitting Joshua and his "righteous" soldiers to kill every living thing in the city. Men, women, children, babies, cats, dogs, goats, cows, chickens, every living thing in the city was slaughtered in the name of this wonderful God that we humans know and worship. Lucifer couldn't hold the flashlight for this God's evil doings. I'm talking about the God who separated the dead sea to permit Moses and his followers to pass safely and then, because the (innocent via ignorance) children of Israel didn't know the right God to worship, instructed Moses to segregate the camp by their belief, and with night fall, slaughter his own people in their sleep. Wow, what a kick-ass God! What a holy, righteous, loving, savior of mankind and role model for our children!
But this same God delivers. If you get forgiveness for the sins you commit in your own life, plus forgiveness for the original sin, committed by Adam and Eve and passed down through the generations, you get to go to heaven when you die. What a human serving crock of bullshit. Well, Mat, you're right. Sure as anything, this God simply does not exist.
Now let's talk about the other God, the one that no one cares about, the one which would better not even be called God, the one for which we humans have no name and for which we've written no job description, the one that we humans know nothing about.
Obviously I've closed the rational door on this God. Since we know nothing about him, the discussion of him is over but I submit that this God is necessary to make sense of the unexplainable. This totally uncharacterized God is necessary to explain a creation, by evolution obviously, which is so hopelessly profound that we "intelligent" hairless apes can't begin to phantom it. For example Mat, if the trillions upon trillions of identical genetic molecules (DNA tapes) were removed from the cells of a single human body and placed end to end, they would stretch the round trip, one hundred and ninety two million miles to the sun and back again, and they would do it a million times over.
I can't get hold of such a thing rationally. Whoever, whatever this God is, certainly he is far beyond human comprehension but it doesn't piss him/it off if we don't believe he exists. We humans can't sin against this God. The sins that we do are against ourselves, it hurts us, the human race. God doesn't give a damn. It seems that he is saying, "hey human being! I didn't give you an inside track. You rate no higher than any of the other life forms. I gave you what I gave all the others, the ability to adapt. You chose cunning as a survival system, you ate from the tree of knowledge. So be it. You will survive as a species or you will die and I'll not so much as slow the wind to mark your passing.
DAMMITDEWD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
From: MATUS1976 Nov-29 3:04 pm To: DAMMITDEWD 332 of 345 377.332 in reply to 377.331
"I propose two sets of God/Gods, one of which should not be called God at all. The first God that I'll discuss is the God that we humans know. ...angry...sanctions unthinkable evil...facilitate the slaughter of an entire "pagan" army...kill every living thing in the city...etc. etc. ... Well, Mat, you're right. Sure as anything, this God simply does not exist. "
You are obviously referring to the christian god, and I completely agree.
"Now let's talk about the other God, the one that no one cares about, the one which would better not even be called God, the one for which we humans have no name and for which we've written no job description, the one that we humans know nothing about. "
"I submit that this God is necessary to make sense of the unexplainable. "
I must insist you do not confuse the 'unexplained' with the 'unexplainable' This is also referred to as 'the god of the gaps' that anything science does not have an explanation for is explained by god. But explaining things with 'because god wanted it that way' really doesnt give us any more information about a problem. You could explain ANYTHING with 'cause god wants it that way' like why someone is sick. Strangely though giving someone with a bacterial infection antibiotics to help heal them seems to work. Is that because 'god wants antiobiotics to kill bacteria' Does that really help us figure anything out about the world? Most practicing scientists consider science to be approaching the 'ultimate truth' or 'objective reality' asymptotically. Its just keeps getting closer and closer to the way things really work. But we will never know how close we are, or if we actually get there. All we do know is that more things we try work more accurately the more we try to understand them and the better we are at predicting the way things will interact.
"This totally uncharacterized God is necessary to explain a creation, by evolution obviously, which is so hopelessly profound that we "intelligent" hairless apes can't begin to phantom it."
That can easily and satisfactorily be explained by the simple interaction of molecules, the way that atoms and molecules behave. And the simple competition for resources and mutations.
" For example Mat, if the trillions upon trillions of identical genetic molecules (DNA tapes) were removed from the cells of a single human body and placed end to end, they would stretch the round trip, one hundred and ninety two million miles to the sun and back again, and they would do it a million times over. "
And a salt cube contains billions of billions of sodium and chlorine atoms arranged in a perfect crystalline structure. Does that mean that a 'god' arranged them like that. Or is that simply as a consequence of the way that atoms and molecules behave and interact according to a few fundamental laws.
"I can't get hold of such a thing rationally. "
Also known as 'argument from incredulity' or 'I dont understand how such and such could have happened naturally, therefore god must have done it' Just because you cant think of an explanation, or the smartest person in the world cant, or all of humanity as a whole can not, doesnt mean there is NO explanation.
I can personally attest from my studying of biology, physics, and evolution that I can intuitively, or pretty closely, understand exactly how every organism and particle came into being without supernatural influence, and see things all around me that confirm that. These things are immensely complex and difficult to understand, so it is easy to say 'god did it' but pick up any coolege level biology book and flip through the whole thing and you'll see that there are people out there who do understand this stuff without attributing to supernatural mechanisms.
Matus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
From: DAMMITDEWD Nov-30 11:08 am To: MATUS1976 334 of 345 377.334 in reply to 377.332
Mat, Odd schmodd; >> You are obviously referring to the Christian God . . . <<
No Mat, I'm referring to the God of the three major, one-God theists.
>> I must insist you do not confuse the unexplained with the unexplainable . . . <<
Hear this Odd one, whether you insist or not. I do not confuse the unexplainable with the unexplained. There is not, never has been and most likely never will be an explanation for biological life. It defies explanation. Your "God of the gaps" is bullshit. How you arrived at the conclusion, from what I said about God, that things are as they are (sic) "because God wanted it that way" blows my mind. You misread me. Furthermore, in one breath, you slip from " . . . how does this help us figure out anything about the world?" to " . . . that can easily be explained by the simple interaction of molecules . . ."
Hey Odd Schmodd, may I ask you, how do you reconcile things like this in your mind? Are you aware of any "simple interacting molecules" which are not self nullifying. Do you know of any "simple interacting molecules" that learn from experience, self replicates, repairs itself when its injured, adapts to changing environmental conditions, moves about autonomously, protects itself in a brutal world, provides for its own needs, wonders about and tries to appease its creator, feels emotion, reacts to sensory stimuli without making physical contact, relies on oxidation-reduction for its energy yet doesn't become part of the oxidation-reduction system, knows when its wet or hot or cold and goes under cover from the rain and weather, makes love in the clover or mud, gives up its own life for others, recognizes and chuckles at irony and humor, improves its living conditions (controls its immediate environment) trains its offspring, convinces itself and tries to convince others that there's no God for whatever reason, in short Mat, and I mean really short, lives and loves and laughs and cries and knows that it must die and yet must die anyway? Now really Odd Schmodd, "simple interacting molecules?" I think, BY GOD not. How simple can one man be? Open you f'ing mind. Life is greater than the sum of its molecular components.
I won't bother to ask how you associate a cube of salt with the unexplainable life molecule, the unexplained and unexplainable, wonderfully exotic and doggedly tenacious molecule of learning protoplasm that WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN came to be on a sterile planet. Your philosophy doesn't hold water. No one, no matter how odd he may be, has the right to remain ignorant this late in evolution, even if by his own choosing.
DAMMITDEWD;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MATUS1976 Nov-30 1:35 pm To: DAMMITDEWD unread
Mat, Odd schmodd; >> You are obviously referring to the Christian God . . . <<
No Mat, I'm referring to the God of the three major, one-God theists.
Of the three major one god theists? Are the only three? I think you meant 'three major one god religions' not 'theist' a theist is an individual who believes in god. 'Christianity' is not a 'theist' Regardless of what god you are reffering to exactly, it was directly apparent from you statement that the god that christianity believes in is identical to the one you describe. Whether Islam and Judaism are included I really dont care.
>> I must insist you do not confuse the unexplained with the unexplainable . . . <<
"Hear this Odd one, whether you insist or not. I do not confuse the unexplainable with the unexplained."
Yes you do...
"I submit that this God is necessary to make sense of the unexplainable. "
By saying this, you directly imply that there are indeed things that are 'unexplainable' and will always remain 'unexplained' hence the '-able' suffix. Scientists will agree there are things that are 'unexplained' right now (nuetron deficiency from the sun, carbon dioxide deficeiency in the atmosphere, etc. etc.) but they will not always remain unexplained. Just as lightning was once associated with the will of the gods, we now know it is made up of charge differentials between the cloud layers and the ground, or among seperate clouds. Things that at one point in time classified as 'unexplained' were often called 'unexplainable' by people like you who have no faith in human ingenuity, intelligence, and innovation. Your statement would have made more sense if you said 'I submit god is necessary to make sense of the unexplained' But if you had said it like that, the absurdity of it would have been made obvious. You want to believe that there will be things that will always remain 'unexplainable' and not just 'unexplained' so as to justify your belief in god. As humans, we may never know everything, but that does not mean that we already know all there is to know. You remind me of the head of the patent office in the US in 1890 who resigned because he believed that everything that could be invented had. Soon to follow was relativity, radiation, nuclear reactors, MRI's and X-rays. What, of the things that you now consider 'unexplainable' will forever remain 'unexplained' you do indeed confust 'unexplainable' with 'unexplained' because by stating something is 'unexplainable' that means you know with certainty that throughout the rest of future of the universe, no single being or groups of beings will ever understand it. Sorry Odd Schmod, didnt know you were omniscient, my bad...
" There is not, never has been and most likely never will be an explanation for biological life."
There, and has been, and always will be, your wrong.
"It defies explanation. Your "God of the gaps" is bullshit."
Sorry, but that's YOUR god, Mr. 'I dont understand it so it must be god' Excuse me sir, I didnt know that you were the summation of all knowledge and that since you didnt know or understand something no one will ever know it or understand it.
"How you arrived at the conclusion, from what I said about God, that things are as they are (sic) "because God wanted it that way" blows my mind. You misread me. "
Well, describe for me the logical process (my apologies for not understanding) by which because things exist which we do not have an explanation for that necessarily proves god exists.
"Furthermore, in one breath, you slip from " . . . how does this help us figure out anything about the world?" to " . . . that can easily be explained by the simple interaction of molecules . . ." "
Yup, thats right. Again, an answer like 'because god made it that way' provides no real information about anything. Is everybody else out there following that logic or am I just terrible at representing simple logical ideas to people? Is it me?
" Hey Odd Schmodd, may I ask you, how do you reconcile things like this in your mind? Are you aware of any "simple interacting molecules" which are not self nullifying. Do you know of any "simple interacting molecules" that learn from experience,"
You obvously have not studied biology or physics Dewd. I recommend picking up a good college level biology book and looking up the word 'emergent properties' Its fun to find out...
"self replicates,"
Yup, the ecoli bacteria is a collection of a few billion atoms and it self replicates. So do clay crystals... Not to mention every living thing (isnt that part of the definition...)
"repairs itself when its injured,"
See above
"adapts to changing environmental conditions,"
Ever heard of mutation, variation, adaption, and selection. Again, look them up in that college bio book. very fascinating stuff.
"moves about autonomously,
**redundant examples of things in the few mintues you have taken to think about that you cant understand on the basis of the atomic theory of matter and the laws of thermodynamice deleted**
...in short Mat, and I mean really short, lives and loves and laughs and cries and knows that it must die and yet must die anyway? "
I understand exactly why these thinks happen and why god is not required to explain them. You don't. Must mean god exists. Is that your proof?
"Now really Odd Schmodd, "simple interacting molecules?" I think, BY GOD not. How simple can one man be? Open you f'ing mind. "
It is, I actually bother to try to understand things that I do not understand and I choose not to ingorantly classify them under 'god did it' or 'cause god wanted it that way' Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Hume's Maxim? Maybe you should try to open your mind a little bit to science, and the important methodology behind it which has directly benefited all of our lives to a vastly greater extent then any personnel non-existent people are scared of the dark god ever has.
"Life is greater than the sum of its molecular components. "
Whoa, there is that wonderfull concept of emergent properties. Wow, basketballs do not behave just like carbon and hydrogen atoms. What an amazing concept... That means god exists!
" I won't bother to ask how you associate a cube of salt with the unexplainable life molecule, the unexplained and unexplainable, wonderfully exotic and doggedly tenacious molecule of learning protoplasm that WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN came to be on a sterile planet."
Oh, there is that proof of god. You are right, I am wrong. There was a point in time when there was nothing living on this planet, now there is. That is obvious proof that god exists. Silly me.
"Your philosophy doesn't hold water."
Um, and yours does I take it?
"No one, no matter how odd he may be, has the right to remain ignorant this late in evolution, even if by his own choosing. "
"understanding is a three edged sword..." - John Sheriden
Just to reiterate a little bit, this is from my post in the 'intelligent design' thread.
In short, mindless gases and have become thinking human beings over time. I feel a evolution creation debate coming on. There is nothing particularly fantistical about it if you study evolution at all. these things happen as a consequence of the way that atoms and molcules form, join, and interact. The process is somewhat as follows, atoms form molecules as a consequence of the way they interact, those molecules form macro molecules, some of the end up getting carbon as a backbone and form long complex repetitive chains which as a consequence of the way atoms and molecules interact end up making replicas of part of the chain, creating other molecules that can make replices of parts, soon enough the entire chain can make a copy of itself, these copying chains proliferate and are the first self replicating molecules. THese overhwlem thier available resources and through copying errors alter the particular things they do in one form or another. the self replicating molecules form symbiotic relationships only as a consequence of they way atoms and molecules interact, soon forming prokaryotic cells, then eukaryotic cells, cellular colonies, then multicellular organisms, then 1,500,000,000 years later, thinking human beings. Time is not an end all explanation, it is very simple. Certain things have a certain probability of happening in a certain amount of time. If you double the time, you double the likelyhood of that something happening. The passage of 1 million years 1 thousand and five hundred times is a very very very very long time.
Matus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
From: DAMMITDEWD Dec-4 11:14 am To: MATUS1976 338 of 345 377.338 in reply to 377.335
Hello again Odd Schmodd; I hope this posting finds you in a good mood. I can see that I got your "simple interacting molecules" all riled up. Sorry bout that but you really should find a good shrink and have your fucked-up head fixed.
This silly debate/argument/discussion is a lesson in life to which I am continually exposed but have been unable to learn. The words form in my mind but I can't seem to grasp their significance and make them part of my life. They tell me that no matter how shallow I consider someone's notions to be, they are equally as good as my own since we're both necessarily wrong. I know this instinctively but it doesn't register. I can tell you for sure, Mat Schmodd, your notions sound shallow to me and it is obvious that my notions sound equally shallow to you. I would ask you though, why are you so dead set against any possible God, especially in light of the fact that neither you or I know enough to make the call? I think you'd believe in flying saucers before you'd even consider the possibility of a God. Ask yourself why that is. (if it is of course)
By the way Odd Schmodd, don't let some bullshitter tell you that clay crystals reproduce themselves, even if he does have a "razor" (Hope you see the humor, ha ha? Dig yourself some clay, wash it up, put it in a jar and watch. See for yourself. According to DAMMITDEWD'S Straight Razor, (ever hear of it?) clay does not breed, it does not get pregnant, it's cells not divide, in short, clay crystals do not reproduce. DAMMITDEWD 101.
Back to the God thing. Would it be a crime if there was some kind of God that we humans know nothing about? And yes, YOU CAN WRITE IT ON THE WALL SCHMODD, there are things that will forever defy human understanding and I'll put my money on the life molecule being at the top of the list.
Incidentally, stop using my debate points as your own. That's plagerism. Not only is it immoral (thievery) it's against the law.
You may be right about God. I don't choose to believe or not believe, I DO NOT KNOW. I merely suggest the possibility of something much greater than a very Odd Schmodd IS REQUIRED to make sense of the profound nature of nature.
Odd Schmodd, your "silly me . . ." and " . . . you're right, I'm wrong " comment about life suddenly appearing on the planet, are you sure that I suggested this as "poof of God." I thought I was implying the possibility of something that shouldn't even be called God could be responsible for it. I don't know and you don't know. Leaving creation to "do it itself" seems a little harder to accept than alternative possibilities.
I'm afraid I can't dig what you're saying about "redundant examples." It means nothing to me, or you either I suspect. Are you really telling me that you "understand exactly why these things happen and why God is not required to explain them?" Get real! You're odder than I thought it was possible to be. You do not understand Odd Schmodd. I repeat, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND and you don't know whether A God is required via explaining things. Neither does anyone else.
Hello POPSY; thanks for the snipe. I just know how much you enjoy Odd Schmodd's explanations. He is much better at keeping a thought than I. I'll ask God to help me do better.
DAMMITDEWD;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- From: MATUS1976 Dec-5 4:16 pm To: DAMMITDEWD unread
"Sorry bout that but you really should find a good shrink and have your fucked-up head fixed. "
If you refuse to stop the ad-hominem attacks I will cease this discussion, if the limit of your intellectual debating capabitilies are insiting I see a good shrink, then I think nothing can come of this conversation.
"I would ask you though, why are you so dead set against any possible God, "
Who ever said I was dead set against it?
"...especially in light of the fact that neither you or I know enough to make the call?"
How much is 'enough' to make the call. This is why I refer you to Occam's razor and Hume's maxim, and why I think you have not studied philosophy of science. How many times do we need to watch the sun rise to reasonalbe suspect it will rise the next day. How big should a statistical sample be? How many people do we have to test a drug on before we get a good idea of its safety? If you think god is required to explain things you don't understand, then so be it, I can not change that. If you are trying to show me that the logical answer in science to the question of god's existence suggests that god exists, you are wrong.
"I think you'd believe in flying saucers before you'd even consider the possibility of a God. Ask yourself why that is. (if it is of course) "
I think you are right. I believe in whatever the evidence points to. Not being able to understand things is not proof that thing was designed or influenced or sneezed on by god. It is more probable that intelligent aliens have created interstellar space craft and are visiting earth (I assume that is what you meant by U.F.O. and not 'unidentified flying object') then it is a super all knowing all powerfull being created the universe. Allthough both are POSSIBLE, both are not equally likely.
"By the way Odd Schmodd, don't let some bullshitter tell you that clay crystals reproduce themselves,"
Definition of 'reproduce' 1.To produce a counterpart, an image, or a copy of.
I think you need to look up the definition of 'life' and 'reproduce' and compare the two. They are not the same thing. Everything that reproduces is not 'alive' but everything that is alive does reproduce. Crystals of many kinds do indeed make copies of themsevles (that is what reproduce means) including clay crystals.
"clay does not breed, it does not get pregnant, it's cells not divide, in short, clay crystals do not reproduce. DAMMITDEWD 101. "
Clay crystals do 'reproduce' but they are not alive. These things you mention are classifications of things that are alive, again, I suggest you pick up that college biology book that you have obviously not read in a while and look up the 7-9 things (depending on the book) that are part of the definition of being alive. (interesting to note, none of those things is 'created by god' or 'containing a soul')
"Back to the God thing. Would it be a crime if there was some kind of God that we humans know nothing about?"
No, of course not. But if we know nothing about it, how do we know if it is there? Think about your question, 'what is wrong with believing in a god we know nothing about' part of knowing something about something is knowing whether or not it exists, if you know nothing about something, you do not know whether or not it exists.
"And yes, YOU CAN WRITE IT ON THE WALL SCHMODD, there are things that will forever defy human understanding and I'll put my money on the life molecule being at the top of the list. "
The 'life' molecule? Since you are so sure somethings will forever remain unexplained, tell me how you define 'explained'
"Incidentally, stop using my debate points as your own. That's plagerism. Not only is it immoral (thievery) it's against the law. "
plagerism, against the law? So... I cant quote you when debating you because I will be thrown in jail? Whatever DEWD... when your 'debate points' contradict your 'other points' I will point them out.
"You may be right about God. I don't choose to believe or not believe, I DO NOT KNOW. I merely suggest the possibility of something much greater than a very Odd Schmodd IS REQUIRED to make sense of the profound nature of nature. "
I am under the firm conviction that reality is independantly from belief, and regardless of whether I believe in god or not it has no bearing on whether or not god exists. I do not KNOW if god exists, just as you say you dont know either. I also do not KNOW that god doesnt exist (as that is not logically possible) How do you know that something 'much greater' is REQUIRED to make sense of nature. How does it make sense of nature. How do you KNOW that? What have you seen that makes you believe that?
"I thought I was implying the possibility of something that shouldn't even be called God could be responsible for it. I don't know and you don't know. Leaving creation to "do it itself" seems a little harder to accept than alternative possibilities. "
Yeah, whatever you want to think COULD be responsible for it, that doesnt mean it is. The tooth fairy or a super robot dog named sparky COULD be responsible for it. But unless some evidence is thier to suggest it, then why suspect it? Occam's razor anyone? Also, if something greater is required to get life started, where did that something greater come from? Either it was always there, created by something else, or created itself. In which case, why cant life have either always been there (deposited by an asteroid) created by something else (other life) or have started itself (as molecules will do given enough time in the right environment) To atoms and molecules, life is no different then non life.
"I'm afraid I can't dig what you're saying about "redundant examples." It means nothing to me, or you either I suspect. Are you really telling me that you "understand exactly why these things happen and why God is not required to explain them?"
No, I understand why A) god is not required to explain them (study philosophy of science) and B) why using god as an explanation really explains nothing ANYWAY
"I repeat, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND and you don't know whether A God is required via explaining things. Neither does anyone else. "
You can repeat it all you want, but just cause you repeat something does not make it true. You are trying to get into an epistimology debate, I dont really want to, but I ask you this, what does it mean to 'know' something. No, I dont 'know' that god is required to explain something, and I dont 'know' that god is NOT required to explain anything. But I also do not KNOW that the tooth fairy or garfield is NOT required to explain something. But until there is some reason to suspect that god is needed to explain something, I am not going to arbitrarily assume god should be required to explain something, as you have. God is a figment of your imagination, you want to believe in god more than you are following the evidence. I would be happy if some remote little itty bit peice of evidence arose that suggested even remotely that god is required to explain something (Say, a phrase encoded in pie) But because you do not understand how molecules can interact in such a way to eventually form thinking dreaming hoping and loving entities, doesnt mean that they cant do it. Nor does it mean there is anything less special about those things.
Some good books
The Demon Haunted World Paradigms Lost Fads and Fallacies in the name of science Higher Superstition The Blind Watchmaker In The Beginning Any book on Philosophy of science Anything by Hume or Huxley The Case against god Atheism: A Philsophical justification etc. etc.
Matus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
From: DAMMITDEWD Dec-6 12:18 pm To: MATUS1976 342 of 345 377.342 in reply to 377.339 >> . . .
"If the limit of your intellectual debating capabilities are (is?) insisting (that) I see a good shrink, then I think (that) nothing can come of this conversation."<< Mat, If insisting that you see a shrink is NOT the limit of my "intellectual debating capabilities, do you think that anything "can come of this discussion?" Can anything come from this conversation no matter the limit of my "intellectual" debating ability? Face it Mat, let's call a spade what it is, (it's a shovel, a digging shovel and a superheated distinction in search of a difference) you argue to no intent except to garner attention to yourself. There is no good reason why you INSIST that there's no God. Me thinks thou protests too much. Do you think you do?
Is there now or has there ever been, anything in all the world, against which you argue so vehemently? You say "if there is a God (sic) then where did he come from?" May I inquire of you, why you think that we humans must "know" where God came from, that he/she/it may be granted credibility? If we knew where he came from yet do not even know what he/she/it is, would he/she/it have credibility? Said another way, you seem to be saying that if God exists, we humans must know where he came from. This, even though we have no idea of what he/she/it may be. The notion that anything and everything must have a human understandable origin is shallow thinking. So is the notion that we humans can, and will, understand everything, that it's only a matter of time.
Now Mat, I don't suggest that you or anyone, should believe in a magic God. Nor am I suggesting that God (whatever God there may be) has the discretion of breaking natural laws for the purpose of making human life better or for any other reason, but to assume that there is nothing responsible for creation is considerably more silly than to assume otherwise. Any unbiased mind can see that. Even though, as I previously pointed out, life, even with all its complexities, may be simply a part of the universe with no need of origin or creation, it certainly isn't something to be smugly sure about, especially since there's no supporting evidence.
It is a certainty that the beginning universe contained no elements other than hydrogen. All of the elements of the periodic table were fused in the cores of stars. It seems incredulous to suggest that so much information (the complex life molecule for example) could have been contained in the original single electron hydrogen atom which was to be finally fused into heavier elements in star furnaces. If it is so, then so be it but I have trouble with it and I think any rational mind would have. Several cycles of the stars, billions of years, was required to even fuse the elements of life. Now Mat, If you tell me that you "understand" how that life came to be and that there's no need for a higher power to explain it, I hope you'll pardon my consternation.
JOIN THE HUMAN RACE AND ADMIT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THE SIMPLEST F'ING THING ABOUT LIFE AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE. STOP BEING SO GODDAMN SMUG SURE THAT THERE'S NO GOD. IT DOESN'T BECOME YOU. IT MAKES YOU SEEM FOOLISH. YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW SO OPEN YOU MIND TO POSSIBILITIES BEYOND YOUR SIMPLISTIC HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?
I merely suggested that there is evidence of a God, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IT! You say you can explain it as "simple interacting molecules." There are no "simple molecules" interacting or other wise. I maintain that the unbelievably complex life molecule, learning protoplasm, is evidence of something beyond human understanding and it most certainly is. I've never characterized whatever that "something" may be but a reasonable mind, open and unbiased, could easily understand and entertain the possibility that there could well be something in the universe that we hairless apes know nothing about and do not understand. One thing certain Mat, there is no need for your know it all sarcasm. Suggesting that thumbing through a biology book might enlighten me is self serving bullshit. The information is not there or anywhere else.
Another thing. STOP ATTRIBUTING SILLY STATEMENTS TO ME AND THEN SARCASTICALLY SHOOTING THEM DOWN. Example, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND SO IT MUST BE GOD."
DAMMITDEWD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
From: MATUS1976 Dec-6 2:38 pm To: DAMMITDEWD 343 of 345 377.343 in reply to 377.342
"There is no good reason why you INSIST that there's no God"
Sure there, because there is no good reason to insist thier IS a god, and that is reason enough to assume, and believe, that there is no god. Just as it is reason enough to not believe in witches, fairies, dragons, santa clause and the loch ness monster. Why do you draw the line at god?
"Said another way, you seem to be saying that if God exists, we humans must know where he came from"
I never said nor implied as such. BUt logically, if god exists, the only three possibilities exist, that of God always being there, God creating himslef, or God being created by something else. Can you cite someothers? Regardless of whether or not we know where god came from, it is still a valid question. I pointed it out because you keep stating that god is required to explain unexplainable things. This explains nothing, in fact all it really does is move back the goal posts.
"but to assume that there is nothing responsible for creation is considerably more silly than to assume otherwise. Any unbiased mind can see that."
No its not, again, you have never studied any philosophy of science or skepticism and logic. Maybe you should, and then we can continue this discussion. Can you tell me what occam's razor is and how it applies to this question?
"It seems incredulous to suggest that so much information (the complex life molecule for example) could have been contained in the original single electron hydrogen atom which was to be finally fused into heavier elements in star furnaces."
DEWD, your not listenting. Nothing is stored in that atom. These things happen as a consenquence of the way atoms and molecules interact. It is not 'programmed' into hyrdogen to join with oxygen and form water, is it? It is an aspect of the basic way that hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms interact. Does god insist that hydrogens and oxygens join together to form water? Or that Sodium and Chlorine join to form salt? No, of course not. Likewise, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, as a consenquence of the way they interact, ended making a self replicating molecule. Just as god is not required to place hydrogen and oxygen atoms together, god is not required to place carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen together, or 3 billion carbons, hydrogens, and oxygens. You say it does. Present some evidence showing that some aspect of DNA requires GOD to assemble it. Your lack of knowledge about philosophy of science is apparante when you suggest I prove god ISNT required to build a self replicating molecule. Thats not how science works, you cant prove something does not exist, you can only prove that it does. Explain to me WHY God is needed to assemble 3 billion hydrogens, oxygens, and carbons, but is NOT required to combine 3 hydrogens and oxygens. Where do you, DEWD, draw the line? As I have emphasized, whether hyrdogen and oxygen are in water or are in the DNA of your cell, they are not aware either way. That is not the way things work.
"If you tell me that you "understand" how that life came to be and that there's no need for a higher power to explain it,"
That is exaclty what I am telling you, god is not REQUIRED to explain it. I can not Prove to you that god had nothing to do with it. But I can prove to you that it can happen without supernatural influence. YOU have to PROVE that it REQUIRES supernatural interference. That is they way science works DEWD.
"JOIN THE HUMAN RACE AND ADMIT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THE SIMPLEST F'ING THING ABOUT LIFE"
I know a lot about life, apparently a LOT MORE than you do as well. Since you dont even know the difference between reproduction and life.
"AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE."
Nobody knows anything about life? Whew, jeez. All those biologist better just quit there jobs I guess eh? You, for some strange reason, think that your opinion is just as valid as every body elses when describing reality. Hate to break it to you, it isnt. Someone who has spent thier entire life studying evolutionary biology has a lot more credibility when making statements about life then YOU DO. Mind suggesting to us why you being so sure no one knows anything about life actually proves that no one knows anything about life?
"STOP BEING SO GODDAMN SMUG SURE THAT THERE'S NO GOD."
Im not. I am being logical, rational, and scientific. Show me some evidence that suggests as a simplest solution that god exists, and I will become a (tentative) believer. But be aware that just becuase you are ignorant doesnt mean that your evidence proves anything.
"IT DOESN'T BECOME YOU. IT MAKES YOU SEEM FOOLISH."
Makes ME seem foolish? You are the one who comes to a skeptic forum knowing (apparantly) absolutely NOTHING about Logic, skepticism, science, knowledge, or philosophy of science Yet insisting that I think I know everything by saying god is not required to explain the origin of life (or the universe, or whatever)
"YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW SO OPEN YOU MIND TO POSSIBILITIES BEYOND YOUR SIMPLISTIC HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE? "
To quote Carl Sagan "Be open minded, but not so open your brain falls out"
"I merely suggested that there is evidence of a God, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IT"
Hey, there you go. If you want to find it, you will. It called 'perceptual bias' I dont care either way, in fact I would be happy if something arose that suggested god was necessary to explain something, becuase that may mean I will survive physical death. Unfortunately, there is nothing like that. The idea that I will cease to exist someday is not compelling in the slightest, yet I will not be intellectually dishonest with myself and fool myself into believing something just because it makes me feel better.
"I maintain that the unbelievably complex life molecule, learning protoplasm, is evidence of something beyond human understanding"
"STOP ATTRIBUTING SILLY STATEMENTS TO ME AND THEN SARCASTICALLY SHOOTING THEM DOWN. Example, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND SO IT MUST BE GOD."
You keep doing this. You are saying that life is complex, so complex that there is something about it that will forever remain 'unexplained' (something beyond human understanding) and because of that, God must exist. That is not logical. Just because you dont understand why life does not require god to explain it doesnt mean it isnt true. Again... 'I dont understand it, so it must be god' you tell me not to requote these things, but then you keep saying the same thing over and over again. Lets start over. Lets define the premises and figure out what, exactly, is in contention. How about that.
You, from what I can tell, assert that god is required to exist because life is too complex and intricate of a thing to come about without the influence of a supernatural being, or a being that perhaps may be beyond human understanding, is that right? Define God...
Matus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
From: DAMMITDEWD 12:53 pm To: MATUS1976 344 of 345 377.344 in reply to 377.343
Hello MATUS; Okay, I'll stop calling you "Odd Schmodd" and other disrespectful names. This action should not suggest that I've undergone a change in attitude toward you, I'm merely hiding it like we sneaky humans do when we want something. At any rate, if we're to continue this so called conversation to any constructive end, I think we should weed out those items which do not impact on the subject which is supposed to be "Proof of God." To that end and without making a list, I'll try to entertain some of the more pertinent points. Keep in mind that this task would not be easy even if Mat was receptive to any notion of God but I'll try anyway.
Bottom line first. >> . . . define God. << This, your challenge, followed your query/clarification of a point which you understood came from me, i.e., "you, from what I can tell, assert that God is required to exist because life is too complex and intricate to have come about (sic) without influence of a supernatural being, or a being that perhaps may be beyond understanding, is that right?
Answer; Not right Mat but I can understand how you took it that way. The key words in your query are "being," "supernatural," "exist," "influence," "understanding," and "define." Mat, please have one more go at something that is obviously new to you. These key words characterize God. I've been trying to say that WE HUMANS CANNOT CHARACTERIZE GOD. Again, THE HAIRLESS APE KNOWS NOTING ABOUT GOD. Simply stated, WE HUMANS CANNOT WRITE GOD'S JOB DESCRIPTION.
Now Matus, you could argue that such a notion is silly because why would anyone choose to believe in something which cannot be defined or described. You could further argue that to permit such a proposition would give rise to so many insoluble philosophical questions that the discussion would be meaningless. Well Matus, write another one on the wall, the insoluble philosophical question is a fact of human life and at this point, there is so much that I would point out to you that I don't know where to begin.
Further revealing you confusion of my debate position, is your statement "Sure there is, (sic) good reason to insist that there is no god, because there is no good reason to insist that there IS a God and that is reason enough to assume, and believe, that there is no God. Just as it is reason enough to not believe in witches, fairies, dragons, Santa Claus and Loch Ness monsters. Why do you draw the line at God?" Mattus, before going any further, please let me say that I'm not "insisting" that there is a God. Another thing Mat, you continually question my credentials by your statements of the vernacular. For example, I quote "You have never studied any philosophy of science or skepticism and logic. Maybe you should and then we can continue this discussion." Here Matus, by way of establishing some kind of report with an obviously self educated youngster, please be informed that I have been exposed to a little formal training. My credentials include two postgraduate degrees from accredited universities and two additional post graduate degrees awaiting dissertation submission and acceptance. All of my formal education is in the sciences. I have gainfully published in scientific periodicals and journals. I taught at the University level, Oklahoma State University, in their resident technical studies program. My vocation and avocation of more than forty years was heavily involved with America's land based nuclear missile component of the MAD, (mutually assured destruction) deterrent concept. Now Mattus, does this, my education and career background, qualify me scientifically and does it suggest to you that I may have "studied (any?) philosophy of science or skepticism and logic?"
The drift of you continued attacks on my credentials is your way of suggesting that supporting information for your 'no-god' conclusion is "out there" and only awaiting my perusal. Mat, be further informed, the information IS NOT OUT THERE! Furthermore, your attacks by inference, suggestion, innuendo and holier-than-thou bullshit, obviously written in haste, is insulting, in bad taste, poorly written, badly worded and shallow. Casual to the most obvious observer is the simple fact that you are not formally educated in the sciences, the humanities or any other field of human endeavor. You merely read and strain mightily to retain good sounding, totally useless bullshit. (Your oft referenced Occam's Razor expressly included.)
I hate to drop sail with the spinnaker billowing but I'll conclude with this little consideration. Since there IS NO GOOD REASON to insist "there is no God," why kill the goose that laid the golden egg from which civilization hatched? Why tear asunder the underpinning timbers of your fat-cat way of life which is exactly what you'd be doing if the great unwashed buys into your no-god philosophy?
DAMMITDEWD;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
"easy even if Mat was receptive to any notion of God but I'll try"
Well, honeslty, I am receptive to the Idea of a god (depending on its definition) on the condition that it is the simplest explanation for observed phenomena. My example of a code embedded into pie or some other universal constant would be a good example. Although it would not be proof in the absolute definitive sense, it certainly would switch things around suggesting that universe had some kind of 'designer' (depending on the complexity and content of the message encoded into pie or whatever other universal constant)
"Bottom line first. >> . . . define God. << "
"WE HUMANS CANNOT CHARACTERIZE GOD. Again, THE HAIRLESS APE KNOWS NOTING ABOUT GOD. Simply stated, WE HUMANS CANNOT WRITE GOD'S JOB DESCRIPTION. "
Ok, so when trying to prove something exists, I ask you to define what that something is. You reply by saying that we do not, and perhaps can not know what that something is or maybe even anything about it! So how exactly can I prove something exists when I do not know what that something is?
Try this dialog.
person A - "I will prove to you that schmuloozapa exists"
person B - "Ok, what is schmuloozapa?"
person A - "We, as mere humans, can not know what schmuloozapa is or what schmuloozapa does"
person B - "If we can not, by definition, know anything about schmuloozapa, how can we know if it exists?"
This, to me, is the essence of this conversation. I do not follow how you could suggest something exists that you assert, apparently, that we, by definition, can know nothing about? If you define god, or even a quality of god, then we can test that against reality, and see if reality agrees or disgrees with us. Falsification is a key component in science.
"Now Matus, you could argue that such a notion is silly because why would anyone choose to believe in something which cannot be defined or described. You could further argue that to permit such a proposition would give rise to so many insoluble philosophical questions that the discussion would be meaningless. Well Matus, write another one on the wall, the insoluble philosophical question is a fact of human life and at this point, there is so much that I would point out to you that I don't know where to begin. "
Ok...so this is where we stand...
person A - "I will prove to you that schmuloozapa exists"
person B - "Ok, what is schmuloozapa?"
person A - "We, as mere humans, can not know what schmuloozapa is or what schmuloozapa does"
person B - "If we can not, by definition, know anything about schmuloozapa, how can we know if it exists?"
person A - "Do not concern yourself with such silly philosophical trappings, and believe me schmuloozapa exists"
Have we gotten anywhere? Arguing about something that we by definition can know anything about seems as meaningless as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"Further revealing you confusion of my debate position"
So clarify your debate position. Are you A) asserting that god exists or B) asserting that there is good reason to suspect god exists or C) asserting that it is rationaly to agree that a god MIGHT exist
If you are doing A, to me, as a scientisit, you must present some sort of evidence that suggests as a simplest solution that god exists, depending, of course, on what your definition of god was. If you proposition is B, then we can apply Hume's Maxim to it and see what happens. If it is C, then we, as scientists, apply occams razor to it and assume that if no such evidence exists suggesting god exists, the it is reasonable to assume that god does not exist.
"Another thing Mat, you continually question my credentials by your statements of the vernacular. "
Indeed, from your comments, or perhaps the way I interpret them, you are not familiar with many fallacies of logic or principles in the methodology of science, such as occam's razor and hume's maxim.
"My credentials include two postgraduate degrees from accredited universities and two additional post graduate degrees awaiting dissertation submission and acceptance. All of my formal education is in the sciences. I have gainfully published in scientific periodicals and journals. I taught at the University level, Oklahoma State University, in their resident technical studies program. My vocation and avocation of more than forty years was heavily involved with America's land based nuclear missile component of the MAD, (mutually assured destruction) deterrent concept. Now Mattus, does this, my education and career background, qualify me scientifically and does it suggest to you that I may have "studied (any?) philosophy of science or skepticism and logic?" "
Thats funny, thats what my credentials are as well! What a coincidence? Are any of those postdoctorate degrees in 'Knowledge of god's existence?' If not, then you are no more qualified than I to answer questions of this nature then a phycisit is qualified to answer political questions. Actually, it is perfectly reasonable that one can attain the accredation you (allegedly) have and have never taken a single philosophy of science course, and even more likely that you have never take any courses on skepticism and logic.
Of course, you may have, and then you would be familiar with such concepts as the afformentioned occam's razor and hume's maxim. You keep mentioned that you are, but you have never attetmpted to argue why occam's razor may not be valid to the question of gods existence, or even how you think I might be applying it.
Incidently, since you have so many years experience in the field, I was wondering if you could answer me a few questions relating to nuclear physics that I have been curious about and trying to find out. What are the ways in which EM radiation can interact with matter? What are the results of that interaction? What is the nuclear decay chain for uranium? What is the result of a proton-proton fusion, and what energy levels (in MeV) are are required to initiate a proton-proton fusion. (supporting calculations would be nice if you want to email them to me, also, I have some projects I am working on, DAMMITDEWD, and since you have two post doctorate degrees (hopefully one in physics) I could use some collaborative help on them. You may of course find that I am 'not formally educated in the sciences, the humanities or any other field of human endeavor' and that I 'merely read and strain mightily to retain good sounding, totally useless bullshit. ([my] oft referenced Occam's Razor expressly included.)'
Pardon my skepticism of your educational claims, but this is the internet. This is, of course, regardless of the fact that none of those accrediations matter in this discussion.
"The drift of you continued attacks on my credentials is your way of suggesting that supporting information for your 'no-god' conclusion is "out there" and only awaiting my perusal."
What, exactly, is information that supports a 'no-god' conclusion. What kind of information suggests the non-existence of something? What, that something could be accounted for without the need of that something else? The lack of information suggesting a 'yes-god' conclusion is the reason why a 'no-god' conlucsion is the only logical and rational one.
"Mat, be further informed, the information IS NOT OUT THERE!"
You are absolutely correct, the information is not out there. But the information that suggest the 'yes-god' conclusion is not out there either, and would be easy to find if it were. The mere fact that no evidence exists that supports that 'yes-god' conclusions is evidence enough to support the 'no-god' conclusion, or do you often believe in things for absolutely no reason at all? (other than because you want to of course!)
"Casual to the most obvious observer is the simple fact that you are not formally educated in the sciences,"
Really? Why is that? Actually I am a TA in biology this semester at my college. While not having two fascinating and hollier than though post doctorate degrees, I do have some 'formal' education in the sciences. (I dont think my professor would have asked me to be a TA this semester if that was not the case...)
"the humanities or any other field of human endeavor."
So I have no formal training in any human endevavor? Wow, what is left to do then? And you can tell this how? Sorry, didnt realize you were pyschic, my bad.
"You merely read and strain mightily to retain good sounding, totally useless bullshit. (Your oft referenced Occam's Razor expressly included.) "
Occam's Razor is good sounding bull shit? Wow, if you feel that way then there is nothing I can do about that. Sorry to hear that you think one of the most fundamentally important concepts in science is bull shit.
"Since there IS NO GOOD REASON to insist "there is no God," why kill the goose that laid the golden egg from which civilization hatched? "
I told you what that good reason was. The best reason of all to believe that something does not exist is that there is no good reason whatsoever to believe it does exist. Otherwise you start believeing in any arbitrary whim that comes to mind. I dont have enough time to believe in everything that can possibly exist. Show me the slightest possible little piece of evidence that suggests as a simplest solution that god exists and he's got my vote (depending of course on the suggestion and the definition of god)
Matus