Evolution & God

[THX_1138]

What makes 'reality' real?

Descartes' Mediations. its a good question that has been answered at infinitum by philosophers far more intelligent that i and far to numerous to count. but yes, its a question that has been settled and i for one, never bothered to inquire into it.

[CC1981]

HA ha... thats a good one. Who is this particle physicist? Its a rather simple argument (however, one could argue that in the process of creating the universe, god acheived perfection, a dumb argument but the naysayers will find a bone to pick) but i like the logical implication.

I will look it up- i don't remember the physicist's name right now. Yeah, i too found the logic in that argument fairly compelling. And as far as your 'devil's advocate' surmise goes ( God became perfect in the process of creating the universe), fine- but then he/she still cannot interact with this universe after achieving perfection- ie, once the universe is created, God *MUST* have been totally 'hands-off'. Which again,contradicts the beleifs of our less logical Abrahamic friends. :cantstop:

as for the bit about the order and orgainzation in this universe, one just has to look at the numbers. save for this earth, and that too only a small percentage of its total surface, anywhere else in this massive universe which at last approximation is 13.4 billion light years big, human survival is impossible. life would be terminated almost instantly and in a rather horrible fashion. so yeah, do explain to me the order of this universe for if this is supposed to be order, then i would hate to see how disorganized god can get.

Oh, i don't buy this 'organized universe' theory one iota- as i said, one cannot argue for or against organized universe till they know the extent of the universe- for it is ridiculous to comment on the fundamental property of the universe being organized or not without knowing its composition/extent!! I was merely referring to the idea that to a common person, it can appear to be an ordered universe, with basically gravity making it a pretty organized picture ( in astronomy, gravity is one of the few predictable and 'constant' things- the arrangement of planets, star clusters,galaxies & even superclusters all fairly predictable and determined by gravity).

[CC1981]

For one, there were not 10 or any multiple Big Bangs. Why? well big bang was not someone playing with firecrackers, it was the result of a very high energy confined to an incredibly small volume. As a result, expansion occured. In this expansion, contraction of the matter back into the previous high energy, low volume state is impossible.

You cannot make that claim, simply because what is the property of and history of the universe beyond the observable boundary is completely unknown. And therefore, there can be no claims on whether there was 1,2,3 or 29038219048234 big bangs to compose the entirity of our universe.

As for commenting on the universe without mapping it is absolutely legitimate

Disagree- that is about as legitimate as guessing the nature of an ocean simply because you've seen a pond.

We arent dealing with a cartographical endevor here. We are talking about using the current data and then testing it against our hypothesis

Which is, yet again, limited by our knowledge of the observable universe. As i said, our extension of the theories to the entire universe is nothing more than a supposition, since what happens/happened beyond the observable rim is purely guesswork and nomatter how much our hypothesis is corroborrated inside the observable universe, it still does not give us the license to make such remarks about what lies beyond it.

At the moment, the entire universe has certain consistent properties: it is made of particles that are either fermions or bosons.

Entire ? No. You, like many of my science buddies, keep making comments that you cannot back up. How you can talk about the composition of the universe that is beyond the observable rim is beyond me- we have absolutely ZILCH data for the universe beyond the observable rim!! NONE WHATSOEVER. So this talk of 'whole universe' is trash, really. What is true is that our observable universe is made up of bosons,fermions,etc. For all you know, that can be true for 1000 light years beyond the observable and then there lies fantasy land of magic. Ridiculous to think perhaps, but just as equally possible as your suppositions for the whole universe.

In essense, we know the nature of this universe

Dude, that is funny. If i were to equate the universe to a language, forget grammar, we are still struggling with the ABCs.....we have NO IDEA wtf is dark matter or dark energy or even if such things are actually in existence- we cannot even account for something as basic as the mass equation of the known universe. To say that we know the nature of this universe is as categoric an example of the arrogance of science as i can think of- which is something i touched upon in my initial post.

So far, the hypothesis checks out perfectly well.

It checks out after a zillion and one concessions made to be frank. concessions such as dark matter, dark energy, etc etc- for which there is still ZERO empiric and credible explanations or even the most basic explanations of what dark matter/energy actually is. And then again, it checks out for only the observable universe. Ie, the part of the ocean our 'ship' can see- what lies beyond our field of vision is completely indeterminate and again, quite arrogant to state as facts when you have zero data about it.

[cochise]

but yes, its a question that has been settled

The axioms upon which this 'settled' debate is based would bear examination for what is underpinning.

[f.b.m]

thats one of the questions that I have .... I asked this to a pastor and he just smiled at me ...:cry_smile:

It gets messier than that: If the reason we needed a creator was because we're too complex/functionally integral, then whats the point of making up being thats even more complex?

[triam]

coming to the op believe in evolution yes, iam an atheist so belief in god - no. why, evolution has been a well established theory in the scientific realm, so if anyone takes the time and has the inclination to read about it, more than likely they will come to the conclusion that evolution makes sense and true. god, there are too many logical inconsistencies to even go there, if anyone wants to know the details, they can go ahead and define the characteristics or attributes of "god" and I probably can point out the logical inconsistencies in each and everyone of the characteristics.

[Lurker]

I have thought about it for as long as I can remember. To me God as well as evolution are both theories and either of them could be proven correct/incorrect depending on the person's belief. I would request you all to post what you believe in and why.

I dont beleive in God but I dont dismiss the idea as well. God is a great concept for human being. Whether it is a fool-proof concept I dont know but it certainly is more fool-proof than Evolution. My reason for saying that has nothing to do with facts and figures, it is more a humane aspect. The reason why more people are God-fearing than not is rather simple - we dont know what happens after death. Evolution doesnt say anything about this. Most religion do. Think of yourself. Now think of your family members - parents, siblings, kids, friends etc etc. I hate to put you through this but now imagine yourself dead. Is that it?? So you get cremated(or buried) and thats that? You never see your loved ones again? And how about the loved ones that pass before you do? Can you live with the idea that you will never ever see them again and that it was all a chance?? That fear drives religion. Hence the concept of swarag-narak, heaven-hell etc etc. The day evolution will give an answer on this aspect, same day religion will lose a lot of its base.

[triam]

Lurker I can see the justification for "God" and "religion", it provides hope against the mother of all certanities "death" and nothingness and tries to justify the day to day drag,so this gives a way to rationalize at some level. Evolution does not try to answer what happens after death nor does science as a whole, as far as science is concerned there is nothing after death, and it will remain so unless there is testable evidence that there is something after death. The answer is there that there is nothing beyond death, it is a tough answer and a very bad one too, but that is the answer.

[f.b.m]

^ Go to hell. (; btw: Please o'please, when someone decides to say "evolution is just a theory", please know what the words "theory" and "fact" mean in a scientific sense.

[Desi Cartman]

I dont beleive in God but I dont dismiss the idea as well. God is a great concept for human being. Whether it is a fool-proof concept I dont know but it certainly is more fool-proof than Evolution. My reason for saying that has nothing to do with facts and figures, it is more a humane aspect. The reason why more people are God-fearing than not is rather simple - we dont know what happens after death. Evolution doesnt say anything about this. Most religion do. Think of yourself. Now think of your family members - parents, siblings, kids, friends etc etc. I hate to put you through this but now imagine yourself dead. Is that it?? So you get cremated(or buried) and thats that? You never see your loved ones again? And how about the loved ones that pass before you do? Can you live with the idea that you will never ever see them again and that it was all a chance?? That fear drives religion. Hence the concept of swarag-narak, heaven-hell etc etc. The day evolution will give an answer on this aspect, same day religion will lose a lot of its base.

I agree that its an answer to all unanswerable questions .. this is what I said in my earlier post

thats what I think as well and wanted to know what others believe .. I also believe that religion and god is beneficial to the society so people pass on their worries to someone else (God) and do not worry about things that they cant control. God is also a single answer to all unanswerable questions. I guess it saves millions from trying to over-control their life and getting depressed ... its a system where you leave the worries to God or unknown.

[Desi Cartman]

Lurker I can see the justification for "God" and "religion", it provides hope against the mother of all certanities "death" and nothingness and tries to justify the day to day drag,so this gives a way to rationalize at some level. Evolution does not try to answer what happens after death nor does science as a whole, as far as science is concerned there is nothing after death, and it will remain so unless there is testable evidence that there is something after death. The answer is there that there is nothing beyond death, it is a tough answer and a very bad one too, but that is the answer.

That's another question .. what happens after one dies .. reincarnation , heaven , hell or nothing ? I guess nothing :cantstop: Once again it shows that religion has written down laws in such a way that people fear the ultimate punishment i.e. Hell or being born again with disabilities ... it probably was a good way to keep society away from committing crimes. Which once again proves that religion is nothing but a way of life ... it has been used for a very long time and in most societies to control. There is another thing that I find funny in this debate , as CC and THX were discussing in earlier posts that in order to prove or reject a theory there has to be concrete proof but when it comes to religion then somehow the rules change and that is something that always amazes me.

[Lurker]

There is another thing that I find funny in this debate ' date=' as CC and THX were discussing in earlier posts that in [b']order to prove or reject a theory there has to be concrete proof but when it comes to religion then somehow the rules change and that is something that always amazes me.

No it is not that the rules change. Religion and Science are two different subjects. Science is a stream where you have measurements, theories, facts, statistics, numbers etc etc. Religion(theology) is different in that. It is more akin to arts format say Music. How do you prove/disprove Music? Or Philosphy? Or any form of literature. So if someone says God created the world in 7 days how do you disprove that? Its not exactly akin to a Pythagorus theorum where you start with a, b, c and end with LHS = RHS (left hand side of deduced equation equals right hand side). In science you beleive in something that has been proved, in religion you dont have to prove something that you beleive in. xxx

[THX_1138]

You cannot make that claim, simply because what is the property of and history of the universe beyond the observable boundary is completely unknown. And therefore, there can be no claims on whether there was 1,2,3 or 29038219048234 big bangs to compose the entirity of our universe. Disagree- that is about as legitimate as guessing the nature of an ocean simply because you've seen a pond. Which is, yet again, limited by our knowledge of the observable universe. As i said, our extension of the theories to the entire universe is nothing more than a supposition, since what happens/happened beyond the observable rim is purely guesswork and nomatter how much our hypothesis is corroborrated inside the observable universe, it still does not give us the license to make such remarks about what lies beyond it. Entire ? No. You, like many of my science buddies, keep making comments that you cannot back up. How you can talk about the composition of the universe that is beyond the observable rim is beyond me- we have absolutely ZILCH data for the universe beyond the observable rim!! NONE WHATSOEVER. So this talk of 'whole universe' is trash, really. What is true is that our observable universe is made up of bosons,fermions,etc. For all you know, that can be true for 1000 light years beyond the observable and then there lies fantasy land of magic. Ridiculous to think perhaps, but just as equally possible as your suppositions for the whole universe. Dude, that is funny. If i were to equate the universe to a language, forget grammar, we are still struggling with the ABCs.....we have NO IDEA wtf is dark matter or dark energy or even if such things are actually in existence- we cannot even account for something as basic as the mass equation of the known universe. To say that we know the nature of this universe is as categoric an example of the arrogance of science as i can think of- which is something i touched upon in my initial post. It checks out after a zillion and one concessions made to be frank. concessions such as dark matter, dark energy, etc etc- for which there is still ZERO empiric and credible explanations or even the most basic explanations of what dark matter/energy actually is. And then again, it checks out for only the observable universe. Ie, the part of the ocean our 'ship' can see- what lies beyond our field of vision is completely indeterminate and again, quite arrogant to state as facts when you have zero data about it.

you can disagree all your want... but sorry to say this, you are talking out of your rear end. particle physics is not "scratching the surface"... at the moment one of the few surviving mysteries is the existence of the higgs boson. a question that will soon be addressed by october, maybe november this year when the large hadron collider is operational. as for what was present before the big bang, heard of the multiverse theory? it fits the observed data to the t.

[CC1981]

you can disagree all your want... but sorry to say this, you are talking out of your rear end. particle physics is not "scratching the surface"... at the moment one of the few surviving mysteries is the existence of the higgs boson. a question that will soon be addressed by october, maybe november this year when the large hadron collider is operational. as for what was present before the big bang, heard of the multiverse theory? it fits the observed data to the t.

With all due respect THX, i like your posts most of the time. But i seriously doubt if you have the authority to tell me that i am talking out of my rear end on this. It is ironic that this thread, which is geared towards exposing the religiously dogmatic has attracted a science dogmatic like yourself. But hey, to me, they are the opposite extreme of religious fanatics- the science fanatics who make claims they arn't qualified to or understand the implications of. I shall repeat again- cosmology is barely scratching the surface and so is particle physics. Nomatter how many new 'particles' you discover, it still does NOT add up to the mass equation of the universe. Cosmology had to invent mumbo-jumbo like 'dark energy/dark matter' to try and make sense of the missing mass of the universe. Go to ANY physics professor and ask them to explain to you what dark energy really is, what are its properties and you will get a clueless look on their face with the most ambiguous vague response. Same with dark matter. As for the big bang, multiverse theory etc etc. yet again, you are missing the essential point : That may be true for OUR END OF THE UNIVERSE- which is the observable universe. But you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO credibility in claiming that the Big bang responsible for our end of the universe panning out the way it did, is also responsible for the ENTIRE universe, for you have ZERO DATA and ZERO knowledge of the whole universe- for all you know, the observable universe can be 0.00000000000000001% of our universe and there could be a dozen big bangs, each outside the others' observable range and that could be the creation of the universe. That you are extending the data observed from our observable end to the whole universe is a common flaw in astrophysics and nomatter how much you holler that it is justified, it isn't because it is violating the scientific method of data supporting the hypothesis. As it stands, there is ZERO DATA beyond our observable rim- which is defined by the radius in space where the doppler shift is high enough to say that the galaxies there are receeding from us at the speed of light. For the space beyond that radii, there is ZERO DATA we have and unless there is a quantum leap in technology and science, we will not have any data on what lies beyond that radii. Therefore, without any data from that part of the universe, the whole 'big bang = creation of the universe' shall remain a hypothesis that cannot be tested for the whole universe. Its just that bloody simple, really.

[CC1981]

I dont beleive in God but I dont dismiss the idea as well. God is a great concept for human being. Whether it is a fool-proof concept I dont know but it certainly is more fool-proof than Evolution. My reason for saying that has nothing to do with facts and figures, it is more a humane aspect. The reason why more people are God-fearing than not is rather simple - we dont know what happens after death. Evolution doesnt say anything about this. Most religion do. Think of yourself. Now think of your family members - parents, siblings, kids, friends etc etc. I hate to put you through this but now imagine yourself dead. Is that it?? So you get cremated(or buried) and thats that? You never see your loved ones again? And how about the loved ones that pass before you do? Can you live with the idea that you will never ever see them again and that it was all a chance?? That fear drives religion. Hence the concept of swarag-narak, heaven-hell etc etc. The day evolution will give an answer on this aspect, same day religion will lose a lot of its base.

A very very good point, Lurker. The theory of evolution is probably correct but it still has a LOT of holes in it and there are very very good questions that the theory of evolution does not answer. For example, what really is conciousness ?? How does conciousness evolve, etc. are not answered by evolution and neither is the 'death of the body' aspect and what the implications are for the conciousness. For a purist like me, evolution is a very 'leaky' boat - the only reason i lean towards it is because mass religion's idea of God is a freaking floating piece of wood compared to the 'leaky boat' of evolution...ie, lesser of the two in terms of retardation.

[Desi Cartman]

No it is not that the rules change. Religion and Science are two different subjects. Science is a stream where you have measurements, theories, facts, statistics, numbers etc etc. Religion(theology) is different in that. It is more akin to arts format say Music. How do you prove/disprove Music? Or Philosphy? Or any form of literature. So if someone says God created the world in 7 days how do you disprove that? Its not exactly akin to a Pythagorus theorum where you start with a, b, c and end with LHS = RHS (left hand side of deduced equation equals right hand side). xxx

They are different subjects but the religious speakers try to use scientific findings to validate their religion but only where it suits them.

In science you believe in something that has been proved, in religion you dont have to prove something that you believe in.

true but people like me who are skeptical get confused. People like me want to find proof

[CSK Fan]

If we say that life was planned and there was/is an intelligent being behind the plan, then why is the plan so im-perfect? How is the world perfect (from a human point of view)? What significance does the whole universe, billions of stars, solar systems, black holes, etc have from a human point? A fragile life on a tiny, insignificant planet, revolving around an equally insignificant star in an obscure part of the galaxy is perfect? What about the rest of the universe? Complete waste of space (pun intended)?

[cochise]

I know that I know nothing.

[mhr123]

If we say that life was planned and there was/is an intelligent being behind the plan, then why is the plan so im-perfect? How is the world perfect (from a human point of view)? What significance does the whole universe, billions of stars, solar systems, black holes, etc have from a human point? A fragile life on a tiny, insignificant planet, revolving around an equally insignificant star in an obscure part of the galaxy is perfect? What about the rest of the universe? Complete waste of space (pun intended)?

May be the creator knows better than some of us, now if I say i studied engineering and the day i passed my exam , I died . So may be others can say what an utter waste of his studies. We have been sent to this world for some purpose and things have been created around for certain reason. Scientist are known to be intelligent but they can't figure out why a person sleeps in the night.They cant solve the mystery of Death , why does a person die after a certain period of time. And believe me a person is born to die As a very famous quote which says " Life is uncertain but death is certain"

[THX_1138]

I know that I know nothing.

logical contradiction. you cant know that you know nothing...