Lying - now on the banned list!

nns1400

The universe has laws? How strange, since it is just a random accident. Funny how everything has to obey and conform to its laws, instead of just randomness and chaos.

Paris is not an ordinary "happening." Paris didn't happen. Someone built it. Do you accept the existence of the people who built it?

__________________
This stuff is just crap...Hitchy

nns1400

Apparently BroDeal won't believe until a 900 foot Jesus appears to him.

__________________
This stuff is just crap...Hitchy

geoinmillbrook

First, we have to determine which definition of "proof' is being discussed.
proof /pruf/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. 2.anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3.the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4.the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. 5.Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. 6.the effect of evidence in convincing the mind. 7.an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation. 8.Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion. 9.a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture. 10.Distilling. a.the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor. b.strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol. <Other 17 defintions editted out for breifities sake>...

Your metaphors are argumentative. To say that a supposition that the Eiffel tower was spontaneously created, is like saying all of creation was not created by a God doesn't make sense. It can be proved that the Eifel tower was not built by a supreme being. It cannot be proved that God as a creator is the only explanation for the "things" we see around us.

To use your examples, let's put some things to the test of say -- definition #6 of Proof (use any of them from 1-6 really): To be able to convice one's mind that something "is".

1. Observance of all things that can be observed as created by god... ie: "creation". All mass, forms of matter and anti-matter, all natural phenomenon, and forms of what we call life - biomass.
2. Observance of the Eifel tower.
3. Observance of a sunset. The existence of a sunset does not prove there is a God. Alienator happens to be right about this one, it is caused by the earth's rotation, precession, and orbit around the sun and guess what - the color of the sunset is determined by the crud in the atmosphere that blocks certain wavelengths (colors) or light, and only letting others through to your eye. It can all be explained. It is also not the god of war marching across the sky in a chariot. It has been proved by direct observation and verified in duplicity. The fact that these things that we know happen --- happen --proves nothing.

Now, if aliens were to land on the earth after we were no longer a surviving species, and the Eifel tower still stood, they may think that it was spontaneously erected in some sort of controlled "big bang" as you suggest, by maybe a Supreme Intelligent Creator. Or they may inspect things more closely, and find rivets, and tool marks, and test the materials for age, and realize that iron in the form used is not found naturally and needed to be smelted and forged. They may investigate further and find our petrified bones, and evidence of our activity and geologic evidence of the timelines for the "life" of the Eiffel tower and that of our species, and piece together the puzzle that is to them, proof that the tower was probably erected by us.

For those that cannot, or choose to not, follow the discoveries of modern science, it is easy to say "God made all this stuff" to just elegantly and easily explain it all away - and in the past, it was easy to do that, because it was almost impossible to prove otherwise by "normal" people - or the general populous. To not be able to comprehend or want to understand nature and all of it's historically hidden secrets (as we have currently defined them) (e.g. quantized energy, polarized light, sun-spots, thermo-nuclear reaction, gravitational forces, black holes, x-rays, quarks, mesons, neutrinos, electron clouds, bonding and antibonding electronic orbitals, photoemmision, wave energy, photosynthesis, DNA strands, chromosomes, etc etc etc) is like coming upon the Eiffel tower as an Alien, decide it was made by some supreme being, and never inspect, observe, hypothesize, test or verify any evidence that disputes or verifies your belief (yes, faith).

If there is a God, he/she/it gave us our inquisitive mind and capacity for abstract thought for a reason, and I believe it wasn't for blind faith or for slave-like adherence to the writings of any man's interpretation of the "word of god", or those of any so called prophets, be it the Bible, Koran, or Talmud. Man is flawed and his rationalizations and motivations are always suspect (think Crusaders, or Taliban, or an other group of people who choose to force their will on others in the name of parochial faith). Many studies of the Christian bible show more than coincidental parallels to other religions, right down to the stories of "miracles" that are told. Even Jesus's birthday was chosen by man to overlap the winter solstice and pagan holiday celebration of it. The world was once flat and the center of the universe remember ? The Catholic church taught this and any thoughts otherwise were blastphemous and even punishable by imprisonment, or worse. Before the fictional book "The Davinci Code" I already knew that Leonardo Davinci's scientific works were sometimes written in code (backwards) - I saw it at a Musuem in Montreal in the 1980's. The church really came down on those that had evidence that did not support "the world" as interpretted by them. They supressed the truth.

So settle the argument for us all. When you die, send us all back a note and tell us what heaven is like if you can (even though the billions of people before you have failed to do so). One more motivation for religion and faith is our inability to intellectualize death. So much so that great mountains of explanations and rationalizations have been formed to argue it away as a permanent state. It is just too scary. I, like many other people, really really hope that there is a heaven, or an after-life, or a rebirth or reincarnation --and my faith helps me think that I will be with those I love forever somewere in the afterland. "Men" capitalize on these fears and hopes in order to bend others to their will by promising an after-life if certain behaviors are maintained (ever hear of tithing ?). Now some- many, religions promote good "values" <-- a subjective word I know - but generally nice things like the 10 commandments and don't beat each other over the head, help those in need, etc etc. For that, faith based systems do have value(<-- subjective again) to civilization as it helps add order to what could be just anarchy and chaos. Many modern laws are derived from "rules, morals and mores" that have been passed down through faith based systems. That being said, a government or organized society does of course not have to be faith based, and our founding fathers in this country, I feel, wisely chose to provide for seperation of faith and government --somewhat - our currency does still say "In God we trust" and you do have to swear on a Bible or other religious artifact to bear witness in a court of law.
Albert Einstein had religious faith -- "God does not roll dice". What is still very neat is that -as smart as we think we are - there are still lots of unanswered questions. 1000 years ago we had no ability to prove what we can today with our new found powers of observation and our ability to "inspect" , infer and prove "things" - natural phenomenea. 1000 years from now, who knows what will be discovered (like what is at the center of a black hole, or what is the universe expanding into) and maybe -- what does really happen when you die, and is there a "God".
Good luck to us all is all I can say and let us all try to make the journey we are currently on a little more pleasant and interesting for all of us. I like to ride bikes. It's fun. Is lying a good thing ? -- it can lead to not so good things, and in general (hiding the truth) isn't so great (unless it is for a good cause of course , like not hurting someone un-necessarily (I was home really, I wasn't at the bar with the guys watching that stripper -- yuck , you are much prettier than what I heard she was! ).. . In science and discovery and generally with your work and employment relationships - truth is "good", AND SOMETIMES A CONDITIONOF EMPLOYMENT.

George

nns1400

Appreciated your post. That was a lot, however, so I just wanted to comment on this part.

I'm not sure his metaphor is really being analyzed correctly. Of course you can prove that it was not built by a "supreme being" but you can prove that it was built, and did not occur spontaneously. You mention rivets, tools, etc. You are speaking of order, design, complexity, purpose. Rivets have a purpose.

The discoveries of modern science do not prove that life occurred spontaneously. Perhaps you will say not yet, but it hasn't. No scientist can turn non-living matter into living matter.

Some of those historically hidden secrets were still hidden from Darwin. The "simple" one-celled organisms we all know about now are far from simple. A single cell is so intricate and finely-tuned, that it is unlikely to have occurred spontaneously. You mention DNA strands. DNA is popularly referred to as the genetic "code" or even "blueprint." Where did such a complex molecule come from? It just spontaneously occurred in the primordial soup? It codes for different proteins to accomplish certain purposes.

You seem very knowledgable, perhaps you have already heard about the concept of irreducible complexity. We now know so much about the hidden secrets of molecular biology that was not known in Darwin's time, that it brings gradual evolution into question.

Care to comment?

__________________
This stuff is just crap...Hitchy

alienator

There is nothing unusual in the universe exploding into being. That it happened is consistent with theory and with math. It's very difficult math and theory, but boiled down it essentially states that in nothingness there is an infinite potential for such an explosion from a singularity. And nothingness is a singularity. It also follows accepted and proven entropy theory. The law is that S=k*ln(omega), where S is entropy, k is a constant (Boltzman's constant, to be specific), and omega is the number of energy states possible. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is one of the cardinal laws of Physics. In nothingness, the energy states possible are zero. The natural log of zero [ln(0)] is infinity. Thus it follows that entropy will be infinite, which pretty much guarantees that system will become more chaotic. The only way a singularity of nothingness can become more chaotic is for something to explode out of that nothingness.

Doubt the science all you want, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics is fundemntal and vetted.



Oh please. Don't even start with Intelligent Design crap. That kack is philosophy and nothing more. It certainly does not qualify as a theory.

There are ways of starting life from a no-life state. Such things have been proven in labs with high electrical charges passed through certain mixtures. Any life, then, over the course of millions of years, billions and trillions and more mutations, can possibly develop into intelligent life. Nothing precludes that except your own lack of understanding and creativity. It is something being investigated intensely, despite the protestations of the Religous Right and those that for some reason feel threatened by the results of evolution.

If your going to hang your hat on Intelligent Design, then you have to accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possibly the Creator. In fact, you cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the Creator.

All praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the bestower of life, the master of the Universe.....

alienator

Irreduceable complexity is merely a false premise. There is no reason that sytems and the laws governing those systems shouldn't be complex. Not a single reason.

nns1400

A) Where did you get that spaghetti picture? That was pretty funny.

B) I don't pretend to be a scientist, okay, but I'm not stupid either. Why is that a false premise? I find it hard to believe, at face value, that random mutations can account for complex systems, no matter how much time there is to do it. Even the word "system" implies "not random." I don't have any reference material handy to be more detailed about this topic right this minute, but it is not peasants with pitchforks talking about it, it is molecular biologists. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it crap.

As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there are probably people who do believe in that if you googled it. Then they might have to be asked if there is any manuscript evidence they can show us, what philosophical and moral arguments they can make about the nature of this monster, has the Flying Spaghetti Monster fulfilled any kinds of prophecies they can discuss, have the FSM adherents ever burned a witch, etc.

Mock away....

__________________
This stuff is just crap...Hitchy

alienator

You clearly don't understand randomness and its place in physics. Just because an event is random does not mean that the process driving that event is random. And you clearly don't understand how physical laws developed in the moments after the Big Bang.



This is a philosophical question, not a question of science. There is nothing that says that there has to be "someone" who built the Universe. It's only some humans that need that.

If you can't argue with facts and verifiable proofs, don't bother arguing because your philosophical and theological test questions do not provide verifiable proof of anything. You have faith in something. Fine. That's all you have. The only truth in that is whatever emotional truth you invest in it. There is no physical truth to it whatsoever.

alienator

It's everywhere. Google it. You can even get the URL for the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church



Well what humans "believe" is often far from what is fact. It is a false premise because there is absolutely nothing--save for someone's personal belief--that precludes complex systems.



No, "system" does not imply "not random." Thermodynamic theory is full of randomness. In fact it's implied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In an oxygen tank, the motion of the molecules in the gas are random; yet the gas has a well ordered volume, pressure, average kinetic energy, and so on.

The polarization of light in the sky is completely random; yet the behavior of that light can be accurately described with systems of equations.

As for evolution, the randomness in evolution is not what you think it is. The mutations driving the process are random in that what mutation a given lifeform goes through may have no correlation with those that others go through. However, the natural selection has very little randomness. Mutations which cannot survive the environment typically die out. The process goes on and on and on with successive generations undergoing more benefical mutations.



There is no need to mock, because your arguments continue to fail to provide any physical proof. Fulfilling prophecies? Are you kidding? As for the rest of your requirements of the FSM, they are only necessary in your belief system. An objective view of theology does not impose the same values--i.e. your values--on any particular religion or belief system.

If you intend to argue against scientific proof, verifiable proof, then you had better learn what it is all about. There are plenty of websites that give pretty good synopses of physical laws and theories.

Bro Deal

Hopefully he will be singing.

Stealing down an ally on a cold dark night
I see a halo in the rain around the street light
I stop and look, and listen to the sound
As the raindrops penetrate the silence all around
Alone, I gaze into the glistening street
The distant thunder echoing my heartbeat
Urging me on to a secret goal
Away from the light from this lamp on a pole
So I turn, slip away into the rain
Drifting like a spirit through the shadows in the lane
Clutching the tools of my trade in my hand
An old box of matches and a gasoline can
Darkness envelopes the scene like a shroud
A veil of emptiness hangs from the clouds
Filling up the cracks in this desolate place
Cradled by the night in an icy embrace

__________________
"You are like the wind and I like the lion. You form the tempest. The sand stings my eyes and the ground is parched. I roar in defiance but you do not hear. But between us there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you like the wind will never know yours." -- Mulay Hamid El Raisuli, Lord of the Riff, Sultan to the Berbers, Last of the Barbary Pirates

mitosis

I'd be pretty swayed by that. As long as he could prove he was jesus of course.

azul_fahrrad

Man I loved that song. I wished he was still making music, he was really ahead of his time.

azul_fahrrad

Unless he could measure it twice and everyone else could come behind him and measure it too, there would be nothing to offer as proof.

azul_fahrrad

Really? Who did it? When? Where can I see the evidence of this? Where can I read about it? I am assuming that whatever this "mixture" was it continued to live after the electrical current ceased to be sent through it. If not than it was not truly alive.