The Orgin of Human Life Poll, split by nationality

[afleitch]

Humans evolved from other life forms. More or less advanced is a value judgment and altogether irrelevant to the question at hand.

[afleitch]

Lol, creationists on the Atlas Forum.

Lol, elitism on the atlas.

Is science now elitist?

[afleitch]

Lol, creationists on the Atlas Forum.

Lol, elitism on the atlas.

Is science now elitist?

No, but believing that someone having a different idea of the creation of the earth and refering to all of them as back asswards cavemen is.

Well if someone thinks human beings were placed on the earth fully formed as recently as the poll suggests you are backwards as it is contrary to every science that concerns itself with us, the earth and time.

[afleitch]

Either way I sound like a moron and you sound like a fundie. No wonder Mikado left the atheism "faith".

Let's put it another way. Is the truth 'fundamentalist'? Should evolutionary science, genetics, biology, geology, archaeology, history and IIRC about 100-200 branches of science that support evolution and the age of the earth be thrown under a bus to satisfysome Christians who choose not to engage their brain when trying to reconcile our understanding of the world with their faith?

[afleitch]

Either way, you are treating them in an intolerant way. Fundamentalists always look upon those who believe differently as inferior, and they hate everyone but themselves.

There only seems to be Fundie Christians and Fundie Atheists. Are there Fundie Jews/Hindus/Buddhists/Tribal Religions/Bahai'/Rastafarfians/Pagans?

Again I ask you; what is fundamentalist about truth? Is seeking to argue for that truth against ignorance 'intolerant'?

[afleitch]

Either way, you are treating them in an intolerant way. Fundamentalists always look upon those who believe differently as inferior, and they hate everyone but themselves.

There only seems to be Fundie Christians and Fundie Atheists. Are there Fundie Jews/Hindus/Buddhists/Tribal Religions/Bahai'/Rastafarfians/Pagans?

Again I ask you; what is fundamentalist about truth? Is seeking to argue for that truth against ignorance 'intolerant'?

It's not truth from the perspective of much of the world.

It doesn't cease being truth because some people don't believe in it. When man was a hunter-gatherer it was true even though we had no comprehension of it.

[afleitch]

Either way I sound like a moron and you sound like a fundie. No wonder Mikado left the atheism "faith".

Let's put it another way. Is the truth 'fundamentalist'? Should evolutionary science, genetics, biology, geology, archaeology, history and IIRC about 100-200 branches of science that support evolution and the age of the earth be thrown under a bus to satisfysome Christians who choose not to engage their brain when trying to reconcile our understanding of the world with their faith?

Whether or not they believe in evolution isn't the same as this. There are Christians that engage their brain a certain way and believe they can reconcile it by questioning the science behind evolution. There are others who just say "because the Bible told me so."  There are Christians that try to understand how their faith can make room for evolution. And then there are others who believe in evolution and don't think deeply about how to reconcile it with their faith. And still others who don't know if evolution is true and don't care.

That's essentially what I said. There are Christians who can reconcile every new understanding of the world with their faith and there are those who try to think around the issues because they choose not to. Therefore we have a number of Christians who invent their own 'science' - evolution isn't real, global warming isn't real, gays can 'change', women aren't 'legitimately raped', studies say this, studies say that. This extends into the social sciences too resulting in the contorting of history and archaeology to suit their means.

Essentially if there is a god and human beings reveal more and more about the world, then these Christians are collectively saying 'f-ck you' to their own gods creation.

[afleitch]

Blonde Artist, if there is no God, our current model fails because it implies matter and energy created themselves ex nihlio.

No.

There is the concept of the 'zero energy universe'

The formation of the universe from nothing does not violate the conservation of energy (Energy and mass cannot be destroyed; they can only become converted from one form to another) As I understand it, the gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is what is called a  'negative energy'. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it may in fact sum to zero. Alan Guth used this analogy; A rocket traveling into orbit uses thrust to overcome the gravity of the Earth’s mass. So in a way, the effect of the thrust is positive energy and the effect of gravity is negative energy.

[afleitch]

Gravitational potential energy still requires matter. Your answer does not address the old Leibniz question: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Let's say we don't know the answer to that question - in what way does that make "God did it" an acceptable answer? Do you have any evidence for this claim? Do you even have evidence to suggest that this God thing exists in the first place? To the point, how is that answer fundamentally any different than "a wizard did it" or "Puff the Magic Dragon did it"?

I'm going to quote from William Lane Craig, since he can put this more eloquently than I can.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ironically the quote you posted actually backs up Dibble's argument rather than yours. But I'll come to that. I'd forgotten about William Lane Craig. Him being disarmed in debates is usually a joy to watch If you look at the quote you posted, Craig has essentially set up his own condition which he then confirms. He says 'So what properties must such a cause of the universe possess?'

He is therefore assuming that the universe has a cause. Why assume that? Why not say the universe just 'is'? Cause is a human construct; it is our conscious desire to place purpose on events when sometimes events do not have a purpose. The universe does not have a conscience (perhaps...) Materials in a large mollecular cloud form the Sun and Earth and because the Sun undergoes fusion which generates heat and light which just so happens to make Earth livable so that we are here and we can all chat on the Atlas Forum doesn't need a cause for us. And it is a cause just for us as we are the only fully advanced conscious beings (that we know of) and therefore are the only assembly of molecules that hypothesises 'cause' in the first place. Some things simply are.

He then says; 'As the cause of space and time, it must transcend space and time.' Again, why make that assumption? Why are space and time even relevant prior to the Big Bang when there was no space and time prior to it?  So Craig sets up his own little hypothesis that he accepts as correct from the onset therefore he can run with it.

Look at it this way. Our understanding of 'cause' (or reason, or purpose or anything else) is a product of thought. Thought comes from the brain which is matter, and electrical impulse, which is energy. Thought exists as a process of the interaction of matter and energy. How can there be thought, and therefore cause without matter or energy or before it came into being? What about the 'unembodied mind' that Craig talks about? Well he's got rid of the matter if it's technically unembodied but he hasn't got rid of the energy. And of course Einstein's law says you can't technically get rid of either or one at the expense of the other as both are mutual.

Unembodied minds are not however entirely outside the concept of theory. There is the 'Boltzmann brain' for example which could be a by-product of an ever expanding universe in an infinite number of years from now. The idea being that on Earth we have an infinitely small proportion of the matter and energy in all the universe yet this has assembled itself into thinking beings capable of thought. In an infinitely large and expanding universe it is likely that particles, atoms, energy and so on could 'bounce' off each other or collect in such a way that it randonly creates a star, a pencil or a duck. It could create a 'brain' capable of consciousness and interaction with its surroundings that could possibly create a universe. Therefore we could have our 'god', but our god would still be formed out of pre existing energy and matter and not, as Craig tries to argue, transcend all this (because hey, god can do that right?) That 'god' could in fact be that duck, or that wizard or that magic dragon as Dibble argued.

There-in lies the problem that William Lane Craig has been taken to task on repeatedly; honesty. You can argue for the existance of a god. Indeed I gave a perfectly good reason above why you could. You can argue that from a deist point of view and apply science and theory and everything in between to make your point. But what Craig does (and needs prompting to even admit) is that he always argues from a theist point of view. He argues that the end result of all of this reasoning is that the cause of everything is the lone god of the Hebrews who impregnanted a virgin and tells people what to do with their penis. That is faith and faith alone. Don't disguise it as anything else.

[afleitch]

As for the mind argument, I'd suggest that enough people have "experienced God" to suggest that the cause of the universe is some sort of mind and therefore minds can be immaterial. Of course that is getting way off topic, so we might want to start another thread on that one.

Yet countless numbers have not 'experienced god'. Or interpret it in countless ways. Given that human experience is limited by the very matter I talked about, then what's to say god isn't a human construct?