Make Fist a believer!!! heh

[Xar]

But then as a scientist, you should ask yourself how it can be that all of the universe's parameters fit such a tiny window on a much wider spectrum?

If I understand correctly, your answer to the "why do the universal laws allow the existence of life?" is, "well, that's the way the universe is"... whereas it doesn't answer the question "so why is the universe like this?".

Refer to the first link I put in my earlier post to see the counterargument to your objections

[Prebe]

I'll read your links tomorrow Xar. But untill then, let me rephrase my question for clarification:
1: You believe in God
2: You believe in evolution
3: You believe that God knew exactly were evolution was going.

Then what is the point of evolution? Is it a show that God put on for his own amusement? Or was he not powerfull enough to create humans right away?

No wait, let me guess, you won't profess to know the ways of the lord? But haven't you wondered? And hasn't that wondering made you think, that maybe God did not create all this?

As for the universe's composition, as you say the parameters are such that they allow for the existence of life. So if any other set of parameters had been "applied", we would not have been here to ask the question. And besides, taking complexity and "fine tuning" as an evidence for a deity, doesn't that remove your desire to look for a physical explanation? Doesn't it?

"[as a scientist you should ask yourself] so why is the universe like this?".

Well you obviously believe that it is because there is a God. So you are not going to look for an alternative hypothesis are you?

[Plissken]

Prebe, if there's anything that would make me believe in a Omnipotent Creator God, it would be that He/She/It put all of this in motion just to watch the process unfold, even if HSI knew what was going to happen.

Otherwise, what's the point of Omnipotence?

[Prebe]

Sounds a bit sadistical doesn't it? Just to let all those species die out, when you could have created something that worked to begin with?

[Plissken]

Come on, don't tell me that - as a scientist - you don't find a certain elegance and beauty to the entire process!

[Xar]

Prebe, with all due respect, but why are you trying to put words in my mouth? You seem to be taking a great deal of things for granted, especially when trying to consider my point of view (which, I have to say, your comments suggest you have missed completely). And to be honest, I find this last post of yours a trifle offensive in the way your questions are phrased - as well as to the way you appear to belittle my own beliefs.

To answer your questions:

Let me rephrase my question for clarification:
1: You believe in God
2: You believe in evolution
3: You believe that God knew exactly were evolution was going.

Then what is the point of evolution? Is it a show that God put on for his own amusement? Or was he not powerfull enough to create humans right away?

You seem to be dealing in absolutes here, Prebe... is it all or nothing for you? Why should creation and evolution exclude each other? Or, to rephrase it - just because you don't find bacteria, viruses, rocky meteorites, black holes or whatever else beautiful, does it mean that any potential Creator should feel the same way as you do? To me, the idea that God set the process into motion and then watched it unfold is perhaps the most fascinating aspect... it is an expression of love for His Creation, that He would not direct the evolution of life in any way and indiscriminately love all that would appear. Remember that knowing something will happen isn't reason enough to say "well, it's useless to make it happen": whoever has a burning passion for creative endeavours knows what I'm talking about. For example, I love to write stories: but just because, before writing a story, I already know how it's going to end, it doesn't mean I should not write it anyway, and enjoy the process of actualization - of making a physical entity out of that story, which until then was only an idea in my mind. So, why is it so alien to you to imagine that a Creator God, even knowing that setting the Universe into motion with this set of physical laws would lead ot humankind, decided to do it anyway?
(As an aside, let me add that I also believe that the act of creation accomplished by writers, painters, or whoever else engages in a creative endeavour is likely one of the greatest accomplishments a human being can achieve, regardless of whether it brings fame and fortune or not).

No wait, let me guess, you won't profess to know the ways of the lord? But haven't you wondered? And hasn't that wondering made you think, that maybe God did not create all this?

Frankly, this is insulting... as I said above, please refrain from pretending you know my mind or claiming that just because I believe in God, it automatically means I'm obviously uninterested in scientific inquiry.

As for the universe's composition, as you say the parameters are such that they allow for the existence of life. So if any other set of parameters had been "applied", we would not have been here to ask the question. And besides, taking complexity and "fine tuning" as an evidence for a deity, doesn't that remove your desire to look for a physical explanation? Doesn't it?

Again, this is somewhat insulting, not to mention meaningless. Yours is a circular argument, saying "the universe is like this, because if it weren't we wouldn't be here to discuss it" is the same thing as saying "it's like this because it just is". As a scientist, do you consider that a rational explanation? As a scientist, tell me what is more unlikely - that the Universe's physical laws have been fine-tuned, or that by coincidence, 22 cosmological constants, 4 fundamental laws, and so on, "just happen" to have, among a HUGE spectrum of values, exactly the values they need to have for us to be here?

"[as a scientist you should ask yourself] so why is the universe like this?".

Well you obviously believe that it is because there is a God. So you are not going to look for an alternative hypothesis are you?

[/quote]

As a scientist, I'm always curious about the natural world and in the Universe. And I'm aware that it is likely we will never learn what exactly happened the moment the Universe came into existence. So, in the absence of definitive proof (which I will get someday, when I die), I have to rely on my judgment and on whatever evidence can be found, to make up my mind as to what happened at the beginning of the Universe's life. I can look at all the theories put out so far, and since I have a logical, critical mind, and I like to think of myself as open-minded, I can evaluate each of them, and apply my rational thought to choose the one I believe fits best the evidence we have so far. I also believe in Occam's razor, and as a scientist I don't like it when coincidence is stretched too far.
Taken all together, this makes me think that there is much more evidence that God set the Universe into motion, rather than the whole thing happened out of nowhere, for no reason we will ever know, and "just by chance" with all the right laws for us to exist.

That's me as a scientist. As a believer, I can simply look at the Universe and acknowledge that everything is so beautiful and elegant that it is plain the hand of God is behind all this.

I don't find any contradiction. Do you?

[Prebe]

Certainly beautiful, but I also see the complete lack of an end goal. And I can't see why my understanding of elegance should include a god. A crystal latice is elegant, and that can be explained down to the last detail without a god.

[Plissken]

I'm not saying that it should include a god, just that it makes it understandable how someone would.

In answer to your more philosophical question: The larger the group is being viewed, the more complex and beautiful the pattern. From a deities' view, the whole of creation - even the fall of some species, and the rise of others - would be pretty amazing.

The point is, don't get too tart with the Believers, 'cause we're all trying for answers.

[Prebe]

22 cosmological constants, 4 fundamental laws

I personally find it more probable that these were set by something ruled by physical phenomena as opposed to a human like intelligence with or without a body floating in the void that preceede the emergence of these constants.

And I don't profess to know what you think, I just wanted to counter the most obvious arguments. And by the way, I never said that I didn't think that bacteria or black holes were beautiful. That's what you think

The reason that evolution and creation are incompatible in my mind is, that by the modern definition evolution is a random process without an end goal. You previously said, that you think that god gave us our mind to enjoy the beauty of his work. So, God must have had us (or some other godlike intelligence) in mind when he set the ball rolling. And by that definition evolution is not random any more.

[Xar]

22 cosmological constants, 4 fundamental laws

I personally find it more probable that these were set by something ruled by physical phenomena as opposed to a human like intelligence with or without a body floating in the void that preceede the emergence of these constants.

Well, this only moves on the question to the next step - if you postulate that these laws and constants were "set by something ruled by physical phenomena", you not only find yourself in need to describe where does this "something" come from, but also how it is possible that physical phenomena had relevance BEFORE the Universe came into being.

(Oh, and by the way, the first of those links I posted also answers a similar question you could ask... which is, if God made the Universe, who made God? I'm not going to start arguing philosophy, so you might want to check that).

The reason that evolution and creation are incompatible in my mind is, that by the modern definition evolution is a random process without an end goal. You previously said, that you think that god gave us our mind to enjoy the beauty of his work. So, God must have had us (or some other godlike intelligence) in mind when he set the ball rolling. And by that definition evolution is not random any more.

Ah yes, but who wrote the definition of evolution? Humans Just because we feel the need to categorize, define and describe with words a physical process, it doesn't mean that the process itself is defined in that same way. In other words: there is no way you can know for sure that evolution is a random process without an end goal, because you cannot look into the future and say that there is no end goal. Even if you take the stance that we COULD be the end goal, then the question remains - why should the fact that evolution had an end goal make it incompatible with the existence of a Creator? Just because God knew we would show up it doesn't mean that He directed everything from the first cell floating in the primordial broth up to the caveman discovering fire... there is a subtle difference between the concept of universal control (which you seem to propose) and omniscience (which is an attribute of God). Simply knowing that something will happen doesn't equate with making it happen - to put it in layman's terms, knowing that dusk will come at 18,30 doesn't mean you are actually making dusk come at 18,30 - it happens by itself, without need of external influences. Similarly, just because God knew we would show up, it doesn't mean He did anything to force the course of events - He could have simply sat back and watched.

As Plissken said, if we find such wonder in the Universe, and we only perceive a tiny part of it, how much more wonderful it could be to a Creator?

[Fist and Faith]

And that's a lousy reason to stay out of the 'Tank Fist. If you must make an excuse, surely you can come up with one that's better than ignorance. Gods know it doesn't stop any of the rest of us.

Heh. I'll have to take your word for that. But one of the reasons I don't know much about that stuff is that I'm not nearly as interested in it as I am in Close stuff. I don't think either forum's questions are answerable; either's problems fixable. But I enjoy this stuff more.

If I understand correctly, your answer to the "why do the universal laws allow the existence of life?" is, "well, that's the way the universe is"... whereas it doesn't answer the question "so why is the universe like this?".

The universal laws allow the specific types of life that we know. That doesn't mean that, if the laws were otherwise, there wouldn't be a different kind of life, and it wouldn't be having the same discussion. For your kind of queston to convince me, there would need to be reason to think that NO life could exist with any laws other than those we are familiar with.

I'll read your links tomorrow Xar. But untill then, let me rephrase my question for clarification:
1: You believe in God
2: You believe in evolution
3: You believe that God knew exactly were evolution was going.

Then what is the point of evolution? Is it a show that God put on for his own amusement? Or was he not powerfull enough to create humans right away?

.................

Sounds a bit sadistical doesn't it? Just to let all those species die out, when you could have created something that worked to begin with?

Well, we could certainly ask SRD why he writes books when he knows what's going to happen, and in which entire races/species sometimes die.

EDIT: I posted before reading Xar's next post. I see he answered it in much the same way, but much more eloquently:

Remember that knowing something will happen isn't reason enough to say "well, it's useless to make it happen": whoever has a burning passion for creative endeavours knows what I'm talking about. For example, I love to write stories: but just because, before writing a story, I already know how it's going to end, it doesn't mean I should not write it anyway, and enjoy the process of actualization - of making a physical entity out of that story, which until then was only an idea in my mind. So, why is it so alien to you to imagine that a Creator God, even knowing that setting the Universe into motion with this set of physical laws would lead ot humankind, decided to do it anyway?
(As an aside, let me add that I also believe that the act of creation accomplished by writers, painters, or whoever else engages in a creative endeavour is likely one of the greatest accomplishments a human being can achieve, regardless of whether it brings fame and fortune or not).

Very nicely said!!!

So, in the absence of definitive proof (which I will get someday, when I die)

Or not.

[Avatar]

If I understand correctly, your answer to the "why do the universal laws allow the existence of life?" is, "well, that's the way the universe is"... whereas it doesn't answer the question "so why is the universe like this?"

It's more along the lines of "that's the way life is."

I think though that Prebe touched on a very important thing there, when he started to talk about an "end plan". A reason. All of those permutations of a creaor, of how much hand he actually had in anything, all seem to suggest a reason. A divine plan...a vested interest.

For me at least, that's part and parcel of what people mean by "god" and is one of the things that I see neither need nor reason for.

Of course, something that I always bear in mind in thses discussions is something that Fist has said more than once: That there is a difference between the existance of a god, and whether or not it should be worshipped. One does not automatically include the other.

--A

[Plissken]

Personally, I find it more [irony]miraculous[/irony] if all this did just fall together at random. I like the idea of chance being the reason for all of this stuff.

[Avatar]

Me too.

--A

[Prebe]

there is no way you can know for sure that evolution is a random process without an end goal, because you cannot look into the future and say that there is no end goal.

Well, then you don't believe in evolution as it is scientifically defined today. That was sort of what I was getting at.

Ah yes, but who wrote the definition of evolution? Humans

May I add: generations of human scientists.
And who wrote the Bible?

Well, this only moves on the question to the next step - if you postulate that these laws and constants were "set by something ruled by physical phenomena", you not only find yourself in need to describe where does this "something" come from, but also how it is possible that physical phenomena had relevance BEFORE the Universe came into being.

And you find it less odd, that some etheral or humanoid intelligence had relevance before?

You prefer to imagine an etheral/ humanoid intelligence in the void, I prefer to imagine some pre-cosmic physical constants. You want me to tell you what made the constants, I want you to tell me what made the etheral/humanoid intelligence. Even so far. You think an etheral/humanoid intelligence is more likely to be the first, I think some pre cosmic physical constants are more likely. So there. We must agree to disagree.

I assume by the way, that neither of us is even remotely qualified to discuss cosmology and the physical theories behind the emergence of the universe at a scientific level. People in this debate should be aware that we are speaking as almost complete laymen in that field.

Well, we could certainly ask SRD why he writes books when he knows what's going to happen, and in which entire races/species sometimes die.

Hmmm, I’m not so sure that the Unhomed really mind eradication, being fictional characters and all that. As oposed to the dinosaurs for example.

[Avatar]

Do you think that dinosaurs actually minded? I doubt it. Takes a human consciousness to mind that things happen, I think.

You prefer to imagine an etheral/ humanoid intelligence in the void, I prefer to imagine some pre-cosmic physical constants. You want me to tell you what made the constants, I want you to tell me what made the etheral/humanoid intelligence. Even so far. You think an etheral/humanoid intelligence is more likely to be the first, I think some pre cosmic physical constants are more likely. So there. We must agree to disagree.

I think that's a fair enough assessment, and isn't it always the final destination of these discussions?

I must say though that Xar has made no mention of the bible, nor implied in any way that the commonly accepted views of religion are necessarily what he believes in/supports/whatever.

That, I think, is the difference inherent in the distinction that Xar labels as being between "faith" and "blind faith."

In the end, it comes down to eactly what Prebe has outlined though, I think. A preference of imagination.

--A

[Prebe]

I must say though that Xar has made no mention of the bible, nor implied in any way that the commonly accepted views of religion are necessarily what he believes in/supports/whatever.

You are right. But I naturally assumed Christianity. I may be wrong.

[Avatar]

No, he does consider himself a Christian, but that's not the same as believing that the bible is the infallible source of all truth or anything like that. (Actually, he did specifically mention it, now that I think about it, only to say outright that he saw it more as a collection of allegories/analogies rather than any sort of divinely conferred truth.

That, in essence, is what I'm getting at...the assumption of how christians approach their faith is just that - an assumption.

--A

[Prebe]

I must say though that Xar has made no mention of the bible, nor implied in any way that the commonly accepted views of religion are necessarily what he believes in/supports/whatever.

That, I think, is the difference inherent in the distinction that Xar labels as being between "faith" and "blind faith."

So those who believe indiscriminately in the bible have blind faith, while the educated people who dilute it with certain selected scientific discoveries are informed believers? Or is an informed believer one who does not believe anything of what the bible writes? Or one who takes everything in the bible as strictly symbolic?

The difference between faith and blind faith, in my view, is only the level of scientific enlightenment of the believer, or the believers will to trust science over religion. Now, to Xar his belief in divine guidance is not blind because he understands the mechanics behind evolution. However, he does not accept the underlying randomness and the lack of a final goal, that - as far as I know - are well established within the theory. Thus he chooses to trust religion over science, or he chooses to ignore what he instinctively feels as a scientist.

Anyway, what seems just faith to us now, might well be blind faith next year.

[Xar]

Thanks, Avatar... that's indeed my own belief. I don't claim I can speak for the majority of Christians - but I also tend to think, based on the other believers I personally know in RL, that "fundamentalism" (taking all that the Bible says at face value, and refusing to accept any explanation that apparently contradicts it) is not so widespread here. Which is ironic, considering I'm Italian. At the very least, most believers I personally know share my idea that the Bible is a series of metaphores and analogies - or, if you prefer, that it is the best way the ancient Jews could put into words what they had no words for.

there is no way you can know for sure that evolution is a random process without an end goal, because you cannot look into the future and say that there is no end goal.

Well, then you don't believe in evolution as it is scientifically defined today. That was sort of what I was getting at.

That's your problem, Prebe... you deal with absolutes, black or white. I prefer to see things in shades of gray. I believe in evolution, I just don't think we can make such a process fit within the restricting parameters of any description we can make of it. Words are by nature an approximation - or are you telling me that the word "flower" contains all the beauty of a single flower, its scent, the way dew sparkles on it in the morning, or the way its colors are vivid in the light of day? Or for that matter, are you telling me that the above description has nailed down the concept of flower perfectly?
If that is not possible with something so small, then how can we pretend we can ever perfectly and exactly define a complicated process such as evolution?
Nature often defies our arbitrary categorization, Prebe... why, we're still having troubles deciding how many kingdoms are there - animal, plants, protista, bacteriae, archaea... and we're still trying to make every new creature we find fit into one of these classifications, often finding out we cannot. How can we pretend that we nailed down evolution and categorized it perfectly? That requires significant arrogance on our part, doesn't it?

Ah yes, but who wrote the definition of evolution? Humans

May I add: generations of human scientists.
And who wrote the Bible?

See above for my thoughts about the Bible.

Well, this only moves on the question to the next step - if you postulate that these laws and constants were "set by something ruled by physical phenomena", you not only find yourself in need to describe where does this "something" come from, but also how it is possible that physical phenomena had relevance BEFORE the Universe came into being.

And you find it less odd, that some etheral or humanoid intelligence had relevance before?

You prefer to imagine an etheral/ humanoid intelligence in the void, I prefer to imagine some pre-cosmic physical constants. You want me to tell you what made the constants, I want you to tell me what made the etheral/humanoid intelligence. Even so far. You think an etheral/humanoid intelligence is more likely to be the first, I think some pre cosmic physical constants are more likely. So there. We must agree to disagree.

True, but first you might at least consider reading the first link I provided earlier, and see what the answer to your question as to "who created God" question could be. Besides, your explanation about pre-cosmic physical constants cannot hold, for the simple reason that cosmologists usually either claim that nothing at all existed before the Universe (in which case there was no space, no time, and no cosmological laws) and then proceed on saying that asking "what came before" is meaningless, or they claim that they'll never be able to know, since we'll likely never be able to even see the moment of the Big Bang. In either case, physical phenomena, due to their very nature, cannot exist if the physical universe doesn't exist either (which was the case before the Big Bang), so how could you reconcile that with your idea?

I assume by the way, that neither of us is even remotely qualified to discuss cosmology and the physical theories behind the emergence of the universe at a scientific level. People in this debate should be aware that we are speaking as almost complete laymen in that field.

I may be no physicist, but cosmology is one of my hobbies

Well, we could certainly ask SRD why he writes books when he knows what's going to happen, and in which entire races/species sometimes die.

Hmmm, I’m not so sure that the Unhomed really mind eradication, being fictional characters and all that. As oposed to the dinosaurs for example.

[/quote]

You assume that fictional characters have no reality at all, and therefore meekly follow your commands wherever you want them to go? Well, this is more a philosophical question now, but I assume you've never written a story with fictional characters. Some writers (like Robert Jordan, for example) claim they keep their characters "under control" for the whole story; others, like me, find out that after a while the characters start acting by themselves. I find myself wondering why would this character do B whereas I want him to do A; why does the character act in a certain way when as far as I'm concerned, he should act another way entirely. Then I usually realize that the character does that because I'm no longer guiding him, he's guiding himself - he's writing his own story, in a way. And sometimes the finale of that story is completely different from the one I envisioned - and much more beautiful for that. That, incidentally, is the most satisfying moment in writing for me - when your characters come alive. And you can be sure that if I have death approaching one of those characters, they try to write themselves away from it.
So, if we as humans can sometimes create characters who seemingly have a will of their own (and it's noteworthy that these characters are those whom we remember the most), why couldn't we be "characters" in the great book of the Universe?

And as for the Plan... Well, there could be a plan we are inexorably moving forwards to; or, it could be that - just like the author in the above paragraph - God is letting us act freely, because the unfolding story, or the beauty of the Universe that is being produced, or whatever, are an endless source of wonder. Omniscience doesn't mean omni-jadedness, after all. If I as a human being can start creating a fictional world with full knowledge of how complex I want it to be, and then while it takes shape, wonder at how beautiful and elegant it is, why shouldn't God be able to do the same? As I said - the fact you know something is going to happen doesn't mean you will not find any pleasure in seeing it actually happening.
If you want, you could even imagine that God created the Universe to watch it evolve out of wonder and love.

Besides, to be perfectly honest, despite most people's beliefs, science and religion are not opposites, and are not incompatible. True science says it cannot delve into the possibility of the existence of God, because such a thing goes beyond science; true faith says that all the scientific world is a wonder, because it ultimately comes from God. Is there a contradiction there? Keep in mind I'm talking about honest science and honest religion - not about the fundamentalist scientists who believe in science over everything and dismiss any notion that doesn't fit their paradigm, or about the fundamentalist faithful who do the same for religion.