Kevin's Watch

Don't know if I agree with you there Prebe.

Not sure how the lack of a final goal can ever be established, let alone proved, in theory.

By it's very nature, it doesn't need to be obvious until after it's accomplished.

Now of course, I agree with you that there isn't one, or at least, that I don't see the requirement for one, but I think that making an assumption about either the extent of his trust in religion, or what he "instinctively" feels as a scientist is presumptuous at best.

Of course, as an atheist, you may feel that faith has no place in science, and perhaps it doesn't when it comes to any given expression thereof, such as an experiment.

But overall, there should be nothing in a given sense of faith that should exclude anybody. Indeed, more power to those who break through those narrow preconceptions that we faithless assume faith must be encumbered with.

--Avatar

Aah, excellent post Xar, which you made while I was typing my much shorter one intermittently.

Regardless of our difference of opinion on that one fundamental point, that was a great post.

--A

Xar wrote:That's your problem, Prebe... you deal with absolutes, black or white.

Only when it comes to natural science where thing often are black or white. 2 plus 2 IS four, and mutations ARE random, or perhaps you believe otherwise?

Let me ask you for example (just tell me when you feel my questions become offensive, or you can't be bothered anymore ):

Would you not agree, that divine guidance along the way, or complete prescience of every single mutation is what would be needed to fashion organisms the way a God wanted? If you don't think so, I would like to know how you think creation/evolution are connected.

(I'm at work, so I won't have time to read you link yet. But I shall, don't worry).

Avatar wrote:Not sure how the lack of a final goal can ever be established, let alone proved, in theory.

You are most likely right, but as evolution still progress, we are most certainly not there yet.

Avatar wrote:Now of course, I agree with you that there isn't one, or at least, that I don't see the requirement for one, but I think that making an assumption about either the extent of his trust in religion, or what he "instinctively" feels as a scientist is presumptuous at best.

Perhaps, but the at best seems to imply "insulting" which was certainly not the idea. As for the instinctive part, I would PRESUME that any natural scientist would believe in the random nature of mutations. But I am sure Xar’s next answer will reveal that.

Avatar wrote:Of course, as an atheist, you may feel that faith has no place in science, and perhaps it doesn't when it comes to any given expression thereof, such as an experiment.

Exactly. Religion has no place in science. The problem with evolutionary science (apart from the huge difficulty of performing experiments) is that it’s implications touch most peoples feelings very deeply, and hence makes it difficult for them to accept that it may be JUST science. Accepting that 2 + 2 is four is a little easier for most.

Avatar wrote:But overall, there should be nothing in a given sense of faith that should exclude anybody. Indeed, more power to those who break through those narrow preconceptions that we faithless assume faith must be encumbered with.

I agree, as long as sitting back in awe and starring at the wonders God created does not for ONE SECOND stop us from thinking: “Hey, perhaps there’s a natural explanation that does not involve God?”. I just don’t see that happening.

Prebe wrote:

Xar wrote:That's your problem, Prebe... you deal with absolutes, black or white.

Only when it comes to natural science where thing often are black or white. 2 plus 2 IS four, and mutations ARE random, or perhaps you believe otherwise?

Well, the fact that some things are black and white does not mean that all things are so. And it is interesting to think that quantum physics, for example, takes no black-and-white approach at all. It is supposed to be the physics of the fundamental blocks of existence (although if the string theory gains any experimental evidence, this will likely change), and it states that indetermination is the natural state of existence - the Heisenberg principle. Funnily enough, if I recall correctly, according to quantum physics 2+2 could not always make four. And anyway, the natural world - especially the biological world - defies black and white categorization. Mammalians are warm-blooded creatures who give birth to live young and feed them milk - but what of the egg-laying mammalian, the platypus?

Prebe wrote:Let me ask you for example (just tell me when you feel my questions become offensive, or you can't be bothered anymore ):

Would you not agree, that divine guidance along the way, or complete prescience of every single mutation is what would be needed to fashion organisms the way a God wanted? If you don't think so, I would like to know how you think creation/evolution are connected.

(I'm at work, so I won't have time to read you link yet. But I shall, don't worry).

I definitely disagree with your fundamental assumption, if I understand it correctly. You start from the concept that God wanted to make humans, so He either had to guide evolution along the way, or He had to set the Universe up in such a painstakingly perfect way that the only logical progression of evolution in this little world called Earth would have led to humankind. I, on the other hand, start from the concept that God set the Universe into motion with the parameters that were needed to support life, and not with the single purpose of producing human beings. Of course, the concept of omniscience states that even before creating the Universe, God already knew that creating the Universe in such a way would lead to humankind. But was the rising of humankind the only reason why He chose to create the Universe in this way, in the first place?
I'm not so arrogant as to believe that the whole Universe exists with the sole purpose of having humans develop in this little planet... this concept comes from the Bible, and if you take the Bible as the best way the ancient Jews could put into words the concepts they were shown, well, do you think that they would have liked to write down "and God made humans, martians, vegans, and all other aliens in the Universe"?
I think God set the universe into motion and that the fact that it would produce humans was one of many goals - or even just an intermediate phase. And remember that omniscience means not just knowing what will happen, it means knowing all that could ever happen. So, while for you our evolution was a linear process that led to humans, God might have seen infinite world lines for Earth, in some of them humans arose, in some others intelligence arose out of the dinosaurs, in some others out of trylobytes, perhaps - who can say? Claiming that we are the end point of God's creation, or that God absolutely intended for humans to be ape-descendants with pink skin, two eyes, little body hair and so on is only an expression of arrogance, I believe. After all, it is very likely there is other life in the universe; does it make more sense that humans are the chosen of the Creator, and all other aliens can go to hell or don't even have souls, or that all of us are equally loved by the Being who created the whole Universe and all that is in it?

Xar wrote:I, on the other hand, start from the concept that God set the Universe into motion with the parameters that were needed to support life, and not with the single purpose of producing human beings...I'm not so arrogant as to believe that the whole Universe exists with the sole purpose of having humans develop in this little planet...

Another excellent post Xar, and, as is clear, nowhere near what common concepts of religious faith would have us believe, or lead us to expect of believers.

Nice posts by Prebe too, and yes, though I didn't think that you intended it to be such, I did mean to imply that it could be perceived as insulting. Two, often quite different, if related, possibilities.

Perhaps the part of Xar's post that strikes me as most meaningful is the question of black and white. I'm not an absoluteist by any means, and consistency then demands that I don't assume anything as an absolute, and that, I guess, includes this very issue.

Although, of course, those shades of grey can be interpreted in any of a number of things, and I could, if I chose, assign them to the various "ifs" "buts" and "maybes" that even science must contend with and accept.

Anyway, good posts all, and some very enjoyable reading.

--A

Shamelessly re-posted, but it reflects my personal views on the origins of human life and its relationship to God. Or, at least, a useful approximation.

Wayfriend wrote:Suppose you are one of a race of beings. You're curious folk, you believe in a God who created the universe, but you build telescopes and cyclotrons to figure out how the world really works too.

Over time, your technology advances. You take control of your own evolution. You take control of the evolution of other species. You're mind becomes more capable, it encompasses more. Communication becomes like the air, it's everywhere, in everything. You terraform planets; you build planets. The barriers between minds break down; the distinction becomes pointless. You put stars where you need them. You create new laws of physics. You reach the edge of the universe, and touch it with the flat of your hand, you say to yourself, I think I can make one of these.

Then you see that the end is nearing; the heat/death of the universe as it collapses back onto itself, becomes a singularity, and then bangs big again. You know that time is circular; the end of the universe is also the beginning.

Now you have a mission. You are like unto the God you once imagined; but not even God can survive the reboot of the universe. But there is something that can be done. It's possible to put the right spin on giant masses, create the right density of quantum particles, adjust the natural laws enough to store your name in the decimal places of pi - with the result that some information will make it through to the other side of the universal singularity.

It is possible, by devoting the remainder of your existence, to affect what happens on the other side of the big bang.

Now it's done. Then the universe is reborn. The seeds you planted into the metafabric of the universe unfold. There is matter. There are stars. There are planets. There is water. There is life. Just as you had intended.

The life crawls out of the water, looks up at the stars, and wonders. How did I come to be? Why am I here? It imagines a God. And then builds a telescope.

Xar wrote:So, while for you our evolution was a linear process that led to humans,

May I remind you, that evolution is thought of as a multi linear process. The path from any one place on the phylogenetic tree of life to another is a linear set of mutations with the odd crossing to nearby branches. This is not my idea. It is a main tenet of evolutionary theory. Thus, evolution it is not one line; and neither I, nor any other proponents of evolutionary theory ever claimed this. Nor have we claimed, that this process was predestined to end up with man, or indeed that man was ever a given result. So no: for me (or other proponents) evolution was not a linear process that lead to humans. Evolution was a tremendous collection of dichotomously branching lines of which one is presently at the level of homo sapiens, but has not stopped there.

On the other hand:

Xar wrote: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 to humankind, decided to do it anyway?

and

Xar wrote:well, if God set the Universe into motion by setting all the laws that make life possible and that eventually led to us, then it stands to reason that He intended to make us.

and

Xar wrote:I, on the other hand, start from the concept that God set the Universe into motion with the parameters that were needed to support life, and not with the single purpose of producing human beings. Of course, the concept of omniscience states that even before creating the Universe, God already knew that creating the Universe in such a way would lead to humankind.

I think it is clear that you think that God intended us. An it is my conception that you think that God set the constants so that all the correct mutations would happen to create, not only man, but all the other living wonders we see around us? Including any extraterrestrial life forms? And not by gradually nudging mutations in the prefered direction?

I really like WayFriends post this time too.

If there is a god, it's us.

I dunno Prebe, while I certainly see what you're saying, and fundamentally agree that any semblance of the christian god must include intent, or a "plan" if you will, I can still postulate a "god" that has no intent. The blind watchmaker, energy only, no plan, no investment.

Of course, that means no consciousness, no sentience, and certainly no omniscence.

--A

Avatar wrote:I can still postulate a "god" that has no intent.

You certainly can, but that's not what I'm arguing against. I am arguing against the paradox of believing intent and random mutations at the same time.

Even if God had every single mutation laid out up to and including humans (and all the other lineages of course) what if humans decided to do something that changed the mutation rate? To my knowledge this had already happened several times in history (I guess I don't have to specify). Of course God could have intended for us to change the mutation rate, but what about free will then?

About my cold materialistic heart of stone: I wouldn't be here if I did not appreciate art, litterature and beauty. But verbose unclear definitions, however aestetic, have no place in science.

Fair enough, I can't see how you can have random intent.

And I don't think that your heart, however cold and stony, is all that materialistic, except in the scientific sense.

Aah, this is simply one of those things that people are never going to agree on. And this discussion has shown that, however many common principles are held, hoever many fundamental issues are agreed on as fact, there's still one averreaching difference.

It's a simple difference in one sense, but a hugely complicated one in the other, and that's the issue of faith.

Being faithless, even without all this science, I immediately and intuitively agree with Prebe, but it's a pleasure to see all of this being so carefully considered and laid out...(Hey, what happened to Fist? )...from these two superficially similar but fundamentally different starting points.

In the end, as valid as the questions "how and why did it happen" may be, there is one fundamental truth that we can't escape...that it did happen.

I'm sure I've told this anecdote before, but when the christian missionaries arrived in Africa, the first thing they wanted to do was establish what the beliefs of the locals were. So, gesturing at the rolling plains, they asked, "Who made all this?"

The reply they recieved has always charmed me with it's openess and honesty, and makes me wonder if there isn't a fundamental lesson hidden in it.

The locals replied, "We don't know. It was here when we arrived."

--Avatar

To clarify, Prebe: there is a difference between knowledge and intent. To use the "writer" analogy that I've already used... when I'm writing a story and event X happens, it can be due to two reasons:

1) Setting up all the initial plotlines the way I wished them to be, I created the inevitability or logical plausibility that event X would happen: I did not lead the whole story towards event X, but event X happened because all the conditions existed for it to happen; note that I didn't need to know in advance about event X this way - it simply grew out of the premises I established, and could have even been an unexpected development;

2) I purposefully set up all the initial plotlines so that event X had to happen no matter what.

In the first case, event X occurs naturally: when writing the initial plotlines, maybe I examined what each of them would lead to, and figured that likely event X would happen, but I did not choose those plot lines in order to make event X happen. In the second, I deliberately chose those plot lines for event X to happen.

So, to return to our discussion: in the first case, God could have chosen the original settings of the Universe for whatever reason - perhaps they were the ones that would offer the greatest variety, or wonder? - but even though He knew humans would come out of those settings, He did not deliberately chose those settings with the purpose of creating humans: in this way, humans could be even considered an inevitable byproduct, albeit one that God knew about all along.
In the second case, which is the one you postulate, He chose these specific settings exactly so that humans would arise in time.

Of course, it is a fine distinction - but a distinction nonetheless.

Prebe wrote:

Avatar wrote:I can still postulate a "god" that has no intent.

You certainly can, but that's not what I'm arguing against.

I am arguing against the paradox of believing intent and random mutations at the same time.

See above. I never said intent; I simply spoke of knowledge.

Prebe wrote:Even if God had every single mutation laid out up to and including humans (and all the other lineages of course) what if humans decided to do something that changed the mutation rate? To my knowledge this had already happened several times in history (I guess I don't have to specify). Of course God could have intended for us to change the mutation rate, but what about free will then?

Well, here again you fall into the trap of confusing knowledge with intent. Let me give you an example: suppose I'm a security guard and I'm sitting in my cozy cubbyhole, looking at a monitor which shows what a camera is looking at - let's say, the entrance of an alley. I see a man walking down the street and approaching the alley; and I also notice a thug in the alley, ready to rob the man. Now, suppose I cannot or will not (for whatever reason) warn the man, so what I knew would happen (the thug robs the man) indeed happens. Does it mean that, from the moment I saw the man walking down the street, this poor guy didn't have any free will, simply because I knew what would happen?

It's the same thing with this concept, really: an omniscient Being would know humankind would change its mutation rate - but that doesn't mean He intended it. He just knew. And, as omniscience is defined, He also would know there would be other possibilities - humankind destroys itself, humankind doesn't manage to change the mutation rate... so, you are completely free to do as you choose; the only thing is that whatever you do, the omniscient Being knows it. But that doesn't mean He actually takes an active hand in making you choose one thing over another.

If you prefer: our vision of time and the future is a line - we can't see what exactly would have happened if today, instead of going to work, we had gone to the park, for example. But omniscience by its very nature means you know everything - you could say, we have a 1° field of vision, an omniscient being has a 360° vision. I wish I could explain it in a more comprehensible way, but this is the stuff of theology and philosophy.

Prebe wrote:About my cold materialistic heart of stone: I wouldn't be here if I did not appreciate art, litterature and beauty. But verbose unclear definitions, however aestetic, have no place in science.

[/quote]

And, within the boundaries of science, the same could be said for things you take for granted without demonstrating them or showing proof of evidence that they indeed are true: so, to be frank, as a scientist you shouldn't and couldn't accept your concept of pre-Universe physical laws defining the physical laws of this Universe, because you cannot prove they existed and there is no shred of evidence they did. By accepting them or at least believing this is what happened, you are making an act of faith, even if it is in scientific terms

Xar wrote:And, within the boundaries of science, the same could be said for things you take for granted without demonstrating them or showing proof of evidence that they indeed are true: so, to be frank, as a scientist you shouldn't and couldn't accept your concept of pre-Universe physical laws defining the physical laws of this Universe, because you cannot prove they existed and there is no shred of evidence they did. By accepting them or at least believing this is what happened, you are making an act of faith, even if it is in scientific terms

I gave you that remember? We agreed to disagree on our separate beliefs at that point.

Let me see if I can understand this: You believe that God set the universe in motion, without having any intention, and a split second later he knew exactly what was going to happen at every point in the future both spatial and temporal?

Prebe wrote:Let me see if I can understand this: You believe that God set the universe in motion, without having any intention, and a split second later he knew exactly what was going to happen at every point in the future both spatial and temporal?

The short answer is, no, you didn't understand it

I never said that God set the universe into motion without having any intention to do so; I simply said that the fact He set the universe into motion doesn't imply that evolution was arbitrarily geared towards the appearance of mankind. That is, for all we know evolution could have given rise to intelligent termites instead.

It seems to me you're still having difficulties grasping the concept of omniscience - perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I gather from your post. For example, when saying "a split second later he knew exactly what was going to happen..." makes absolutely no sense: an omniscient Being would literally know everything, so time wouldn't have meaning, because it would know all things past, present, and future, and all possible variations thereof. In fact, most theologists and philosophers believe that either God is outside of time, or He exists in all time at once.

To use a scientific description, think quantum theory and the quantum multiverse concept: according to this theory, if you roll a six-sided die, for example, there is spawned a universe in which the die rolled "1", a universe in which the die rolled "2", and so on. You, being constrained within four dimensions, are only able to perceive one of these universes (say, the die rolled "5" in your universe); but all six universes technically esist at the same time, only in different quantum states. An omniscient Being would perceive all six universes with equal ease. If you multiply this for all the events that take place in the universe at any given moment, you obtain an infinite number of universe permutations - an omniscient Being would still perceive all of them with equal ease, even though you are only able to see one. So there could be quantum universes where ichtyostega crawled out of the water, died, and life on Earth stopped there. There could be another quantum universe where dinosaurs still rule the Earth. There could be another quantum universe where the Roman Empire never dissolved and still exists. There could be one quantum universe where Prebe is a devoted believer and goes to Church every sunday Now, if God set the Universe into motion, and quantum physics with it (since it's an integral part of the universe), then His omniscience sees not only all the quantum states that were, but also those that will be or that are. So, evolution works randomly, and there are quantum universes where humankind never showed up. God always knew that an infinity of these quantum universes would produce humankind, and that an infinity would not. Is that enough of a reconciliation for you?

Before the inevitable objections, keep in mind that all these quantum states share the fundamental laws and constants of reality, so this concept of quantum multiverse doesn't intrude upon the concept of fine-tuned universe I expounded on earlier.

Oh, and Prebe, perhaps I missed it, but if you offered evidence that the scientific theory of pre-Big Bang physical phenomena determining the Universe's laws, I can't find it... the closest thing I can find is

Prebe wrote: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.

Which of course is not proof at all. If you want to establish a scientific theory that fits within scientific paradigm, you need to work within the confines of that paradigm and offer proof of evidence that your theory not only works, but is the only possible explanation for what we see.

Avatar wrote:(Hey, what happened to Fist? )

I'm not on vacation anymore. No time to post much. heh

Actually, I don't think I'm going to be getting anything else out of this than I've already gotten. I did learned some important stuff, but I also ran into some dead ends. Mainly due to my inability to follow the technical details very far.

Xar wrote:Oh, and Prebe, perhaps I missed it, but if you offered evidence that the scientific theory of pre-Big Bang physical phenomena determining the Universe's laws, I can't find it... the closest thing I can find is

No I din't provide proof, as you did not provide proof theres a God. I suggested we agreed to disagree on that point, which you ignored.

Xar wrote:I never said that God set the universe into motion without having any intention to do so; I simply said that the fact He set the universe into motion doesn't imply that evolution was arbitrarily geared towards the appearance of mankind. That is, for all we know evolution could have given rise to intelligent termites instead.

In other words, the universe was geared towards some kind of intelligence?

Just to make things clear, I am trying to understand why you have such a big problem with the simple and beautiful evolution theory, that you have to construct a complex alternative theory (including omnisicence) applying not only quantum physics, but also philosophy and theology (of which the last has no place in science).

Even if there was a God who sparked the universe, why couldn't the emergence of life be random? Why couldn't evolution be random?

Because you think everything is so perfect, there must be some intelligence that created/intended/started/knew (use appropriate verb or combinations thereof)?

Prebe wrote:

Xar wrote:I never said that God set the universe into motion without having any intention to do so; I simply said that the fact He set the universe into motion doesn't imply that evolution was arbitrarily geared towards the appearance of mankind. That is, for all we know evolution could have given rise to intelligent termites instead.

In other words, the universe was geared towards some kind of intelligence?

*Sighs* I think we keep running around in circles here... I made an example, but maybe I expressed myself badly.

Prebe wrote:Just to make things clear, I am trying to understand why you have such a big problem with the simple and beautiful evolution theory, that you have to construct a complex alternative theory (including omnisicence) applying not only quantum physics, but also philosophy and theology (of which the last has no place in science).

Allright, it seems to me there is a fundamental inability to understand that I have no problems with evolutionary theory... I have to say that, after trying to explain several times and always running against this wall of yours, I'm starting to wonder... does the kind of believers you know shape your concept of what you think religion is like for all believers? In other words, if all the believers you know in RL believe that the bible is the literal truth, does this lead you to the concept that all believers everywhere believe the same, no matter how they try to deny it or prove it is not so? This is not a specific question for you, mind you - it's just a thought I had.

I'll try to clarify one last time, but if you still don't get it, then I'll simply give up trying to explain... I don't have problems with evolutionary theory, I just don't think you can constrain it into our human paradigm. If you accept the theory as it is defined now as the fundamental dogma of evolutionary biology, maybe in ten years someone will develop a variation of that theory and your world will come crashing down on you. As for my "complex theory", you seem to miss the point that I was trying to make... the whole quantum theory bit was to try and explain to you in scientific terms, as an approximation, what "omniscience" could be like. Just the explanation of a concept. That's all. And although I agree that theology shouldn't enter science, I also believe that science cannot, by the very definition of it, rule out the existence of a God. Science is simply not equipped to tackle this question: therefore, within the scientific paradigm, you cannot scientifically demonstrate that God exists or that He does not. Any scientist who tells you he has scientific proof that God does not exist is overstepping the boundaries of science and simply professing his own belief in atheism.

Prebe wrote:Even if there was a God who sparked the universe, why couldn't the emergence of life be random? Why couldn't evolution be random?

Did I ever said it was guided? Prebe, I hope I don't offend, but it seems to me you don't really understand what I'm trying to say.

Prebe wrote:Because you think everything is so perfect, there must be some intelligence that created/intended/started/knew (use appropriate verb or combinations thereof)?

Not "some intelligence", Prebe... I see no reason why I should hide behind pseudo-scientific definitions. I believe that God set the Universe into motion with all the parameters that were needed for life to flourish. I also believe that, given enough time, within the constraints of those parameters, intelligence was inevitable somewhere, sooner or later, and that we are likely just one example of this. That's it; my approach to science is exactly as rigorous and precise as yours is likely to be, but it seems to me that's what you refuse to accept.

Oh, and

Prebe wrote:

Xar wrote:Oh, and Prebe, perhaps I missed it, but if you offered evidence that the scientific theory of pre-Big Bang physical phenomena determining the Universe's laws, I can't find it... the closest thing I can find is

No I din't provide proof, as you did not provide proof theres a God. I suggested we agreed to disagree on that point, which you ignored.

You see, the problem is that we're talking about two different paradigms. When you claim that scientific phenomena created the Universe, you're within the scientific paradigm, and that paradigm states that you need to provide proof if you want your theory to have some validity. When I claim that God created the universe, science cannot prove or disprove that, because the existence of God is not within the boundaries of the scientific paradigm; therefore, since the existence of God becomes a philosophical question, the proof I need to offer is philosophical and not scientific.

Regardless, it seems to me that we're going in circles, and, to be honest, I'm getting weary of defending my beliefs as if I were in the wrong, or had no right to be considered a serious scientist because of my faith. No offense to you, Prebe, but it seems all I've been doing in the last few pages has been trying to explain my beliefs and seeing them thrown back at me... I don't really think it's useful to continue down this road.

I think one of the confusing point have been that we are discussing two things at the same time: Is evolution a random process? and What is the origin of the universe.

Re: evolution as a random process:

Xar wrote:I believe that God set the Universe into motion with all the parameters that were needed for life to flourish. I also believe that, given enough time, within the constraints of those parameters, intelligence was inevitable somewhere, sooner or later, and that we are likely just one example of this. That's it; my approach to science is exactly as rigorous and precise as yours is likely to be, but it seems to me that's what you refuse to accept.

The only thing I can't accept from a strictly scientific standpoint is, that you think intelligence is inevitable, and that is really all I have been trying to get a scientific answer to. I admit I have not been quite clear of this purpose, because your posts have been very long and have had a lot of points that I felt needed addressing. And, of course, because I like to digress

But if you don't want to give me that explanation it's fine. I'll stop badgering you.

Re: origin of universe:
And I don't want you to defend you belief, I just want you to admit it's a belief, as I have admitted that I believe that pre-existing physical constants were enough to start the universe as we know it. I can't see why my burden of proof should be different from yours, unless of course I claimed that I was right in the scientific sense of the word. I just said that it seemed more likely to me than a God.

Peace?

Prebe wrote:The only thing I can't accept from a strictly scientific standpoint is, that you think intelligence is inevitable, and that is really all I have been trying to get a scientific answer to. I admit I have not been quite clear of this purpose, because your posts have been very long and have had a lot of points that I felt needed addressing. And, of course, because I like to digress

Well, from a scientific point of view, intelligence IS inevitable... you have a near-infinite universe, billions of years old; I'm not sure it was Fermi who calculated it, but some physicist definitely calculated that the possibility of intelligent life in the universe is significantly higher than 0 - it is, in fact, a near-certainty. With enough time, intelligence becomes inevitable - especially if you have a near-infinite number of worlds where to develop life. At least one of those poor little quivering cells WILL evolve into something intelligent, just according to the laws of statistics!

Prebe wrote:And I don't want you to defend you belief, I just want you to admit it's a belief, as I have admitted that I believe that pre-existing physical constants were enough to start the universe as we know it. I can't see why my burden of proof should be different from yours, unless of course I claimed that I was right in the scientific sense of the word. I just said that it seemed more likely to me than a God.

Peace?

I think that here there was a fundamental misunderstanding... I always said it was my belief, I never said it was the universal truth you all should accept.

Peace.