Slashdot Mirror
Cosmological Constant Not Fine Tuned For Life
eldavojohn writes "A common argument one might encounter in intelligent design or the arduous process of resolving science with religion is that the physical constants of our world are fine tuned for life by some creator or designer. A University of Alberta theoretical physicist claims quite the opposite when it comes to the cosmological constant. His paper says that our ever expanding universe has a positive cosmological constant and he explains that the optimum cosmological constant for maximizing the chances of life in the universe would be slightly negative: 'any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life. Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.'"
Doesn't the Anthropic Principle adequately deal with this issue in any case?
I find this somewhat comforting. The Earth is becoming less and less 'special' with new worlds being found nearly every day now--worlds that may sustain life. Now it turns out that the universe is 'flawed' from our perspective, too. In a way, it's sort of optimistic--there's a way that it could be better, and the possibility arises that maybe it'd be possible to find a 'better' place.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
Just look at any government. Intelligent design surely would not allow for such insanity.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
The people who want to believe that a creator is pulling the strings in our favor aren't willing to listen to science.
We don't need to resolve science with religion ... we need to reconcile religion with science. Once your god is outside the big bang where scientists just shrug, or addressing things like an afterlife ... run wild.
If your religion can't incorporate what science tells us, you're choosing to live in ignorance and take your holy book as literal, factual information.
I know astrophysicists who are devoutly religious ... first and foremost, they turn to the science to explain the universe as it exists. For them, god answers a completely different set of questions -- and I have no problem with that. If any entity DID create the universe, it's largely going to be beyond our ability to fully comprehend.
If a god exists, he's such a massively abstract and complex being, that trying to fit him/it/whatever into OUR understanding of the universe is laughable.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The author of the linked study appears not to have considered that a universe more dense with galaxies would be a universe with many more planet-sterilizing gamma ray bursts, which would not be terribly conducive to life.
Here at /. News, our top story is "An uncaring universe does not care about humanity". News at 11.
Following this we will have more videos of cats being catlike.
This doesn't refute Intelligent Design, it just suggests that the Designer isn't as Intelligent as He's cracked up to be.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I thought the existence of Charlie Sheen proved long ago that the whole thing is just a crap shoot.
So really life is just fined tuned for the cosmological constant?
This was my thought, too... the conclusion that this somehow is an argument against a creator would only come if you assume certain ideas from the non-creator view. That is, that having a better chance of *developing* life is better, therefore having a creator create a cosmological constant that does not increase the evolutionary chance of life developing ...
Really, it sounds quite mixed up. The low chance of evolving life does not seem to be a good argument against having a creator.
...you can't argue with success.
Known attempts at permutations of physical constants: 1
Success at creating intelligent life: 1
Of course, one could never argue against the line of reasoning suggested by the summary--whatever degree of life exists, arbitrarily declare there should be "more", and conjecture (yes, it's sheer conjecture--the actual results from modifying the cosmological constant would require far more calculation of than is provided) something else would have made it "better".
Personally, though I'm used to having my code second-guessed, they'd have to come up with a much better criticism than this...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Basically, he said the current value of the cosmological constant does not maximise the potential for life.
Assuming that an omnipotent would seek to create as much life as possible, then the Omnipotent did not set that value. That shows us one of two things:
1) The omnipotent does not exist
2) The omnipotent did not want to maximize the chances of life, but instead did what he/she/it wanted to: which is pretty much the definition of an omnipotent.
So either this omnipotent does not exist, or it is omnipotent. Yeah...
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Exactly. This finding can be construed as more evidence for intelligent design since there's less of a possibility for life, and yet here we are!
And Earth is on the inner edge of the habitable zone, instead of the middle. If they can reconcile that with the fine-tuning theory, they can reconcile this news.
This is biased toward non intelligent design right off the bat. A creator would only need to optimize for life the planet or planets that he intended to deposit life upon. The fact that the universe at large is biased against life makes life here on earth all that more special.
"Creating more Galaxies" is not necessarily synonymous with "Creating more galaxies that can sustain life". If increasing the cosmological constant increases the percentage of matter that forms galaxies, but also changes the makeup of those galaxies to be inhospitable to life, then there would be an overall decrease in the universes 'suitability for life'.
Given that there is no (currently known) method of testing how a change in the cosmological constant would affect other properties of matter and energy, it would be foolish to simply assume that all else would remain the same.
Please tell me I'm missing something big, and not that Cornell university published a paper with that fundamental of a flaw.
You certainly cant disprove anything with
A University of Alberta theoretical physicist claims
but its good to know you place high value on such things without (apparently) reading into it further. What was it you were lambasting, "faith...which is not scientific"?
Clearly, He just doesn't want us to be overcrowded. Well, at least galaxy-wise. (In other words, the only way to win is to not play, as there's always a non-explanation explanation.)
and they asked "Why do you want to study the stars?"
Science. Religion. They are not a competition. Religion answers questions for us that Science cannot. Science answers questions for us that Religion doesn't address. Many famous scientists from bygone ages were devout believers in God, or Allah, or (insert other deity here), and yet made great strides to science. They didn't see the two as mutually exclusive. I blame arrogance and intellectual hubris for thinking that you can live without one or the other. Learn to accept both, and you will be a much happier person.
Bearded Dragon
None of these arguments have any bearing on the subject, because in the end you are speculating on what said creator "would have done". Would constants be biased in favor of more favorable, or less favorable conditions? Noone knows, and those arguing against a creator will make the argument that the results of their studies disprove said creator.
At the end of the day, the statement on creation tends to be "things are as they are because they were intentionally made that way." Showing that X constant makes such an existence less or more likely doesnt in the least affect that statement.
lambasting the science tag this is filed under. Just because a physicist claims something doesn't make it scientific. This would mean it's the complete opposite which is disproving unscientific beliefs.
oh, yes, the 'frist psot', also not fine tuned for life. Well, not fine tuned for intelligent life.
You can't handle the truth.
Doesn't the Anthropic Principle adequately deal with this issue in any case?
From the paper I linked in the summary:
Perhaps a more common view among physicists today is the idea that there is a multiverse with a wide range of values for the constants of physics, and by the selection principle of observership (the weak anthropic principle), we find ourselves in the part of the multiverse where life is possible and/or relatively common (at least compared to other parts of the multiverse) [7]. However, there is still considerable controversy over whether such a multiverse that would be necessary for this explanation really exists.
And then later the author says (calling this the 'third view'):
The third view, of observer selection within a multiverse, is hard to prove or disprove directly, since it appears very difficult to obtain direct information about other possible parts of a multiverse. However, if a simple theory were developed that gives good statistical explanations for what we do observe and that also predicts a multiverse that we cannot directly observe, such a theory could become highly convincing (analogous to the prediction by general relativity of very high curvature in black-hole interior regions that cannot be directly observed).
I believe the intent of this paper was to directly address the claims instead of using the weak anthropic principle. More importantly, his argument is falsifiable (that coveted trait in the scientific process) whereby the other three views are not at this time. As other posters have pointed out we can now attempt to reason out this theory further.
My work here is dung.
When they try to tackle the deep philosophical questions, they sound every bit as ridiculous as the creationists do trying to "correct" science.
Stephen Hawking, I'm looking at you.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Before this disintegrates into the inevitable slew of religion bashing...
From TFA:
laws of physics contain various constants that have very specific, mysterious values that nobody can explain
Maybe its because mathematics is (often) an approximation. You can hide oodles of complexity with a constant, especially in a system that is not understood i.e. the universe.
One explanation is that this is pure accident and that there is no deeper reason for the coincidence. Another idea is that there is some deeper law of nature, which we have yet to discover, that sets the constants as they are. Yet another is that the constants can take more or less any value in an infinite multitude of universes. In ours, they are just right, which is why we have been able to evolve to observe them.
Wow that's convincing. So basically, constants are either random, hiding complexity, or rooted in some string theory nonsense about infinite parallel universes. Oh yea, or they are created and tuned by God/gods/FSM, which is what this "evidence" claims to refute.
the constants have been fine-tuned by some unseen omnipotent being who has set them up in a way that maximises the amount of life that form
The constant expressing the universe's rate of expansion is positive, however:
Page says that a slightly negative value of the constant would maximize this process.
And this is it. Some dude ran some simulations on a computer, simulations of a poorly understood system. And from this, we can conclude that our universe is not designed for life to exist. And yet here we are.
Theoretical physics is planted mid-way between science and pseudoscience. The field seems to be in its infancy, much like chemistry was in the early 1700s. This experiment isn't much different than the one that proved the existence of "phlogiston". Much of the evidence is "proven" without an understanding of the underlying principles, just on the basis of logical jumps and conclusions.
Seriously, all this means is that some atheists make equally ridiculous claims as some believers. Given how little we truly understand about the universe, I think it's a little premature to say that the cosmological constant is/isn't tuned to produce life. While it's observed value may result in fewer galaxies forming, it likely also means fewer galaxies colliding and annihilating all life caught in the collision. I don't think that the cosmological constant in and of itself has any implication in the argument for whether or not God exists, and I have no idea why people on both sides try to make every scientific issue connect back to that. Take a philosophy class, there is no definitive proof or disproof, believe what you choose to believe and let everyone else to make their own choice.
Why do you associate faith with lunacy? Perhaps you should look at the faith we all share in science as an explanation for everything. As far as I am aware, there is no definitive proof that there is a finite set of deterministic rules that govern all phenomena. We simply have faith that the scientific method is universal and that, given enough time, we have all the tools we need to figure out absolutely everything.
Does that make every scientist a lunatic?
BTW, I don't think ID as generally presented has any merit as science or even theology, but I am not yet willing to rule out the concept on all levels. Given the rapidly increasing size and complexity of the models we use to conceptualize the "universe" we see - that term is now used as an atomically, with the potential for an infinite number of them out there - it seems odd to claim that our sense of how things work is even close to being "universal". We most likely know next to nothing about how things actually work, and are just beginning to open our eyes to what's really going on. And what happens when we find out there are things out there we can't "see"? E.g., dark matter, dark energy, alternate universes, cyclical big bangs, cells using quantum teleportation etc., etc., etc. These things might be indirectly observable and perhaps testable, but the fact that we didn't even have a concept to describe them until a few decades ago should temper one's faith in the scientific method as a universal tool. After all, it would seem that there is far more going on than meets the eye.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/eons-of-darwinian-evolution-somehow-produce-mitch,17635/
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
he probably wouldn't have designed our knee the way it is either - or the octopus or the elephant or.... (etc etc) - but the crazy thing is --- it works!
I said nothing about proof. Proof is a pretty big word. :)
Furthermore, what is not tuned for us? The "tuning" seems to refer to the likelihood of other worlds (in other galaxies) evolving life. How is the universe "sub-optimal" ... sub-optimal for what? Are you under the understanding that creationists believe God created the entire universe for creatures on earth to live in? As far as I am aware in the Bible, it specifically states that man is to "rule" over the earth. He makes no mention of Mars.
To say that the likelihood of life evolving is lower than we thought and claiming that is evidence against a creator makes no sense. The inhabitability of the universe and how likely it is that life would evolve in it is pretty much only a concern if you believe life evolved in the first place. Creationists would expect what this scientist has stated he has found; in fact, creationists expect life to be so complex that it can't evolve, no matter how inhabitable the world is...
The less likely it is life would evolve, the more evidence it is for creation. Stating that life is less likely to evolve and therefore a creator is less needed? That's weird...
Some people might think that disproving lunacy is actually news.
Calling religion lunacy is like beating up an old dying grandma. Everyone knows she cannot hit back with any significant force. If you want to do something impressive, try showing that society would be better off without religion, or that people with conviction are less content overall. Now That would be like whipping the old grandma at a knitting or cookie-backing contest.
Yes, it marks the absolute inner boundary. But Wikipedia claims the habitable zone is from 0.725 to 3.0 AU, so we're comfortably closer to the inner boundary than the middle.
Venus is well outside the habitable zone, for obvious reasons. It's not near habitability. If you moved the Earth inward from 1 AU to 0.95 AU, the stratosphere would moisten and you'd gradually lose all the planet's water to photodissociation followed by hydrogen escape. This is arguably the inner edge of the habitable zone. If you moved the Earth in to 0.85 AU, you'd boil the oceans and produce a runaway greenhouse. Venus is at about 0.72 AU.
See chapter 6 of this book, partly based on this paper (PDF).
benevolent creator, as opposed to any creator at all. A creator could still have designed a universe that was not optimal for the chances of life, as signified by that positive constant.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
You forgot Ignorance, unless you include that in Biological Bias.
All scientific statements that pretend to proclaim the "truth" should be prefixed by "Based on what we now know".
Because:
a) We don't know everything and sure as hell don't fully understand even that which we "know".
b) We will know more and/or different in the future.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
There's something wrong with an estimate that puts Venus (at 0.723 AU) inside the habitable zone, since it has a runaway greenhouse. That's a pretty good working definition of "uninhabitable". The 0.725 bound comes from an early paper with a simplified model. The later papers listed on Wikipedia (Hart et al., Fogg, Kasting et al.) all put the inner edge at around 0.95 AU, which we're even closer to. But there is some debate as to what would be "uninhabitable". According to Kasting, at 0.95 AU you wouldn't have a runaway greenhouse like Venus, but you would eventually lose all the planet's water.
The Lord IS a rotten bastard!
Now he just needs massive funding to run the experiment.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
Why do you associate faith with lunacy?
Because if one person believes he has an invisible friend that dictates what he can and what he can't do and will punish him if he doesn't follow that invisible guy's arbitrary rules, he will be sent to a psychiatrist.
If a group of people does it, it suddenly turns into a religion.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Interesting, isn't it?
I've argued that the universe is, and should be poorly tuned for life. Think of it this way, if there is a range of possible values of the fundamental constants we can assume that there is a single point in a n-dimensional space (where n is the number of fundamental constants) which is the "best possible values for life". Surrounding it is a volume of possible values where life is possible. Most of that volume is closer to the edge at which life becomes impossible than it is to the center. The larger the number of fundamental constants the worse it becomes. 3/4 of the area of a circular disk (a 2-sphere) is closer to the edge than to the center. 7/8 of the volume of a sphere (a 3-sphere) is closer to the edge than the center. 15/16th of a 4-sphere, and so on.
So it really comes down to how many truly fundamental constants there are. 6? In which case the chance would be 63/64 that we are in a poorly tuned universe.
Support SETI@home
Or the non-existence of anything else for that matter. You can't even prove the non-existance of God in this post. It's a logical fallacy to jump from "we can't find any evidence of God" to "We've proven God doesn't exist".
Intelligent Design is pseudo science, an attempt to use science, logic, and reason to suggest the existence of God. It's just religion repackaged to look like science. It still requires a leap of faith to get from "we can't explain this" to "an intelligent creator (God) must exist", which is the fundamental argument of Intelligent Design.
Testability is the realm of science, faith is the realm of religion. Neither can disprove the other. Although science can prove/disprove specific doctrines of religions, it can never disprove the the existence of God, nor the faith therein.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
If you want to do something impressive, try showing that society would be better off without religion
Crusades, Reconquista, Conquest of Americas, 30 years' war, Middle East, especially since Israel was founded, war on terror... do I have to get the history book out or does that suffice?
or that people with conviction are less content overall.
Date to be "different" and watch yourself being torn between your faith and your needs. Be it homosexuality (or, hell, any sexuality but "lights off, missionary style, for propagation only") or wanting to see, learn or do what some preacher does not want you to see, learn or do.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why do you associate faith with lunacy? Perhaps you should look at the faith we all share in science as an explanation for everything. As far as I am aware, there is no definitive proof that there is a finite set of deterministic rules that govern all phenomena. We simply have faith that the scientific method is universal and that, given enough time, we have all the tools we need to figure out absolutely everything.
Actually it's quite simple. Science get's results. Every single piece of human civilization owes it's existance to someone who put effort into learning and applying the rules of some system.
I almost feel silly saying something so obvious, but here goes.
How do you know a negative constant would lead to any life at all? It seems like things would be so radically different that none of the assumptions and observations you can make in our universe would still apply. This discussion is not serious, it is pure foolishness, just like children sitting around playing make believe. Not that that can't be productive and useful, but at least call it what it is.
"Agnosticism" is a statement of epistemology. It merely states that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. "Theism" and "atheism" are declarations of belief. The express an acceptance of an ontology.
You can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. While the epistemological question of our knowledge of God may be inaccessible, it is difficult to remain completely neutral with respect to personal belief.
Do you think God exists? You are a theist. Do you think God most likely does not exist? You are an atheist. As it turns out, most atheists are agnostic, and are more than willing to admit there is a certain probability that some form of god exists. That probability is simply vanishingly small.
Atheism is not as un-scientific as being religious. In fact, as the lack of god is the null hypothesis, atheism is the default scientific proposition. Until there is a testable, positive hypothesis concerning the existence of god, theism is entirely in the realm of wish-fulfilling fantasy and philosophical self-gratification.
Agnosticism, meanwhile, is not a "third option." As you use it, as a state of superposition between theism and atheism, it isn't even coherent.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You've assumed it's random, which is not necessarily true.
His paper says that our ever expanding universe has a positive cosmological constant and he explains that the optimum cosmological constant for maximizing the chances of life in the universe would be slightly negative: 'any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life.
So, then, it would take even finer turning right? If it is true that there is design behind creation, why assume that the intelligence behind it would require maximized potential rather than mere potential?
This is the part I don't understand. If there is no evidence either way, why does atheism win by default?
Isn't this like saying we should abandon string theory because it doesn't explain anything better than the standard model?
Science should STFU about religion and Religion should STFU about Science.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
In fairness to religion: In general, people are stupid and afraid of anything new or different. People like to attack any group they see as 'them' and to control the people they see as 'us'. Religion is a tool in doing that - not its cause.
Because the definition of a paranoid delusion is refusal to alter one's view despite evidence to the contrary. Theistic religions fall under this category, especially when they must follow rules from their imaginary friend from the sky so their imaginary foe from underground doesn't torture them for all of eternity. That's pretty damn paranoid.
Besides the obvious hate that so many christians believe christ commanded them to do, and the terror they put segments of our population in, the fact is that they are lying to people so that they don't fear death. They give them false hope and put them into a false reality. Wishing for something doesn't make it so.
Because that's what a null hypothesis means.
We don't need god to explain any of our science, so it's a needless term to the equation, and therefore you presume it to be irrelevant.
Nothing in science requires (or benefits) from including god, and it doesn't add anything to the discussion in purely scientific terms. So, trying to account for it gives you no net benefit.
If the scientific data suggested that we can't have even a rudimentary explanation of the world without god, the null hypothesis would be invalidated, and we would have discarded it by now.
Which is why science, at this point in time, takes the non-existence of god as a starting point -- because there is no evidence whatsoever that we need to account for it in scientific disciplines.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It is not if we or the Xenomorphs are fine-tuned for this Universe or if the Universe is fine-tuned for us.
It's about there being a calculable possibility that ANOTHER UNIVERSE EXISTS WHICH IS OPTIMAL FOR LIFE - compared to which our Universe is a third-world kind of Universe.
You know, like the song says - this ain't the garden of Eden, there ain't no angels above.
But my favorite part is not that this proves that there is no god. Cause it doesn't. Not really.
It just proves that our universe is not a product of very intelligent design, and we are here most likely by accident.
It is that it proves that WE are not his favorite creatures, made in his image and all that.
Somewhere else, there is a Universe which is perfect for life.
And if there IS a god - his/her favorite creatures live there. And guess what - it's not us.
Also, what would you do when your aquarium becomes too small for your fishes - and there is this other empty aquarium right next to it but it is kinda moldy and there is maybe a spider living somewhere in the corner?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
and they asked "Why do you want to study the stars?"
Well, maybe they thought only movie/TV stars used cosmetics. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I can "disprove" something by demonstrating that it relies on unprovable hidden variables which are not necessary.
If there are two equally unprovable hypotheses that explain something, the superior one is the one which relies on fewer hidden variables (ultimately, none at all).
Those who cling to an inferior hypothesis are irrational.
It may be impossible to determine the origin of the world (which necessarily will have to be the case if, for instance, it doesn't actually have an origin!).
It is possible that the best we will ever be able to do to explain the world is via an unprovable hypothesis. What is left then is to choose the best one.
A hypothesis which appeals to hidden variables, like a creator, is obviously inferior because it invokes recursion: it requires us to solve a problem which is equally as large: what created the the creator?
Any universe U with a creator C understood to be outside of U can be reified as a larger universe U+C which consists of the union of U and C. We know where U came from (it was created by C), but we cannot explain where U+C came from.
Religions get around this problem by asserting things like C didn't come from anywhere; C is infinite outside of time and space.
But these properties of C can simply be applied to U, eliminating the need for C. U itself encompasses infinities.
Asking where the universe began might be as silly as asking how far do we have to go to the left off the blackboard to find the spot where the function y = sin(x) begins its undulations.
This universe is not the best possible one for life.
Ergo, it was not created with life in mind, nor "intelligently", nor "by an omnipotent being".
Ergo, this is an accidental universe and we are here by accident. At best.
At worst... Well... There is a god, but he is not omnipotent. More like incompetent.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Follow me here...
Constants aren't.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Why are we thinking in terms of how fine-tuned the universe is to us? We, and any other form of life, are "fine-tuned" (or getting there) to the universe. Slightly different constants would simply present different needs for life to sustain itself, given the differences were within a margin where life is possible at all.
A form of life that can deal with the conditions present is what presents itself. Just because we happen to be in that category doesn't make us any more special; that's the only life that would exist.
The cops are invisible until they show up....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Not sufficient in the least. Exclude from those examples acts of greed, abuse of power, people following orders out of fear, and other non-religious motives. Now add in charities, famine relief efforts, and the like, and re-run your analysis. Anything will look bad if you only look at the bad parts.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Given how much the "standard model" has missed about the true reality of the Universe we believe in, I find it incredible these people want you to think a single number defines the universe.
The audacity.
So far as I can tell, the standard model is basically Sh*t.
Unless of course you want to build the following:
1) Nuclear Weapons
2) Pretty little rocket ships.
3) Shiney things to buy. iPhones, iPads...and more iSh*t.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
And Slashdot is a religion? Let's see...
Check. Well, friend is a stretch. Benevolent leader?
Check.
Crap! Do we have to tithe too?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
The people this is intended to convince have excellent experience in selectively choosing what to listen to.
"The cosmological constant is fine-tuned for the development of life." - "Science proves that a Creator designed the universe!"
"The cosmological constant is not fine-tuned for the development of life." - "Liberal scientists second-guess the almighty Creator!"
The child kept talking about his invisible friend, saying that this friend gave him guidance and told him how to act. The parents of the child grew frustrated and embarrassed, and took the child to a doctor to get him cured.
The man kept talking about his invisible friend, saying that this friend gave him guidance and told him how to act. The man was elected as leader of the world's greatest superpower and given control of a nuclear arsenal.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
...or a bit like abandoning the proposition of existence of Russell's teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Yes, but when the cops enforce the law and you get punished, you go to jail or you get a fine. It's tangible.
When you "do bad stuff" and don't listen to "God" (or whatever term you feel like using), there's no direct punishment. It all takes place after you die. You go to heaven or hell. Very conveniently, no one can confirm their existence, since you have to die to get in. It seems as if the people who invented this nonsense purposely made it so it couldn't be disproven by any living being. Good thing the dead can't talk.
They don't call it the opiate of the masses for nothing.
And to quote Ricky Gervais, "Thank God for making me an atheist."
"It is arrogant to assume there isn't life outside our planet." --Carl Sagan
A belief is a belief is a belief. Sagan admitted, he no empirical evidence of this, but, only believed. If there is not any other life in the universe other than on earth (and I hope there is), then Carl's belief in ET is as nutty as any other.
I appreciate the believer -- whether it be the agnostic, the atheist or the Muslim. What I do not appreciate are those who reject others for not believing the same thing. And I feel sad for the arrogant, who look down on those who are _not_ in sync with what they claim are the "right" beliefs.
To quote Lewis responding to a letter by a self-avowed atheist: "As a former atheist I have to say you, Sir, are not one. You are a God hater, and a God hater is not necessarily an athiest...."
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
"In my opinion, the existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Concur. I believe my house will be there when I leave work and go home. It might not be. I could have been acid tripping all day that I had a house. Wtf is reality? I once saw a catholic lady cry because some asshat needed to convince her that it was nuts to pray to Mary. I think praying to Mary is idiocy, but wtf destroy some poor soul who wants to believe otherwise? Hell, there could be. To wit I say, "pray to Mary for me too! And hurry!"
The first problem is a problem of communication: that neither side is open enough to listen to the other. I've often found myself on the fence, but the arrogance and condescension of the butthole representing either theism or atheism serves as nothing but a stumbling block. First, get over yourself (general "yourself" there), then, let's talk. Better yet, let's drink a 12 pack and talk, cuz you're waaay to uptight to take seriously....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I totally agree with that. Here's a list of scientific claims that religions should stop making (primarily Christianity, since that's what I'm familiar with):
1. Adam and Eve did not exist. This is simply unsupported and unsupportable by modern genetic evidence. Therefore, as a direct consequence, the concept of "original sin" is at best a metaphor for some unknown other thing.
2. Noah's Flood did not happen as a global event, though of course it probably did happen on some scale (much like the way that fish your Uncle Ernie once hooked gets bigger every year).
3. There is no evidence so far that any miracles have ever occurred. Every single "miraculous" event on record is on par with either Paul Bunyan or Uri Geller.
4. There is, furthermore, no evidence whatsoever that God has or has ever actually answered any prayers. We've even done a medical study on this, and found no effect.
5. Jesus most likely did not come back from the dead. I mean seriously folks, even back then your evidence consisted of A. an empty grave, B. a bunch of people who were personally invested in him not dying seeing him up and about and C. some dude who got whacked on the head falling off his horse claiming to have seen him. Maybe if he'd stuck around in Jerusalem for a couple of years afterwards you could have a case, but as it is there's just nothing there.
6. Muhammad didn't have a flying horse. Just throwing that out there.
He seems to presume that life is biological. Who says a galaxy isn't alive? Who knows if rocks on the sands of a beach on some other planet aren't alive. Who knows, the universe itself might be a conscious entity.
What a gibbering heap of horseshit.
Of course you can make the argument that gravity and the like are testable and "real", but how realistic is that?
Pretty damn realistic, I think. You can test gravity. You can test nuclear physics. You can do that, even if you haven't. Or you can "rely on the experiences and reporting of others," of whom there are many. You can also combine these two methods and replicate the experiments of others.
Which is, you know, completely the opposite of religion in every way.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
"It is arrogant to assume there isn't life outside our planet." --Carl Sagan
A belief is a belief is a belief. Sagan admitted, he no empirical evidence of this, but, only believed. If there is not any other life in the universe other than on earth (and I hope there is), then Carl's belief in ET is as nutty as any other.
I appreciate the believer -- whether it be the agnostic, the atheist or the Muslim. What I do not appreciate are those who reject others for not believing the same thing. And I feel sad for the arrogant, who look down on those who are _not_ in sync with what they claim are the "right" beliefs.
To quote Lewis responding to a letter by a self-avowed atheist: "As a former atheist I have to say you, Sir, are not one. You are a God hater, and a God hater is not necessarily an athiest...."
Sagan's quote does not demonstrate belief. It represents quite the opposite. "Assum[ing] there isn't life outside our planet" is the belief that he's railing against. Not assuming something that can not currently be proven or disproven is the suspension of belief and is what his quote appears to be advocating.
Sagan may believe in ETs, and in most circles that is at least slightly nutty, but his quote isn't talking about his belief in ETs (it's talking about others' belief in the non-existence of ETs).
Furthermore, you list the agnostic as being a believer. The agnostic does not believe because the matter is unknowable. Contrast this to the atheist, who is a believer in the non-existence of God. I'm not quite sure what your Lewis quote is supposed to show, but it appears that both he and the writer both believed, just in different things.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
I've read a lot on Sagan's beliefs in ET, and they were hopeful to the full extent of what one hopes to find -- he was quite the zealot on the matter ("Contact"?).
"Belief" needs to be understood firstly, and I'm not sure I care to describe it further, other than referring to Descartes, who pretty much simplified the matter to its full extent. That being said, yes, even saying, "I don't know" is a belief. I believe I don't know.
Trust me, I'm married, and had to come home and get busted with lipstick in strange places. I can firmly tell you, that saying, "I don't know" is an avid belief. "Honey, I believe I really don't know." There's no way in hell I was gonna say, "I'm not sure what I believe regarding that lipstick stain...."
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
So do your religious friends know you think so poorly of them?
Why is it that one must "hear the voice of God" to be a believer? Some mad men hear voices claiming there is no God. Again, it's the logic set that's broke here....
I for one believe in ETL. Whether a voice tells me that or not is irrelevant. Some folks need stuffed-shirts in order to win an argument, and never realize that, that's all they're doing -- beating up a stuffed shirt....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Perhaps you should look at the faith we all share in science as an explanation for everything.
Funny, last I checked, scientists themselves were saying that we do not have scientific explanation for everything and that more research is needed. Nobody believes there is a scientific explanation for everything, because frankly, there is not.
Faith is, as it turns out, completely irrational, based on no logic whatsoever, and usually just a matter of what makes people "feel good." I am not saying that there is anything specifically wrong with that -- people should be just as free to have faith make them feel good as they should be to have drugs make them feel good (of course, people are not free to do the latter, but you know, we are talking about the ideal and not the reality of our society's situation).
Palm trees and 8
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Except we don't really know what's up with Venus. It's odd in so many ways. It has almost no rotation, which is pretty freaky when you consider that everything else in the solar system has plenty of angular momentum. It's surface seems new, as if the crust turned over recently (geologically speaking). "Runaway greenhouse" doesn't actually explain why so little of the carbon on Venus is locked up in rocks - it's a description, not an explanation.
How would we lose the planet's water of we were a bit closer? The atmosphere is basically saturated as it is, turning up the heat a bit (10% more solar influx) wouldn't change that by much.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Not necessarily. Life too crowded together may result in The Borg/Ceylon/Cortes Syndrome (depending on your fav sci-fi/history) where the dominant form of life in an area gobbles up everything within its reach.
Thin matter may explain the Fermi Paradox.
Table-ized A.I.
This is the part I don't understand. If there is no evidence either way, why does atheism win by default?
Isn't this like saying we should abandon string theory because it doesn't explain anything better than the standard model?
Atheism wins because it is the existential claim that requires proof, not its negation.
If you claim that something exists, you have to show that it exists. The burden of proof is not on others to show that it does not exist.
You either have to demonstrate that something directly, or else prove that the negation (that it doesn't exist) leads to some kind of problem, making it impossible for that thing not to exist.
The human mind can invent all kinds of things that can't be proven not to exist.
Are you familiar with Russel's teapot? This is the whimsical proposition that there is a china teapot orbiting the Sun in an elliptical orbit. Can you prove that it is false? Yet should that proposition "win by default"?
Though we cannot prove it false, there are several strikes against Russel's teapot: 1) it's an obvious human fabrication and any number of such fabrications can be invented on the spot, with similar difficulties of proving their non-existence. For instance, a herd of pink elephants roaming Antarctica, etc. 2) Russel's teapot has never been observed and 3) The proposition that "Russel's teapot does not exist", if true, has no catastrophic consequences in our understanding of the world. We cannot show that Russel's teapot is necessary for anything. In fact, "Russel's teapot does not exist", if true, only has a devastating effect on the statement "Russel's teapot exists" and on nothing else!!!
You can test nuclear physics. You can do that, even if you haven't. Or you can rely on the experiences and reporting of others
So you have faith in the claims of the people you trust and take their word as gospel? Sounds familiar. I am not in any way suggesting that the current assertions about gravity are untrue, but as an individual you cannot hope to utilize the scientific method for every assertion made by everyone in the scientific community. It is not a practical possibility. We must have faith that these things are true and test them as necessary. Similarly you can have faith in certain aspects of a particular religion and test them as necessary. For example, I can have faith in the "golden rule" and decide that it's incorrect only after I actually give it a shot in earnest. There is of course no way to test the existence of a god figure, but there's also no way to test string theory or what's inside a black hole. Does that invalidate the scientific method?
Conversely, have you ever actually tried to live the way Siddhartha suggested and decided he was full of shit? Have you ever tried to follow the teachings of a particular religion in earnest or are you just assuming them to be wrong on principle? Had it occurred to you that what some call divine whim, others call "rules" that the universe enforces based on our makeup in much the same way as we are subject to the rules of gravity and quantum mechanics? Had it ever occurred to you that religious teachings might actually be a series of symbolic parables for actual physical properties of the universe? E.g., "Let there be light" == "Big Bang"?
You can also combine these two methods and replicate the experiments of others. Which is, you know, completely the opposite of religion in every way.
Completely untrue. Just about every religion worth talking about has a similar paradigm: founding individual makes assertions based on observation, conveys those assertions to followers, followers make their own observations and adjust their practices based on those observations. Granted, religions tend to be far more static than scientific theories because the founder tends to be the ultimate authority and is usually dead, but that is not always true. Consider that Jesus was a Jew who said that his predecessor's assumptions were incomplete/untrue. Consider that Mohammed claimed to be another in a line of prophets who was given a new "truth". Consider that (according to tradition) the current incarnation of the Buddha is here to, among other things, interpret Siddhartha's teachings for the modern world.
The point here is that there is grand tradition of modification and adaptation in just about every major religion and those adaptations are based on experience and observation. Sound familiar?
And BTW, your "horseshit" comment is not only inappropriate, but reveals a level of personal immaturity that most likely precludes you from truly understanding the problem at hand. Please don't act like a child if you intend to sit at the adult's table.
1) Science deals only with the natural world. Science can't prove there is or isn't anything beyond the natural world 2) Metaphysical truths such as "The external world is real" vs. "we're all just a consciousness in a vacuum" 3) Ethics "Theft is wrong" 4) Aesthetics 5) The unproven assumptions of science itself: eg. assertion of constancy of speed of light in a vacuum... you have to assume it to espouse the theory 6) Mathematical postulates and axioms 7) Your implication that "Only scientifically proven answers are worthwhile" can't even be proven scientifically...
The problem with crazy people is that you can't exactly convince them that they are crazy. After all... they're crazy.
But that's not the bad news. The real bad news is that evolution is conspiring against us.
Intelligent people breed less than dumb people. The morons are overwhelming us with numbers.
So, arguably, the cosmological constant favours idiots - because that is what we have an abundance of.
Science is not an explanation. It's a process. And it works. Bitches.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
creationists will simply claim their creator is even more ingenious than they previously imagined.
You took an argument that stated "X is irrelevant" and turned it into "X shows Y group is retarded", im speechless.
The creationist stance doesnt make claims about what the universal constants are, so its pointless to pontificate about what a creator would have chosen for said constants, and remarkably arrogant that anyone would speculate about what the full ramifications of such a decision might be. I would hope that any remotely professional scientist would recognize the enormity of changing eg the gravitational constant even slightly.
Not really. I can go to the police station and see them. I can call them and I will get a response. I can summon them and they will appear.
Try that with your god.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The difference is that you can actually test everything you mention. You can walk off a cliff (I would not recommend it, but that "arbitrary" rule is not so arbitrary, you break it, you get an immediate negative response). You can touch that flame (and unless something is really wrong with the whole heat thing, you'll singe your fingers). You can walk out on the road and test Newton's laws. They can all be put to the test. You might not be able to actually produce a nuclear reaction, lacking the training and experience to create a controlled nuclear reaction (not to mention that it might not be a good idea to try it without proper training, from a safety point of view). But there have been numerous people who have documented and shown that it is possible, it can be filmed, the results can be verified, and most of all, they can be reproduced. You can test everything science claims to "know". They offer you information about the environment to create, they offer every information necessary to reproduce their results and actually, science expects and encourages you to test the results, because that is what a scientific proof is about: Repeatable, testable results.
God explicitly forbids that (Luke 4:12). You must not test god. Worse, it is simply assumed that we cannot reproduce those results, and we get no information whatsoever how it is achieved. Now what kind of "science" is that supposed to be? It smells a bit like Merlin working some magic for some king and expecting awe and wonder instead of understanding.
And sorry, either tell me how the trick works or get out of here and let me find out on my own. I don't give a crap about you or your god's lack of self esteem that you or him needs to draw it from me.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Would charity cease to exist without religion? Would wars?
I dunno, but somehow I'd love to find out.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't associate with lunatics.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The "laws" of the Bible actually made sense, I will not question that. In a world without refrigerating, in the middle of the desert, it is sensible to avoid seafood that spoils easily and is not immediately identifiable as spoiled. It makes sense to avoid pork and other meat that may contain parasites that can use us as their host. All that makes a lot of sense, and maybe it's hard to explain this to people with limited hygene and biologic knowledge (they can't see bacteria, so what they can't see ain't there, so the meat is good). And lo and behold, even the idea of including a day of rest in your week to avoid a burnout is a good idea, as many have noticed who have been working round the clock and all week for lengthy periods of time. Look at the 10 commandments and you'll notice that they are supposed to take care of every "base" impulse someone might have that makes the cooperation of people possible, past the size of our "pack" society level that we're genetically able to grasp. And since all that is hard to convey to people who don't really understand it immediately and can't "see" the reason, going for the "God says so" approach is a pretty solid strategy.
It MADE sense, to be more to the point. It WAS a pretty solid strategy. Today we're a wee bit past that situation. We do have refrigeration and we can examine food for contamination in much more detail than people could 4 millenia ago. We have laws and law enforcement that has enough means at its hands to identify and prosecute trespassers so the "all seeing eye" of god is no longer necessary. We're phasing it out in favor of CCTV.
Religion had its place. It's just no longer necessary.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
TFA does not actually put a stake through the heart of a fine-tuned universe.
In fact, it actually lends more support to the view that the universe is fine-tuned for one form of life: us.
The article's conclusion is based on the premise that a God would want to create lots of life, and so the constant should be more positive.
But the Biblical view is that humanity is unique (for various reasons). The value of the constant being negative would seem to support this.
From TFA:
Here's the thinking. The cosmological constant is a number that determines the energy density of the vacuum. It acts like a kind of pressure that, depending on its value, acts against gravity to push the universe apart or acts with gravity to pull the universe together towards a final Big Crunch.
Until recently, cosmologists had assumed that the constant was zero, a neat solution. But the recent evidence that the universe is not just expanding but accelerating away from us, suggests that the constant is positive.
But although positive, the cosmological constant is tiny, some 122 orders of magnitude smaller than Planck's constant, which itself is a small number.
So Page and others have examined the effects of changing this constant. It's straightforward to show that if the the constant were any larger, matter would not form into galaxies and stars meaning that life could not form, at least not in the form we know it,.
So what value of the cosmological constant best encourages galaxy and star formation, and therefore the evolution of life? Page says that a slightly negative value of the constant would maximise this process. And since life is some small fraction of the amount of matter in galaxies, then this is the value that an omnipotent being would choose.
In fact, he says that any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life.
Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
According to the Kasting book I cited in my other comment, turning up insolation by 10% would cause the tropopause to greatly expand (from ~15 to ~150 km), allowing more water to escape into the stratosphere instead of being trapped in the troposphere. Once it's in the stratosphere, photodissociation can occur (UV splits apart H2O) since the atmosphere isn't screening UV up there, and the H2 preferentially escapes over the O2. The planet loses all its water over time.
Once a planet loses its liquid water, silicate weathering shuts down. Silicate weathering is the main geochemical sink of atmospheric CO2. Over time, the solid planet eventually outgasses all its CO2 (assuming it has active volcanism). All the CO2 ends up in the atmosphere, and nothing exists to take it back out again. There's no carbon cycle. That's what likely happened to Venus.
My god is crom. He lives on his craggy mountain, and laughs his head off when my women die, and all my gold goes to the bottom of the sea. I pray to him for help, but if he doesn't help me, well, to hell with you crom!!!
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I expect that God had the deadline approaching, and instead of perfectly tuning the constant just pushed out something that was "good enough" planning to fix it with a live patch later (Universe Service Pack 1).
I can see the rebuttal now: "How can you say the universe is not fine-tuned for us? We're here, aren't we?"
If I were to put money on it I'd guess that eventually we will find that the Universe is not fine-tuned and that, although the initial parameters (possibly not the ones we have now) can vary they vary in such a way that a universe somewhat similar to ours is somewhat inevitable after the Big Bang.
The only thing *known* about dark matter is that we can't (easily ?) see it.
We know a lot more about it than that. For a start it cannot be made of atoms because not only does it not interact with light but nor does it interact via strong nuclear force interactions. However it is distributed through out galaxies, as a sphere, even when the visible galaxy is spiral, and it does not cause accretion disks so it cannot be trapped in Black Holes as you suggest.
However it does not have to consist of just one type of particle. It is entirely possible that there might be some structure to Dark Matter...just nothing like ordinary matter. Arkani-Hamed at Princeton has suggested some more complex models and we are looking for these possibilities at ATLAS on the LHC but until there is clear evidence to the contrary the simplest explanation for DM is a single, neutral, possibly weakly interacting, massive particle.
...you would eventually lose all the planet's water.
But earth is going to lose all it's (surface) water in a billion years.
If life is the answer, what is the question? What is the nature of consciousness?
The null hypothesis is a product of philosophy of science. It matters only in scientific experiment, which is only a fairly small subset of philosophy. Even if God is not a useful concept in scientific reasoning, it nonetheless can be argued to have a place in other spheres of human reasoning such as ethics or metaphysics.
Maybe the cosmological constant is fine tuned for life not destroying itself. We humans have developed into organisms that are able consume every resources available to us, leaving destruction behind. As I understand the slight positive value is linked to the increasing expansion of the universe. Were it negative, the universe would collapse on itself. As the article also point out, there should be a sufficient time span for life to exist.
In the far future humans may be able to make interstellar travel. The amount of energy required is enormous, in planet or even star sized quantities. So if we are able to harvest this energy, matter will be a non-renewable resource that we can consume and eventually destroy our galaxy. If other galaxies were within reach of our spaceships, we could simply move to another one. (This is basically the same idea that we can move to Mars when we have destroyed Earth.)
Hence, maybe the cosmological constant is exactly the right value for life to exist, but leave galaxies out of reach of each other so life can only destroy one galaxy, containing destruction to very small areas of the universe. Assuming life in a large fraction of galaxies, some of this life would be smart enough or to little advanced to destroy their own galaxy, making sure life exist throughout the lifespan of the universe.
I don't mind people who are happy in their delusion. Whether they want to pray to Mary or whether they enjoy talking with their friend Harvey, as long as they sit quietly in their corner and be merry with it, hey, let them enjoy it!
What I mind are those people that cause grief and problems for those around them with their imagination.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, the difference is, I guess, that if I see the cops somewhere, it is trivial to convince anyone around that they are there. IF they are really there!
If they're not, then yes, I should go and try to find the help of a shrink. I might suffer from paranoia if I see cops everywhere.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Could you elaborate? I don't see the hole in the logic yet.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You just described my entire family....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
One should never argue by analogy as it gets tossed back as if from a jiu jitsu master, but you can't help it. And if there is a god and if religions are correct that he/she/it will hold us accountable for some reason or other, then yes, he/she/it is like a cop.
/queue Matthew Arnold....
If not, then
But as one atheist scholar said of the books written by religious authors: "why must these christians be so darned good at writing?..."
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Which, oddly enough, aren't science and try to cover the same sphere as religion largely does -- though, often by focusing on being secular.
In this case, the poster was asking why the scientific default is atheism -- because god doesn't bring any additional information when you're trying to explain the physical world. So it doesn't get factored in.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Oh I entirely concur, and so does Bultmann, who called Christianity, "primitive."
God is, truly, "in the docks" as Lewis said. Modern man rightly has him (the traditional god) in the witness stand, and demands he make an account of himself. The doubt is well founded, understandable, as your post is too.
But this doesn't at all answer half or all of the questions, nor does it make the stuffed-shirt propped-up as "the religious man" any more than just that -- a stuffed shirt.
Sagan rightly extrapolates towards ET. But, logically, so does the theist towards god (now, let's make this "theist" someone well short of the "hearing the voice of god" that everyone props up here -- let's say his belief goes no further than, "I do believe there is a god."). If the journey to belief (and it is belief) that there is ET in the universe is 100 different empirical points, of which, we only have 30 available, then yes, Sagan is not mad at all to reason towards the 100th and final point (meaning, you're looking at the thing with the glowey finger). Then again, the theist who can only provide 3 of the 100 proving god is likewise no more insane. And I don't wish to argue what these points are because that leaves the boundary of what I'm talking about here, basic logic.
Folks fail in their syllogisms is all I'm saying. And, yes, belief is belief is belief, and each and every human has it/does it -- even every post in opposition to mine.
You're an atheist/agnostic/theist? You admit that's your belief? Good. You tell me that, no, that's the fact, and only those who believe against your belief are wrong. Now, now we've left reason and stepped into lunacy.
Schools failed when they quit starting with the Greeks and Romans. Schools failed when day one wasn't Socrates and the ability to go, "I have no clue, teach me."
Each and every one of you stating facts that there's no way you can know are a violation of all western thought has provided, and fuck, heh. I'll stop there, else, I say something like, "and we are doomed...."
C.S. Lewis was raised by a retired professor and avowed agnostic, who forced him to prove every thought. He said, "talking to him was like eating red meat and drinking strong beer."
I am truly on the fence/bridge with both groups. My stomach is as sickened by those with blind faith in god and those who railing against his existence.
Time for video games and alcohol....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
"Each and every one of you stating facts that there's no way you can know...."
/queue Ringer....
Apologies. I meant to say, "no way you can sanely believe in a god...."
We truly cannot know. Indeed, we are best to always claim unknowledge in all things, else, reality will blast us --
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
God explicitly forbids that (Luke 4:12). You must not test god.
I am impressed that you are aware of specific scriptures, but I believe you are misinterpreting that particular edict. In the context of satan's temptation, "test" is understood to mean "take advantage of" or to test how far god is willing to go to protect his son. This does not mean test god in the way the scientific method is defined. But this misses the point anyway.
First of all, only people who cannot see past the literal text of the bible are held back by such commandments. And moreover, what if you're not a Christian? The idea that I am not allowed to make any philosophical inquiries because Jesus scolded satan seems a bit of a stretch.
Worse, it is simply assumed that we cannot reproduce those results
If by "results" you are referring to the transcendent experience of spiritual enlightenment, I would suggest that the whole point of any religion is to make such an experience consistently repeatable. Do this and that and you will achieve enlightenment. This is what religions do.
If you instead mean the existence of god, I agree that it is not a testable fact. God is by definition beyond understanding because the very concept is defined as both everything and beyond everything.
My point here is that the process of spiritual enlightenment is most definitely a testable fact, even if that fact is not something you can demonstrate to anyone else who has not achieved it themselves. It's like doing an experiment whose outcome is experienced only by the experimenter. You don't make a thing, you remake yourself.
And sorry, either tell me how the trick works or get out of here and let me find out on my own.
Huh? Who's telling you to do anything? What tricks are you talking about? If you want to know how to reproduce the "experiment", there are thousands upon thousands of books on the religious experience and how it was (allegedly) achieved by many different types of people. The only common requirement is some degree of faith. In fact, many would say that spiritual enlightenment is the logical extension of faith. That having faith in something more powerful than yourself is the road to the experience I am referring to. To get some inkling of what I mean, consider the feeling you get when you contemplate the size of the universe or the galaxy we live in or the star we orbit around. That sense of awe is palpable and can lead to some profound revelations about yourself and the world. Now imagine what it would be like to contemplate a concept like God and you're on your way.
And by the way, none of this requires you to give up any control over what you do or say or think. If god does exist, you are living in his world right now. Do you feel controlled or manipulated? Why would further understanding take that away from you?
I don't give a crap about you or your god's lack of self esteem that you or him needs to draw it from me.
What? Self-esteem? What are you talking about? Yourself?
As to the "brilliant post":
/facepalm
What if the one who believes in god does not believe he is a friend, nor dictates anything, nor will ever punish anyone for not following rules, nor does he give 2 fucking shits about anything in this universe? I am at this point frustrated over these stuff shirts. Apparently, a basic handbook on "isms" must be handed out. Thumb forward to the "Ds" in such a book, and look for the letters "eism."
"If a group of people does it, it suddenly turns into a religion."
Yes, and only religious people have ever done anything bad. No one has ever done a bad thing irreligiously. My god, gulags are as much figments of the imagination as this god guy....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
The problem with religions is that it's kinda impossible to be a "law abiding citizen". Mostly because you don't get told which laws are the real ones until it's too late.
It's like having to live by the, often mutually exclusive, laws of different countries, where in one you MUST do what in others is strictly forbidden, only you're never told which laws will apply and which are bollocks until you're going to be judged. Which is the "right" religion? Judaism? Islam? Christianity? Buddhism? Hinduism? Taoism? Discordianism? And which sect of the various ones who disagree on minor or major bits and pieces?
So statistics say that my chance to actually follow the right cult is pretty slim. Why bother trying?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It might amaze you, but I've read the Bible. Luke 4:12 refers to Deut 6:16, which in turn refers to Exodus and how the Israelites questioned the lord's wisdom when they were in the desert without water (Ex 17:7) and only believed when Moses actually struck the stone and caused it to spill water.
So the lord caused a miracle to convince the Israelites who were wavering in their faith, and 4 books later we get told that he does not want this to be expected from him to make us believe in him. I would deduce from this that blind faith is what is expected from us.
And blind faith and trust in something "as it is written" is anathema to science and scientific research.
I see the value in a philosophical discussion of the bible, since it does present quite a few tools to make cooperation between people possible, it even holds a few principles that we only now rediscover (like NOT working 7 days a week because you'll get burned out in the end), and others made a lot of sense back in the days when those books were written. What I do question is that everything written down in this book is still valid and makes sense. Some of the concepts are outdated and need to be reviewed. And for these things we don't need god or some other "higher power" anymore. I would assume that we managed to evolve our concept of civilization beyond the point where we need an "all seeing", vengeful god to "keep us in line" and keep us from leaping at our neighbor's throat because we desire his new CD player.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, and no again.
So you have faith in the claims of the people you trust and take their word as gospel? ... We must have faith that these things are true and test them as necessary. (Emphasis yours)
Of course not. Nuclear power works. Gravity works. That's not faith, that's data.
For example, I can have faith in the "golden rule" and decide that it's incorrect only after I actually give it a shot in earnest.
That's not religion, that's ethics. You certainly can test ethical assertions. That's not what I'm debating.
There is of course no way to test the existence of a god figure, but there's also no way to test string theory or what's inside a black hole. Does that invalidate the scientific method?
No, it means we don't know what's inside a black hole, or whether a god figure exists. Therefore I am not going to base my decision making process on what's inside a black hole or whether a god figure exists.
Have you ever tried to follow the teachings of a particular religion in earnest or are you just assuming them to be wrong on principle?
Yes, I was a practicing Lutheran for almost 20 years. I know my Bible better than 90% of Christians. I've also got some knowledge and experience in Buddhism, Wicca, and Asatru. I've read the Koran and the Book of Mormon. I don't think any of that is essential to my point.
Had it occurred to you that what some call divine whim, others call "rules" that the universe enforces based on our makeup in much the same way as we are subject to the rules of gravity and quantum mechanics?
Well, sure. You can call anything you want whatever you want. Just because you want to say "God makes the apple fall" doesn't make it any more true than "It's turtles all the way down."
And BTW, your "horseshit" comment is not only inappropriate, but reveals a level of personal immaturity that most likely precludes you from truly understanding the problem at hand. Please don't act like a child if you intend to sit at the adult's table.
Excuse me? This is Slashdot. Be prepared for strong language.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
That's precisely because insolation will increase to the level I'm talking about. I'm saying that if insolation is below that level, the Earth will retain its water; above that level, it will lose it. You can get insolation that high either by being closer to the Sun (like Venus), or by waiting (until the Sun gets brighter). Once you cross the insolation threshold, you lose water rapidly (within a few million years).
The bible is a large, complex book, used for every purpose under the sun -- good and bad.
/., and in the main thread. The fact that it quickly ... _quickly_ ... degenerates into the greater issue of how humanity fucks up religion (as it does all else), serves no purpose to this point.
/., too much gets in the way of the real question, and the real answer is simply never addressed.
But we are now discussing upwards of 3 things as I see: religion, morals/ethics and the existence of god. I would like to focus on the last point, as that seems to be the focus of this entire story on
The simple fact of whether or not there was a causer who caused causation (i.e., the cosmos), is an extremely simple question. I am not claiming to have the answer. Others here seem to know 'devoutly' what that answer is.
I'm a senior analyst by trade, and I work with younger guys who come to me with problems all day, seeking advice and answers. I have a set of principles that I provide them with when dealing with a problem, among which are:
-If it is now broke, when it was not before, then it is impossible to say, "nothing changed."
-To solve any problem, you _must_ start with the truth. This means, removing all the husks (the trash) of everything else currently in the way (attitudes, politics, deceptions, agendas). (This is pure existentialism).
-Lastly: I do not know the answer to that question. What you have provided so far does not contain the answer either. Claiming it is the answer, when it is not, does not mean it is. Basically: I don't know that, so you can't know that.
Once these things are generally resolved, the solution reveals itself.
Typically, on
To focus on the issue of religion as a problem, when asking the question of the existence or not of god, will never get one to the answer of the original question....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Believer: Because God explained it to us in the Bible, that He created the Universe the way it is and that's why you see the sky as blue.
Unbeliever: Because religion makes up a pretty story about a bearded dude in the sky assembling everything in a week.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Is... is that a quote from the timecube page?
Note that Sagan said "arrogant", not "wrong".