Given that God and the Bible consider slavish devotion, ignorance and bloodlust 'good', their idea of 'hell' is likely to be a place where decent people exist in happiness, knowledge and safety. Why else would it terrify the faithful so deeply?

(November 19, 2012 at 1:13 am)ronedee Wrote: We had an old pastor at my church that had a saying that always bothered me, and intrigued me at the same time! "God won't put us in Hell....we will march there ourselves, willingly." I'm realizing that message hanging around here!

Suuuuure we do...

(November 19, 2012 at 11:20 am)Rhythm Wrote: We don't "give it" laws, we discover the laws.

Well, my point is that a lof of things we consider "laws" may just be "features". A feature is something interesting that happens as a part of the process.

Why don't you explain to me why I should consider "hubble's law" a fundamental scientific law, especially in light of the fact that everybody now agrees quasars are "exempt" from the law (but they weren't when the law was "discovered")!

Newton imagined a linear universe, and his laws reflected how his worldview was.

Quote:As Stimbo mentioned, as far as we can tell physics is at play anywhere in this universe we care to look.

Go sub-atomic then and try and find the laws of chemistry working. Physics is at play, yes, but we have different sets of laws which affect different aspects of our universe, and are confined to specific frames of reference. "Higher level laws" collapse the features of the "lower level laws" that they're supposedly dependant on.

Remember we have to use a calculator to work out how objects are going to behave with each other in our physical models. The universe doesn't use a calculator, it doesn't perform calculations in order to work out what will happen and how it should happen, so that very model itself is fundamentally flawed. Just because it's the only way that we can understand it doesn't mean that it's the way it works. That's why we have the quantum uncertainty principle - it's there to convert something that is not calculable into something that is for our purposes.

---

(November 19, 2012 at 12:14 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Okay, while it is true that physicists invented the concept of physics in the sense of definable laws, it is not true to say that we then imposed them upon the Universe. It's rather like saying that there was no colour blue in the Universe before we invented a word for it.

Let's stretch your example a little. The universe doesn't have "primary colours". Just because you can mix magenta paint with yellow paint and produce red doesn't mean that's how the universe does it. When I was a kid I was taught that red is a primary colour, and I was also taught specifically that you can't make blue paint from other colours. I now know that you make blue paint by mixing cyan and magenta. We totally invented the concept of primary colours to make life easier for ourselves, even though not only does it totally not represent the way that the real world works, it also prevents us from utilizing the full visible colour spectrum when we use what we call "primary colours".

(November 20, 2012 at 7:24 am)Daniel Wrote: Remember we have to use a calculator to work out how objects are going to behave with each other in our physical models. The universe doesn't use a calculator, it doesn't perform calculations in order to work out what will happen and how it should happen, so that very model itself is fundamentally flawed. Just because it's the only way that we can understand it doesn't mean that it's the way it works. That's why we have the quantum uncertainty principle - it's there to convert something that is not calculable into something that is for our purposes.

So there are two approaches, 'god did it' as stated in the bable, or finding out the nuances exposing the anomalies and making new models, 'science'.

(November 20, 2012 at 7:24 am)Daniel Wrote: Well, my point is that a lof of things we consider "laws" may just be "features". A feature is something interesting that happens as a part of the process.

A rose by any other name my love. Call them "widgets" if you like but that won't change their contents or measure of accuracy (however we may care to measure either).

Quote:Why don't you explain to me why I should consider "hubble's law" a fundamental scientific law, especially in light of the fact that everybody now agrees quasars are "exempt" from the law (but they weren't when the law was "discovered")!

What you "should" do is your own business, but I can tell you -why- something is called a natural law by others even if you choose to withhold the term yourself. A natural law is a statement based upon repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the universe. If you're interested enough in quasars to ask this question then it seems strange to me that you wouldn't have been equally as interested in the explanations (and observations) made to explain this effect (essentially, why we continue to leverage Hubble's Law). As before, it seems as though the important bit is to feel that you are qualified to impeach any given finding, to say "what if we're wrong"...and while I could never argue that it isn't possible for us to be wrong, I can explain why this comment (leveraged so broadly..though I appreciate this post..much more specific) leaves you in a position bereft of any ability to offer another explanation or conclusion.

If, for example, you state that the notion of a universe "self starting" is absurd...you do so by reference to those very same laws which you feel break down beyond their frame of reference...those very same laws which you feel might more aptly be called features. This, in effect, is chopping off both your hands before you attempt to lift a ball. You've impeached your own conclusion so thoroughly that it becomes a incoherent proposition. What may or may not have existed or have been operating as a mechanism before the universe existed is beyond the frame of reference of the laws that lead to the conclusion..and furthermore..."you may be wrong" even about those laws that have led to this conclusion from within their frame of reference. You have no experimental observations to back this conclusion (and it wouldn't matter if you did, because as the conclusion falls to these two axes you've swung so too does observation itself). If, on the other hand, you wish to persist in this claim then you'll have to concede that you have done so by reference to natural laws (and their frame of reference), and under the assumption that they are accurate...at which point, attempting erode either when someone offers a rebuttal is exceedingly bad form. You argue not just against them, but also yourself. The scorched earth approach.

Quote:Newton imagined a linear universe, and his laws reflected how his worldview was.

Newtons laws reflected both his observations, what was known to him at the time, and yes...his personal bias. Unfortunately for Ole Newt, his observational apparatus was (by comparison) meager, the body of knowledge with which he could draw on (by comparison) scant, and he was lacking a framework or method such as the one we enjoy that would help to insulate him against his bias. Considering these things, his work was impressive.

(November 20, 2012 at 7:24 am)Daniel Wrote:

(November 19, 2012 at 12:14 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Okay, while it is true that physicists invented the concept of physics in the sense of definable laws, it is not true to say that we then imposed them upon the Universe. It's rather like saying that there was no colour blue in the Universe before we invented a word for it.

Let's stretch your example a little. The universe doesn't have "primary colours". Just because you can mix magenta paint with yellow paint and produce red doesn't mean that's how the universe does it. When I was a kid I was taught that red is a primary colour, and I was also taught specifically that you can't make blue paint from other colours. I now know that you make blue paint by mixing cyan and magenta. We totally invented the concept of primary colours to make life easier for ourselves, even though not only does it totally not represent the way that the real world works, it also prevents us from utilizing the full visible colour spectrum when we use what we call "primary colours".

Wow, a missed point red herring - and I always thought they were just a myth. The Universe doesn't care how we perceive it or what we do with that perception. There exists a wavelength of the visible spectrum which we humans have agreed to refer to as "blue"; more accurately, it's a range of wavelengths, since there is no single colour blue. What you have to do to get those wavelengths is totally irrelevant. For instance, we only see an object as being blue - or any other colour you care to name - because it absorbs every colour in the spectrum apart from blue, which it reflects.

If language had developed in such a way that our word for that colour was something else, red for instance, all that would mean is that all references would be different to what we know. It wouldn't affect the fundamental blueness of that wavelenth range in the slightest. If anything it demonstrates the Universe's total disinterest in the affairs of a particular arrangement of carbon on a mote of dust orbiting perhaps the least interesting star in the Universe.

Since we want to talk about colours, here's another example, thrown in for interest rather than elucidation but it does demonstrate the use of language as it pertains to describing reality. Apparently Ancient Greek writings describe the sky as being bronze, not blue. So what was going on there? Some sort of volcanic dust activity? Ergot in the water? Aliens? Actually, some schools of thought hold that instead of describing the colour of the sky, the writers were describing the sky's appearance; ie, bright and shiny, like a polished bronze shield.

I've always wanted to stroll into a paint store and say "Give me a gallon of your best 652.38 nanometer interior enamel".

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: DO YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IN GOD?

I want to believe in God if God exists, I do not want to believe in God if God does not exist.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: ...or is [proof] the main thing holding you back?

Lack of evidence/proof is the main thing holding me back, but that part of the question seems like it should be preceded with an 'and' instead of an 'or' since one doesn't preclude the other.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: Do you believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe?

No. There isn't enough information to estimate the odds of that. It would have to be VERY improbable though, for us to be the only example among a hundred billion galaxies, but it just might be that improbable. All we know for sure is that there is at least one chance in a universe of intelligent life existing somewhere in the universe. If we ever confirm the existence of non-sapient life elsewhere in the universe, it might give us a better grasp of how to calculate the odds of another sapient species being out there.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: Can anyone here (besides us zealots) answer a question, or challenge to their reasoning seriously? oops thats 4!

These were much more polite questions than those of another recent thread-starter's, thanks for that.

---

(November 16, 2012 at 10:59 pm)ronedee Wrote: Ok....For those who don't "think" there is a God, or want to "think" there is a God...

Why would you think there is intelligent life somewhere else?

We know intelligent life is possible, because of us. We don't know of any conditions in the universe that would preclude it existing elsewhere. There are billions of places it could happen. Therefore it seems reasonable to think there is a good possibility of some intelligent life existing somewhere else in this vast universe.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: Wouldn't it be a "belief" that someone exists w/o seeing proof?

What's reasonable to believe depends on the claim. It's reasonable to believe there's someone named Renee living in Paris right now. I don't have any particular person named Renee in mind, but it's a common enough name and sounds kind of French. It's reasonable to believe that the odds are in favor that I'm right that at least one person named Renee is living in Paris. This is inductive reasoning.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: Also, wouldn't it be possible for this unproven intelligent life to be 100's of billions of years superior to us? And actual hide from us 40,000 year old infants?

Well, the universe isn't old enough for another sapient species to be hundreds of billions of years older than us; but it's possible that one could be hundreds of millions of years older than us.

---

(November 18, 2012 at 6:50 am)Daniel Wrote: By that same logic all the atheists have to say "we currently don't know" to the existence of God.

Most of us DO say that. We don't know if God exists and we're not going to believe that a God we don't know exists, exists. Especially when there are so many versions of God to choose from, many of them mutually exclusive.

---

(November 19, 2012 at 1:13 am)ronedee Wrote: So...Yes! The point of my question(s) was to reveal that most of you will believe, think, ponder (whatever term have you) there is intelligent life somewhere in the universe. But you will refuse to ________ there is ONE God who created it!

Because there is no scientific or logical or probabalistic reason to think it.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: That seems odd...but, I'm not surprised. Most of YOU want to think there is someone out there "like us", but not a supreme being that created everything, including us!

It's no skin off my nose if there's no one out there like us. If there is it is highly unlikely that I'll ever know it. We suspect aliens because we already know life is possible and the universe is very big and old. We've been clear about our reasons, and you choose to disregard them and insert the reason you'd prefer we have. You shouldn't have to resort to strawmanning our position if your own is sound.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: And the biggest piece of evidence/proof there is a God, stares all of us in the face daily! [Time] tells you there was a beginning....and there will be an end! Translation: This stuff didn't just appear on day one!

You're arguing for a first cause, and there may be one, but there's no good reason to think that first cause was a sentient being, let alone your version of God.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: We had an old pastor at my church that had a saying that always bothered me, and intrigued me at the same time! "God won't put us in Hell....we will march there ourselves, willingly." I'm realizing that message hanging around here!

The important thing is that you get to believe that you're going to heaven and we will be tortured in perpetual agony for eternity and it's what we deserve for not sharing your beliefs.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: And...what do we have to offer each other is the reocurring question in my mind? IMO...just confirmation of our own convictions! But in separate directions... You slide deeper into your hatred and darkness, as I move more to love and the light. Alas...my old pastor was right.

Not seeing your love and light from this angle. Looks more like contempt coupled with smug self-congratulation. I have trouble thinking that if a just God exists, he would think you're on the right track with that comment.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: I have one more question for all you highly intellectual folk....

Sarcasm: it's what Jesus was about.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: Do you think that given our scientific advancements, through "time" (possibly 100's of thousands of years) we will become like gods?

If we survive that long and continue to progress technologically, it's likely. We might even be able to create universes of our own, although I think that would be an ethically questionable exercise.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: ....Or, are we doomed as a race of people to become extinct, and for what reason?[/b]

Forever is a long time. The universe will arguably exist eternally into the future, although it seems that it will wind up nothing but a cloud of ever-more dispersed photons. We might not be able to survive in that, even with millions of years of technological advancement. And if we still have descendants in that time, they certainly won't be the same species as us.

(November 19, 2012 at 2:01 am)ronedee Wrote: I can see how you people have no concept of God's love.

I don't see any sign that you do, unless God's love is a small and mealy thing.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: It's not about putting us in a bowl and treating us like a goldfish!

Nobody said it was.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: It's about Him giving us His divinity! To become like Him!!

What's stopping him?

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: It goes to the Faithful, Caring, Loving, salt of the earth Servants of God.

I don't see you falling into that category. You seem more the smug, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, sarcastic, internet crusader to me.

(November 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm)ronedee Wrote: THOSE GOOD PEOPLE WILL BECOME ONE WITH GOD!!

"As He shared in our humanity, so we will share in His divinity! Amen."

How would you know that? What makes your claim more credible than the claims of theists of thousands of other religions that aren't compatible with yours?

(November 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Aliens?