Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[Whateverist]

How do you build a self-replicating organic structure from scratch in such a way that the process is an inevitable part of physics?

You probably don't. Neither do I, scientists or God. Life, like rust, just happens. It seems to be a potential state of certain inorganic materials in the same way ice is a potential state of liquids. If life were not a potential state for inorganic materials, neither God nor abiogenesis could 'create' it. But since it demonstrably is, no God or alien seeding theory is required.

[The Reality Salesman01]

The only real possibilities are: a person is going to believe me, a person is going to disbelieve me, or a person is going to reserve judgement.

You cut that third option short... You seem to be under the impression claims without evidence at all are equally unverifiable as a claim without immediate available evidence. A claim about owning a bike is a bit different than the unfalsifiable claim of a God.

At least we have..
1)The Bike
2) A civilization comprised of individuals that commonly purchase and ride bikes
3) Individuals that are capable of investigating from an unbias perspective and discovering evidence in favor of one of the two people making the claim.

Ultimately we can examine the validity of both claims by an assessment of all the information, and make an educated decision based on the claim that is most consistant with that of an individual that owns the bike in question. Owning (possessing legal custody of something) a bike (a two wheeled pedal operated vehicle) is a falsifiable claim. A God (insert definition here) claim is quite different.

[EDIT] I believe the analogy your searching for begins like this:
"Suppose I claimed I knew the tooth fairy..." #jstrodel

[Mister Agenda]

atheistic worldview

This is a nonsensical statement. There isn't a worldview of atheism... Only a theistic one.
Each atheist's worldview is different in ways that range from minute to astronomical.

One's worldview should not be linked to their atheism.

I'd go a tiny bit farther. Mere theism (some sort of god or God exists, but I don't claim to know what it wants) isn't a worldview either.

[Love]

Well it seems we have little disagreement here. Plenty of people over the years have cited the lack of physical evidence for the massive number of crucifixions talked about in ancient literiture, and what's interesting is that these are the same arguments that get made against things like the Exodus and other Biblical events for which there is "little physical evidence". I'm pleased to see you don't defult your position to neo-sceptisism.

Yes, but saying "plenty of people" doesn't really provide any credibility to your proposition. I, for the most part, have complete faith in the academic peer review system. There are tens of academic historical journals and, indeed, PhD Roman Empire historians who have written plenty of papers on the subject. There is a great deal of historical evidence regarding the practice of crucifixion in the Roman Empire.

Often the topic of redemptive sacrifice is insufficiently explained by priests who assert that God is "forced" to punish us contrary to His wish that we instead enter Life. Nevertheless you still failed to provide the alternative.

I have actually provided an alternative. It is my belief that Christ's life, his consciousness, his ability to transform the lives of those around him and his core messages of love, peace and charity are vastly more important than his death and the theological interpretation of such. The God that I believe in is a God of infinite consciousness and unconditional love, not an entity that is, in any way, shape or form, interested in destruction or death. To be perfectly honest, I think the glorification of Christ's sacrifice is Satanic and evil; redemptive sacrifice is truly an absolutely hideous idea.

So we didn't invent physics. The universe really performs calculations - like a computer - to function? That's the only way it can operate according to our "physics". Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model of the theorized linear substructure of the universe. It is, as I just said, linear and therefore easy to understand. General Relativity on the other hand isn't linear. GR is far more counter-intuitive. Neither is an accurate description of our actual universe. If you actually believe in wave-particle duality you're an idiot.

These are very complicated philosophical issues. There are some philosophers who do, indeed, believe that the universe is ultimately a mathematical construct. Thinking about physics as an "invention" is not helpful and makes it sound as though it is artificial and has no credibility; physics has contributed a great deal to the human experience.

Your assertion that general relativity (GR) is more difficult than quantum mechanics (QM) is obviously arguable. Just because you find linear algebra easier than calculus does not mean everybody else does. Also, to state that "quantum mechanics is linear" is a sweeping statement, and is not a view shared by all physicists. I personally find both QM and GR to be extremely counter intuitive.

Your example of evolution is a poor one. We know that evolution, as we commonly understand it occurs in nature. We also know that life self-starts, this is also evident. We have extremely poor quality theories on abiogenesis to explain it, and the fact is we haven't a clue how it started. We also haven't a clue as to how sexual reproduction evolved - or for that matter why. None of the benefits from it sufficiently offset the "cost" associated with it, it's also counterintuitive to those who follow neo-darwinism and the "selfish gene" theorized by Dawkins. Yet our present theories on Evolution do an embarrassingly poor job of understanding nature, let alone abiogenesis. How do you build a self-replicating organic structure from scratch in such a way that the process is an inevitable part of physics?

Indeed, I also find evolution by natural selection to be extremely counter intuitive. In fact, I find quantum mechanics and general relativity easier to comprehend than evolution by natural selection. There are many things in "unguided" evolution that don't make a great deal of sense, such as the aspect of sexual reproduction that you mentioned and also the emergence of subjective consciousness. I think the idea that evolution is unguided asks far too much of human credulity. This is why I believe that evolution is God's chosen method of formation.

[Whateverist]

Indeed, I also find evolution by natural selection to be extremely counter intuitive. In fact, I find quantum mechanics and general relativity easier to comprehend than evolution by natural selection. There are many things in "unguided" evolution that don't make a great deal of sense, such as the aspect of sexual reproduction that you mentioned and also the emergence of subjective consciousness. I think the idea that evolution is unguided asks far too much of human credulity. This is why I believe that evolution is God's chosen method of formation.

What is evolution apart from natural selection? Are you suggesting that evolution is just god making stuff gradually over a long period of time? Do you believe that every quirk of evolution reflects a deliberate choice of God's? What about the giraffe's strangely elongated laryngeal nerve?

If you believe that God is behind each and every step of the change in animals over time, then you really don't accept evolution. Natural selection is evolution. God doing it slowly over time is just another take on creationism.

[downbeatplumb]

Indeed, I also find evolution by natural selection to be extremely counter intuitive. In fact, I find quantum mechanics and general relativity easier to comprehend than evolution by natural selection. There are many things in "unguided" evolution that don't make a great deal of sense, such as the aspect of sexual reproduction that you mentioned and also the emergence of subjective consciousness. I think the idea that evolution is unguided asks far too much of human credulity. This is why I believe that evolution is God's chosen method of formation.

That is because you don't really understand it.

Evolution is a stunning example of simple processes leading to complex outcomes.

I invite you to read up on it, it really is a fantastically interesting field which holds many surprises.

[Love]

Indeed, I also find evolution by natural selection to be extremely counter intuitive. In fact, I find quantum mechanics and general relativity easier to comprehend than evolution by natural selection. There are many things in "unguided" evolution that don't make a great deal of sense, such as the aspect of sexual reproduction that you mentioned and also the emergence of subjective consciousness. I think the idea that evolution is unguided asks far too much of human credulity. This is why I believe that evolution is God's chosen method of formation.

That is because you don't really understand it.

Evolution is a stunning example of simple processes leading to complex outcomes.

I invite you to read up on it, it really is a fantastically interesting field which holds many surprises.

I understand it perfectly well, but I still find it to be extremely counter intuitive (as does Richard Dawkins).

---

What is evolution apart from natural selection? Are you suggesting that evolution is just god making stuff gradually over a long period of time? Do you believe that every quirk of evolution reflects a deliberate choice of God's? What about the giraffe's strangely elongated laryngeal nerve?

If you believe that God is behind each and every step of the change in animals over time, then you really don't accept evolution. Natural selection is evolution. God doing it slowly over time is just another take on creationism.

When I say "guided", I am referring to the following: I feel that the laws of physics and chemistry were devised in such a way that abiogenesis and biological evolution would be an inevitable outcome, a view that is shared by the professor of Biology Kenneth Miller, among others. You could, in a sense, view it as creation, but I strongly disagree with the "creationism" movement (that totally rejects the theory of evolution). I fully accept the theory of evolution.

[Angrboda]

I understand it perfectly well, but I still find it to be extremely counter intuitive (as does Richard Dawkins).

I rather doubt that. Evolution is a deep, broad, and subtle science, and you haven't demonstrated that you possess the ability to find your ass with both hands.

[Love]

I rather doubt that. Evolution is a deep, broad, and subtle science, and you haven't demonstrated the ability to find your ass with both hands.

Apophenia, to "understand" a topic, do you need to have PhD level knowledge on the subject? Of course not. You obviously need to reevaluate your definition of the verb "understand". If you want to test my knowledge on evolution, go right ahead because I have nothing to hide.

Instead of writing your usual vacuous single line generalisations, why not actually make the effort to engage in the discussion? Is it because you lack the aptitude to partake in written debates?

It appears to me that you endeavour to come across as an intellectual authority in seemingly all academic disciplines, but judging from what you have written in many of these areas, you're clearly nowhere near as knowledgeable as you think you are.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

No, I would not use empiricism to justify my belief in God.

Another example: let's suppose I have purchased a bicycle from a shop. Let's assume that nobody witnessed or has knowledge of me buying or even owning the bicycle. A few years down the line I have lost the receipt of purchase and the company from which I purchased the bicycle dissolved. Suppose in a public setting I lock the bike and lose the key, and there is another person who comes along and makes a convincing reasoned argument and claims that the bike actually belongs to him or her. With absolutely no evidence (documentary, anecdotal or otherwise), how can I possibly prove to somebody that the bike is my property? The only real possibilities are: a person is going to believe me, a person is going to disbelieve me, or a person is going to reserve judgement. For a person who disbelieves me, he or she is perfectly within his or her rights because I have provided absolutely no firm evidence that the bike belongs to me. A person might choose to believe that I am telling the truth based on intuition, in which case reason is trumped by intuition in this instance and does, in fact, lead to the truth of the matter.

While that makes an excellent argument for the existence of bicycles it falls far short of the existence of gods much less the one and only god you are promoting.

---

Often the topic of redemptive sacrifice is insufficiently explained by priests who assert that God is "forced" to punish us contrary to His wish that we instead enter Life.

I have noted the sacrifice idea requires only death with the whole crucifixion thing as unnecessary production values. No one has disagreed. [/quote]

So we didn't invent physics. The universe really performs calculations - like a computer - to function? That's the only way it can operate according to our "physics". Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model of the theorized linear substructure of the universe. It is, as I just said, linear and therefore easy to understand. General Relativity on the other hand isn't linear. GR is far more counter-intuitive. Neither is an accurate description of our actual universe. If you actually believe in wave-particle duality you're an idiot.

As the GR nonlinearity is in the covariant and contravariant tensors and as addresses statistical space unrelated to the spatial nonlinearities of GR it is unclear what you are talking about. How does statistical space relate to physical space?