Do you beileve in evolution? Why or why not?

[Perfection]

You don't believe because you don't believe? I find that equally poor thinking.

When did I say that?

Just like we are asserting that someone started everything without any real justification, you are asserting the negetive of that assumption without much reason. We think it was necessary for someone to start it all, you don't believe so. How is your thinking any superior to ours?

Oh, but I do gave a reason!

Let's go to the famous IPU (Invisable Pink Unicorn) example. I think it's obvious that it would be silly to assert the existance of such a being depite the fact that there is no evidence disproving its existance. The reason it is silly is because you are making your worldview more complex without adding explainitory power. The IPU us a useless and silly thing to believe, so the correct action to anyone who posits its existance is dismissal.

 

[punkbass2000]

Do you believe that you exist?

Not really. In some senses, yes, but ultimately, no. First, what is existence? How do we define that which exists? I submit the only definition we can use is that something does not "not-exist". We would need to be able to compare it to what does not exist. I'll draw some analogies. I would say my light is "on". I would not describe my desk in the same way. I don't think many people would describe the sun as "on" either. Why? Because my light is sometimes "off". My desk and the sun are not. Thus, "on" and "off" only exist through each other, no more. Same with "hot" and "cold". In fact, this ultimately destroys language of all sorts, since to speak of any particular thing is to at the same time speak of what it is not, but I'll leave that tangent for another time.

So, do "I" exist? I would say I exist as much as anything else, which is to say nothing at all. Beyond that, "I" don't exist in the sense that there is some distinction between "myself" and the rest of Reality. Beyond that, to say something exists defies Reality on definitional grounds, to my mind. Everything we can perceive changes at a fundamental level all the time. To claim something "exists" is to claim that any particular "thing" persists. It is only a conception which persists.

 

[Babbler]

You know, we stopped debating evolving several posts ago.

 

[punkbass2000]

Thus proving evolution!

 

[Archbob]

When did I say that?

Oh, but I do gave a reason!

Let's go to the famous IPU (Invisable Pink Unicorn) example. I think it's obvious that it would be silly to assert the existance of such a being depite the fact that there is no evidence disproving its existance. The reason it is silly is because you are making your worldview more complex without adding explainitory power. The IPU us a useless and silly thing to believe, so the correct action to anyone who posits its existance is dismissal.

But the world is a finite place. If you search for it everywhere and can't find it, you can assume it doesn't exist in a finite space. You can't really search for God if you refuse to have faith. God does not live in our realm.

How is my worldview more complex? I believe that an almighty creator created the Universe and brought order to it. Seems pretty simple to me.
Your theory that the universe just came out of nothing and the not-really-provable theory that come with it seem much more complex to me.

 

[Perfection]

But the world is a finite place. If you search for it everywhere and can't find it, you can assume it doesn't exist in a finite space. You can't really search for God if you refuse to have faith. God does not live in our realm.

The IPU is made of special matter that is undetectable.

How is my worldview more complex? I believe that an almighty creator created the Universe and brought order to it. Seems pretty simple to me.

There's two parts of a worldview that I believe have value. The first is the power to explain and predict observed phenomena and the second is the simplicity of it. In your brief summery you don't predict observed phenomena. It seems to me that a belief in god adds complexity without actual explinatory power.

Your theory that the universe just came out of nothing and the not-really-provable theory that come with it seem much more complex to me.

Your theory includes god with all its psychological manifestations and motivations, which is far more complex than the universe just existing. Saying the universe just exists on its own may betray common sense or seem vaguely unfullfilling to some but it's simpler and explains just as much as god.

 

[Bill3000]

But the world is a finite place. If you search for it everywhere and can't find it, you can assume it doesn't exist in a finite space. You can't really search for God if you refuse to have faith. God does not live in our realm.

If god does not live in our realm, then does he still live in our universe? Considering the fact that the universe is defined as all that exists, it would have to be.

 

[EdCase]

If god does not live in our realm, then does he still live in our universe? Considering the fact that the universe is defined as all that exists, it would have to be.

Now is that actually correct?
Because surely as the creator he/she/it needed to be in existence prior to the Universe to create it. Which would lead to the conclusion that he/she/it is not of the Universe and therefore exists outside (another realm) of it.

The above stated is a very good indicator of why I lean towards the the " I don't know how the Universe came to be, but my head hurts if I include a Deity in the problem." category.

 

[shadow2k]

If god does not live in our realm, then does he still live in our universe? Considering the fact that the universe is defined as all that exists, it would have to be.

Well even science has theories that delve into the existence of alternate universes.

 

[EdCase]

Well even science has theories that delve into the existence of alternate universes.

Ummm...then might I ask? if your of the "there is a creator" school of thinking
Do you..

1. Believe he created them as well.
2. Not believe its possible because it doesn't jibe with your belief pattern

 

[shadow2k]

Ummm...then might I ask? if your of the "there is a creator" school of thinking
Do you..

1. Believe he created them as well.
2. Not believe its possible because it doesn't jibe with your belief pattern

No, I don't believe in God.

The theory is actually used to explain how the Big Bang came about (two dimensions collided). Which answers the question so often asked by creationists about what caused it other than God. But of course, then they'll ask where the alternate dimensions came from in the first place.

 

[Sidhe]

Saying that 2 dimensions colided to create the universe is no better scientificaly than saying God did it. Blood M theory, give me some proof or get out of my science class and take your bloody string theorist mates with you too. hypothesis dress up as lamb. murmur murmur.

 

[Perfection]

Saying that 2 dimensions colided to create the universe is no better scientificaly than saying God did it. Blood M theory, give me some proof or get out of my science class and take your bloody string theorist mates with you too. hypothesis dress up as lamb. murmur murmur.

I'd disagree. String theory has the potential to explain more things using relatively simple theory (with hugely annoying mathematical consequences albiet). Of course, I really don't favor it in being taught in schools because it has limited evidence and is hard as hell to understand. We don't teach our children quantum mecahnics properly, how the heck could you propose we teach them string theory as well iwth out confusing the hell out of them?

 

[El_Machinae]

That's taken out of context, I'm not refering to god as a whole but VRWCagent's idea of god creating life directly rather than through chemical processes.

Yeah, I know, that's why I jumped in. Here's his statement that you pounced on.

You're right, by the way. Gradual chemical processes did very likely start life. God was behind those gradual chemical processes.

It's like he was saying "God designed gravity", but certainly admits that gravity is why apples fall.

He's basically stating that abiogenisis started the whole 'life' thing. And I'll bet that he puts the beginning of our Universe at the Big Bang, too.

But, he's saying that "God" is the "why" and natural physical processes are the "how". Remember, he's talking about the cause of the Big Bang, which even you realise that you cannot prove either way.

Once religion pounces into the 'how', it's bound to be wrong (because it's, at best, interpreted by fallible humans). But religion can easily answer the 'why', because science cannot.

Remember, you're the one who said that 'how' and 'why' are commonly interchanged in normal conversation. I think this is the reason why you disagreed with VRWCAgent. Basically, I'm saying that you two weren't really disagreeing.

 

[EdCase]

But, he's saying that "God" is the "why" and natural physical processes are the "how". Remember, he's talking about the cause of the Big Bang, which even you realise that you cannot prove either way.

Once religion pounces into the 'how', it's bound to be wrong (because it's, at best, interpreted by fallible humans). But religion can easily answer the 'why', because science cannot.

And where is it written that there has to be a why?

 

[Bill3000]

Well even science has theories that delve into the existence of alternate universes.

You're confusing different definitions of the word "universe."

I mean universe as in "All that is possible to exist" - this is probably better to call it the multiverse, really.

You are defining a universe as "A part of reality that has no outside contact with the rest of reality" - e.g. the "laws" of physics (a misnomer here, as the underlying laws of the multiverse would still stay the same, it would just be differing variables) could differ from universe to universe, and/or a universe in which matter is trapped in and cannot escape from.

Both doesn't include the fact that the existance of god requires him to be in the underlying multiverse and thus still apply to the "ultimate" laws of physics. That's the requirement for existance. If god was a painter, the ability of the colors of the paint and how it is painted on a canvas still has its own laws and thus exists in the ultimate universe.

But religion can easily answer the 'why', because science cannot.

Is a "why" even necessary? For example, is there a need to explain "why" exactly an object will move in a circle, as opposed to "how"?

 

[El_Machinae]

And where is it written that there has to be a why?

You'll note that you're asking "why is there a why?". I think that's funny.

Has the question "why does the universe exist?" ever occurred to you? Don't you want an answer to that question?

Science cannot answer the question, but it is there.

 

[Perfection]

It's like he was saying "God designed gravity", but certainly admits that gravity is why apples fall.

He's basically stating that abiogenisis started the whole 'life' thing. And I'll bet that he puts the beginning of our Universe at the Big Bang, too.

But, he's saying that "God" is the "why" and natural physical processes are the "how". Remember, he's talking about the cause of the Big Bang, which even you realise that you cannot prove either way.

Once religion pounces into the 'how', it's bound to be wrong (because it's, at best, interpreted by fallible humans). But religion can easily answer the 'why', because science cannot.

Remember, you're the one who said that 'how' and 'why' are commonly interchanged in normal conversation. I think this is the reason why you disagreed with VRWCAgent. Basically, I'm saying that you two weren't really disagreeing.

Well, I wasn't exactly sure which stance he was taking, he could've been talking as if god had a physical effect at that moment. I choose the response that would allow me to increase my postcount.

 

[El_Machinae]

Should I create another thread about the infinite complexity of the universe? I don't think we knew what each other meant.

 

[Perfection]

Should I create another thread about the infinite complexity of the universe? I don't think we knew what each other meant.

You can do whatever you want to do, I retain the right to decide weather or not to annoy you.