Yuku free message boards

Firstly, you agreed that the question of god was not (necessarily) a scientific one ("My point is that just because it's not a theory (according to science) or hypothesis doesn't mean it's not a valid question to ask. I don't let the rules of science dictate my curiosity. "). Secondly, your statement doesn't make sense. If "does god exist" is a scientific question, then the answer is of the utmost pertinence to the discussion of the possibility of god (Duh!). So how can it not really matter?

Well, the fact that god was postulated a long time ago and no proof has been discovered yet (in marked contrast with your example of atoms) is suggestive.

I agree that lack of discovery yet does not mean lack of ever proving something, but god is not gravity waves (which have been claimed to have been detected indirectly anyway) or superstrings (where parts of the theory, or rather M theory which evolved from the string idea, have been used to solve things like the black hole information paradox). God supposedly has a huge effect on the universe, according to theists, yet is invisible and intangible. That's inconsistent.

But you said: "who is to say that if there is a god that god would have an effect on any universe period let alone this one single unvisere(sic) floating in a theoretical ocean of universes?" which is a god that is unfalsifiable.

Extreme? There is no evidence to support the idea of god's existence. It is not extreme in the slightest to say in that case with firm conviction that god does not exist.

Define "religious", and define "god" while you're at it.

Religion: a belief in, with or without accompanied worship of, god or gods.

God: a being that is worshipped, specifically supernatural in form, with power over man and the natural laws. When God is mentioned as a singular entity it is THE god, the creator of the universe, usually the JCI deity is inferred.

Pg 35 for me. I own a 2006 hardback copy.

The page numbering must be vastly different in the edition you have, or you've cocked-up the page number.

Though I have no fucking idea whatsoever about what you mean by an "astrological explanation". Or your assertion that the entire bible is also based on astrology. I'm certainly aware of some astrological references in the bible, but to say the entire bible is based on astrology (in fact you appear to be saying that all mythology is based on astrology) when it can be seen to have undergone various edits and writing phases (another discussion in itself) would appear to be a massive over-simplification of the matter.

Your god doesn't really sound like much of a god at all. But if you're going to just redefine the concept of god to avoid admitting god doesn't exist, why bother?

I watched part of it but turned it off because it was a load of shite.

C'mon skippy, try to keep up. The god botherers want to keep their cake and eat it too.

Liar: "There are many religious scientists who feel that God is not detectable by man. "

You appear to have an odd definition of religious if you don't think people who believe in god are religious.

If you mean that I used my brain and questioned things rather than taking the bible we were taught at face value, then yes. But I was polite, honest and didn't swear.

I accept that I don't know what it was like being raised by religious fuckwits for parents.

No, not really. People who have an absolute faith in the existence of god aren't asking themselves "does god exist?", are they?

The fact that above I've quoted Dawkins above in explaining a couple of arguments in relation to the science v god issue doesn't mean you should assume I will defer to his authority on any subject, even if you actually provided quotes rather than your own assertion he said something.

If he said that nobody has yet shown how abiogenesis occurred I would have to agree - but that's not the same thing.

Evolution has a great deal to do with how WE got here, which was the question.

Well the implications of a quantum theory of gravity means that the universe cannot be said to have a beginning, and thus no reason to explain that beginning. I could go into other long-winded arguments but I've previously done so several times here and elsewhere, so I won't bother. But you could try putting "ex nihilo" into the search engine here at BB and see what comes up, for example.

But of course answering "where did the universe come from?" with "god" simply defers the question. It becomes "where did god come from?". The answer of the theists (or deists) is "god just IS". Which is fine, except that we can say "the universe just IS" instead.

I think you need to brush up on your quantum mechanics.

What is not the answer? The RNA hypothesis? Clay as a catalyst? Metabolism first? Cell vesicle first? Warm pools? Geothermal vents?

Abiogenesis as we might discuss the subject is not one idea but several different hypotheses.

So your little rant is a fucking joke, and a bad one at that.

You've just justified belief in god through saying that "nobody knows". Which is just inserting god to cover a gap in knowledge. God = ignorance.

I expect he'll crawl out from under a rock at any moment.

Where exactly do you think god is not hiding then?

It's not like science does backflips daily. I don't turn on the TV over breakfast and expect to see a headline saying that the law of gravity has been repealed, or that in fact DNA doesn't really do anything.

If they don't fuck with me, I don't fuck with them. Why should I? But idiots who want bronze age goatfuckers' campfire tales taught instead of science in school, or that stop their kids having lifesaving blood transfusions or other medical treatment, or who simply brainwash and scare the fuck out of them, well, the gloves are well and truly fucking off.

Except that religion is one of the reasons humans are so fucking barbaric to each other.

I disagree. Religion and government both control and manipulate the population, not vice versa. The power weilded by priests and politicians (one and the same thing in many places) is vast, and greater the more ignorant the people who look to them for guidance.

I commend you for reading up on the right people such as Greene and Smolin, but perhaps you should keep more current. M-theory has effectively ousted strings since it has been realised that the myriad string theories are just aspects of a more complete theory. Another dimension was added, and Hey-presto! we arrived at M-theory.

I'm glad you mentioned Greene, in fact, since his work predicts that string theory will leave imprints in the CMB, which is one of the things the Planck satellite launched this year is going to be used to look for.

What possibility? The possibility that an invisible, unobserved, pointless entity not needed to or that doesn't answer the question of where the universe came from? There could be teapots in orbit around Betelgeuse, since we can't rule out the possibility completely, but that's no reason to actually think there might be.

If god was a 50/50 chance, I would agree with you, but it's not. Once you have ascertained that the possibility is so low as to be discounted then you may be satisfied that god doesn't exist. A personal visit from the Archangel Gabriel might change your mind, but that's always allowed in the face of new and unexpected evidence.

Your objection is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, atheism and theology are both characterised by you as philosophy, so I'm simply pointing out that science(which I've contrasted with philosophy) is not a limited "earthly" view, just as philosophy isn't (by very definition and nature it cannot be, so by characterising atheism and theology as philosophy you refute your own accusation.

I always argue from the point of rational, scientific atheism, of course.

What laws are you saying you ignore? Gravity? Speed limits? Murder? Or are you simply saying that you don't give a fuck about logical, rational thinking and just believe whatever stupid fucking shit takes your fancy?

Before it became popularised with a wave of stuff like the X-files in the '90s, nearly nobody had seen any aliens that have been called the "greys". Then suddenly every kook coming out of the woodwork describes such a being. Same with "flying saucers".

The reason people see god or angels now, and not Pink Unicorns or for that matter, Apollo or Hermes, is down to the images and ideas that are popular in their culture.

And you say you know somebody, or they knows somebody who knows somebody, who has had a real experience of god. Of course you do. And the holy grail is lying under some old junk in my shed.

I did wonder if using this example with you was a good idea or not, you being a conspiracy nut and all.

That part is not true. In fact there are perfectly good reasons like sleep paralysis, waking dreams, etc. Try reading, for example, The Science of Discworld pages 290-2.

No, you haven't.

I'm talking about the schism in science about the proper interpretation of the theory of quantum mechanics. There's nothing religious about it.

Because your "definition" of god can hardly be said to be a deity at all. If anything.

Just shows what idiots some of these people are.

In the very broadest sense, yes, but the answer is "we don't know". In any case the brain is what produces and controls that electrical activity. You would need to explain how your energy field generates and modulates itself, not to mention how such a thing could be conscious of anything else. But that's fairly well beside the point, which I'll get to next.

Or are you defining god as something other than a first-cause argument?

How many pages is the paperback edition?

I never did. You've a guilty conscience or something. I suggested a different edition (correct option) or typo. I never even suggested you were lying. Seriously, you need to chill the fuck out.

I already pointed out how Greene has predicted that variations in the CMB will prove or disprove M-theory. The observatory launched in May. Watch this space.

It was one of the criticisms levelled, but in fact the idea has become the de facto accepted idea.

You started at Sting Theory,

It's a natural development of it. It's not redesigned, it is that those working on different string theories relaised they were just parts of a whole.

I assume you're talking about chaotic inflation here then.

I did, but god necessitates religion.

I believe what I said was that I admitted I did not have the personal experience of being raised by religious fuckwits. If you chose to interpret this as meaning I believed your parents to be such, you have read more into it than was written.

No, I'm deeply curious and want to know. But to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, "Once you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, is the answer".

The universe is chock-full of biological chemicals and the elements needed to create them. Comets and meteorites contain amino acids. Is it really so hard to believe that those biological precursor molecules, given enough time and a large enough test tube, as it were, could form a self-replicating hereditary molecule?

And just above it seemed like you were talking about the origin of life instead. No matter.

Firstly, I will refer you to Hawking and the No Boundary Proposal. No singularity, no point of beginning, the universe would just BE, finite and unbounded, as observations also indicate and a quantum theory of gravity will dictate.

Secondly, for something to have a cause, then time is needed to give a sequence of cause and effect.

a naked singularity can create matter and energy from nothing and otherwise ignore or break down the laws of physics.

And we could say that 'what came "before" the big bang?' is a meaningless question.

Are you talking about human evolution or the origin of life now?

I don't believe I did say that in that context (abiogenesis). But we have several possible hypotheses, among which you (for whatever reason) have a favourite.

Common misconception. Go back and read chapter 8 of ABHOT again.

I think you effectively said you don't believe in quantum mechanics, the most rigorously tested scientific theory ever. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Excuse me for crediting you with more affinity with the subject than was warranted. I shall try to remember to treat you as an uneducated moron next time.

"Nobody knows exactly how life started on earth" is not the same as "nobody knows how we got here".

If it was natural because it happened, then no god need apply.

I'm not even sure what to say to that. I don't see how it is supposed to make sense, but then I'm sober right now.

I thought TCY was the only one banging this drum. Come on then, cite some examples.

but to remain agnostic about something for which there is no evidence and no reason to entertain the notion except that it cannot be disproved is ludicrous. You would have to be agnostic about everything, invisible pink unicorns, Martian teapots, fairies at the bottom of the garden, Geraldine the next door neighbour's kid's invisible friend - everything. Or else you are suggesting god is a special case, and then have to justify that to yourself - and anyone else.

Are you a tooth fairy agnostic?

Dude, they're invisible pink unicorns. Fuck's sake.

What? I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about now.

No, I realised you weren't being serious, the ironic thing was it was one of the most interesting ideas you'd come up with.

Not if i can help it.

Why?

I disagree, as the recent rise in atheism has shown.

It wouldn't be so bad but you should feel doubly aggrieved as you have a constitution wherein the nation is supposed to be secular.

Because other people's values - from honour-killings to killing homosexuals - might not be what I or a free and fair society want.

If by "grow up" you mean accept the status quo and become a productive member of society, don't rock the boat - then Not Much Fucking Chance. If I didn't have a wife and kid to worry about, oh, and bills to pay - I'd be rioting on the fucking streets.

That's essentially what a quantum fluctuation is.

I do wonder what would have happened if I'd decided to go for the astronomy degree instead.

Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, but if atheism is not arrived at through reason and knowledge, what is it?

Religion has set itself against science in that science has done away with many of the things held by religion to be true, so if atheists are the opposite of believers, it is not to be wondered at that atheism and science are associated.

I thought you'd read The God Delusion?

The explosion of grey sightings only took off with their popularisation in the 80s and 90s.

Did you know that the type of aliens seen has a lot to do with the nationality of the person who claims to have seen them?

I was talking about abductions specifically, wasn't I? I'm afraid it's a while since I was really keeping up with UFOlogy. I could look into it, but right now I can't be bothered.

No, it's the same subject. Strings are dead because M-theory has shown they are all just aspects of it. If M-theory can be shown to have merit then obviously string theories - each of which is just an aspect of it - will be vindicated.

I believe far more qualified persons than myself have already rebutted the notion.

Because if god existed IN another universe then explanation of that universe would also be required. If god requires a universe to reside in then he cannot be an ultimate, first cause, obviously.

Yours was a purely monotheistic definition. Mine was not. Think about it.

There's a difference between currently defying scientific description and indescribable by definition.

There is vocabulary available to describe the full gamut of human emotions. That someone lacks the vocabulary doesn't make them indescribable by definition.

Either god is a scientific question or not.

But in fact a god that is outside all of our sense of physicality and scientific understanding is indescribable.

Disturbing enough in itself.