Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.

Curiosity, asking why, is only found in intelligent, sentient creatures. For billions of years, there were only unintelligent, unconscious processes of matter, energy, motion, force. Yet, apparently, things continued to get more complex. At some moment, the formerly unintelligent became intelligent, became capable of self reflection, and asking why. How was there an utter lack of intelligence before, and pointless intelligence (there is no "why") now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

nope. not a theist. Just a science teacher who is horrified that somebody, trying to defend science or use science in an argument, would use something in his argument that you learn is stupid during the first day of class in any science course beyond the elementary level. I guess this person must have taken science at some point, or he wouldn't be so enamored of it. It is frustrating and an embarrassment to my profession that he learned so little. (I hope it is not a she!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

nope. not a theist. Just a science teacher who is horrified that somebody, trying to defend science or use science in an argument, would use something in his argument that you learn is stupid during the first day of class in any science course beyond the elementary level. I guess this person must have taken science at some point, or he wouldn't be so enamored of it. It is frustrating and an embarrassment to my profession that he learned so little. (I hope it is not a she!)

I just find your targeting a bit bizarre. Makes sense you're a high school science teacher; you're certainly not a logic teacher, given what you've chosen to be embarrassed by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.

Curiosity, asking why, is only found in intelligent, sentient creatures. For billions of years, there were only unintelligent, unconscious processes of matter, energy, motion, force. Yet, apparently, things continued to get more complex. At some moment, the formerly unintelligent became intelligent, became capable of self reflection, and asking why. How was there an utter lack of intelligence before, and pointless intelligence (there is no "why") now?

See, this is the reason that evolutionary theory needs to be taught in schools. It's a quite simple explanation of how simple things grow more complex over time. You should google it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

nope. not a theist. Just a science teacher who is horrified that somebody, trying to defend science or use science in an argument, would use something in his argument that you learn is stupid during the first day of class in any science course beyond the elementary level. I guess this person must have taken science at some point, or he wouldn't be so enamored of it. It is frustrating and an embarrassment to my profession that he learned so little. (I hope it is not a she!)

In any case, you may have been teaching far too long. It's obvious you've got no love for the subject, and all that's left is pedantry. Aside from the nit-picking, do you agree with PP's general point (which is actually pretty straightforward)? Or have you actually got something to add to the conversation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.

Curiosity, asking why, is only found in intelligent, sentient creatures. For billions of years, there were only unintelligent, unconscious processes of matter, energy, motion, force. Yet, apparently, things continued to get more complex. At some moment, the formerly unintelligent became intelligent, became capable of self reflection, and asking why. How was there an utter lack of intelligence before, and pointless intelligence (there is no "why") now?

Are you aware of the percentage of humane genome we've inherited from such complex creatures as viruses (complex creatures is not meant literally, there's debate if they're even alive). It didn't happen in a moment, it happened over millions or billions of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.

Curiosity, asking why, is only found in intelligent, sentient creatures. For billions of years, there were only unintelligent, unconscious processes of matter, energy, motion, force. Yet, apparently, things continued to get more complex. At some moment, the formerly unintelligent became intelligent, became capable of self reflection, and asking why. How was there an utter lack of intelligence before, and pointless intelligence (there is no "why") now?

If there is one thing that science has learned during the last fifty years, it is that we are increasingly less unique in our cognitive abilities. We didn't recognize intelligence because we did not know how to understand behavior that was not represented in spoken English. Now, the more we study, the more we realize that "uniquely human" traits show up in more places in the animal kingdom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curiosity is what takes us further. We'd have made no strides in science and medicine without if. It's human nature, not proof of intelligent design. If anything, it points towards evolution.

Curiosity, asking why, is only found in intelligent, sentient creatures. For billions of years, there were only unintelligent, unconscious processes of matter, energy, motion, force. Yet, apparently, things continued to get more complex. At some moment, the formerly unintelligent became intelligent, became capable of self reflection, and asking why. How was there an utter lack of intelligence before, and pointless intelligence (there is no "why") now?

If there is one thing that science has learned during the last fifty years, it is that we are increasingly less unique in our cognitive abilities. We didn't recognize intelligence because we did not know how to understand behavior that was not represented in spoken English. Now, the more we study, the more we realize that "uniquely human" traits show up in more places in the animal kingdom.

True. Dolphins and whales with their sophisticated communication...the social structure of elephants and meerkats...amazing, really. And in the vastness if space, there could be other intelligent creatures we don't know about yet.

But this just confirms the universe is composed of unintelligent materials and processes as well as intelligent creatures. It does not explain the origin of intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

nope. not a theist. Just a science teacher who is horrified that somebody, trying to defend science or use science in an argument, would use something in his argument that you learn is stupid during the first day of class in any science course beyond the elementary level. I guess this person must have taken science at some point, or he wouldn't be so enamored of it. It is frustrating and an embarrassment to my profession that he learned so little. (I hope it is not a she!)

I am not sure who is who in this catfight, but I just want to say that in M Theory, there may be as many as 10^500 universes, each with it s own physical laws. Given that, the possibility of a different planck constant or an exponentially different relationship between matter and energy is not improbable. 10^500 could contain a lot of variation.

[Anonymous]

I'm agnostic--I don't know if there exists some sort of existence beyond us that is God. If God exists, I'm not sure how we would ever know, since humans don't seem to possess the ability to observe God and since human reason can only rely upon existing categories of knowledge to determine whether or not there is a God.

I do believe, however, that if there is such a thing as God, that God's sense of morality is not what we think of as moral. The problem of theodicy--why bad things happen to good people and why bad people are rewarded--is a hard one to resolve. Especially as a mother, I can't imagine what kind of God (if this God is omnipotent, etc., etc.) would allow such horrific things to happen to children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."

That's interesting. My father and I are very close. He was diagnosed with a terribly aggressive and deadly form of cancer. I didn't ask anyone to pray for him and I said no prayers. My mother, though, told me I didn't really love or care about him if I wasn't praying for his full recovery.

My husband was treated for cancer this last year and was on more prayer chains etc. than you can imagine. We didn't ask for a single one, but people feel alarmed and helpless when they know someone is suffering. One way to make themselves feel better is to pray. PP. if you are really this bitter about praying for a child's well being then I feel sorry for you. If I knew someone with a sick child and they asked me to pray I would, I wouldn't believe it would make a difference, but really their child is sick. Why wouldn't you try to comfort them.

[Anonymous]

how stupid. 19 pages of this? clearly there is no proof of God, nor is there proof of no god.

either you have faith or you do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how stupid. 19 pages of this? clearly there is no proof of God, nor is there proof of no god.

either you have faith or you do not.

Oh, you have to be kidding. The subject of religion has occupied humanity for at least the last 3,000 years. If that's not a relevant topic of discussion, I don't know what is. Surely not IHTT or "Hiding my shopping sprees from DH".

[Anonymous]

It appears this thread has shifted away from "Tell me why you don't believe," and now is aimed at "Let me tell you why not believing is wrong."