Crazy Monday Poll - A serious one

[Adrian]

I wasn't pulling you in mate, just having a small jibe

As far your statement about bacteria, "did it just appear out of nowhere" and "ou can only go back so far until to reach a point where something must've come from nothing", you say that can't be possible for bacteria, but some how God can just exists, come form nothing, always been there. These statements intrigue me, but let me say again, I am certainly not having a go at you, I am just asking questions as I'm genuinely interested in peoples trains of thought.

Oh gee, have a go. I can handle it.

God, by It's nature can just exist, come from nothing and always be there. Bacteria cannot.

That is why God is God. It's a unique entity. It doesn't have to be comparable with anything else in existence, and in fact it isn't.

[bennymacca]

od, by It's nature can just exist, come from nothing and always be there. Bacteria cannot.

bacteria is just a certain arrangement of chemicals, namely Deoxyribonucleic acid, otherwise known as DNA.

according to the theory of evolution, small, single cell organisms, even simpler than bacteria, DID just exist. just by random fluctuations in the concentrations and combinations of acids.

[bennymacca]

i stand corrected, its not really part of evolution, but Abiogenesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_life

[Adrian]

you misenterpreted this.

Not really. I knew what you meant.

Yes, I've heard of the standard model.

what i meant was, the theory of the creation of the universe, starting at the big bang and continuing is relatively well understood. there are slight complications, such as dark matter, and a theory of quantum gravity that we dont yet know about. the half second i was referring to was where the standard model of physics breaks down. thats not the point though.

secondly the universe DID start at the big bang. there is a definite creation point to of the universe. the universe hasn't always been there.

We think the universe hasn't always been there is what you meant to write, I think.

It's not a fact simply because it's been scientifically measured. Going back to my statement about absolute faith in science and scientific methods.

BUT a valid question to ask is what caused the big bang to occur. why did it occur? these are questions that cannot be answered by science, and personally, this is where i think a god maybe present. although i still haven't made up my mind on this.

Yes, this is a common reconciliation that religious scientists make. They believe and accept all of the science (because they've been indoctrinated to do so and can't think of any other possibilities ) but then believe there is some room for God to have an involvement as well because science doesn't answer everything.

Personally, I don't believe that science will ever be able to answer everything. Science is stuck with the same problem that religion is really. It's is restricted by it's own founding principles to such an extent that it will never be able to achieve the purpose of its existence. Religion is restricted by the need to have faith that things just are a certain way, even if the conclusions aren't always logical or sensible. And science is restricted by the need to have "proof" before things can be believed or accepted as true.

yes we are pathetic, but we are damn clever, just ask me!

Hey! You're not the only clever one, you know!!

you are right, but you are talking about philosophy, not science. there is a very subtle difference. science tells us about evolution, the formation of the planets, etc, i.e the how. but doesn't tell us anything about the why

Ah, but philosophy is a science.

[Conspiracy Theorist]

God, by It's nature can just exist, come from nothing and always be there. Bacteria cannot.

But do we really know the "nature" of 'God'.

Isn't our understanding based on human interpretation. Which is inherently flawed?

CT

[Adrian]

bacteria is just a certain arrangement of chemicals, namely Deoxyribonucleic acid, otherwise known as DNA.

according to the theory of evolution, small, single cell organisms, even simpler than bacteria, DID just exist. just by random fluctuations in the concentrations and combinations of acids.

Everything is a certain arrangement of chemicals.

Where did the chemicals come from? Oh, they just appeared because of the Big Bang and all that. It was hot and fiery and stuff happened all in half a second. A before you know it all the elements in the universe just appeared!! Hmmm. Come on. This is almost a religious notion, not a scientific one!!

All the logical scientific conclusions stem right back to this notion, which shows that there is a fundamental difficulty with the premise of creation of the universe with any God existing and basing it all on scientific randomness.

[Adrian]

But do we really know the "nature" of 'God'.

Isn't our understanding based on human interpretation. Which is inherently flawed?

Nope.

I'm only debating with fellow humans at the level of understanding that a human has.

Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant. It just has to be right for human purposes.

So there's no fundamental problem at all.

[bennymacca]

We think the universe hasn't always been there is what you meant to write, I think.

It's not a fact simply because it's been scientifically measured. Going back to my statement about absolute faith in science and scientific methods.

im sorry, but how can you not believe in scientific method?

yes, you can not believe the theory, but the method is much deeper and separate from each individual theory.

Yes, this is a common reconciliation that religious scientists make. They believe and accept all of the science (because they've been indoctrinated to do so and can't think of any other possibilities

im not sure what you are getting at here. i haven't been indoctrinated about anything - if i had, i would be a devout Christian. i dont accept or believe all of the science out there either, because there are obviously problems with a lot of the current theories. but i DO believe that, in time, we CAN get a full description of the physical properties of the universe.

that says nothing about things that lay outside observation and experiments though.

Personally, I don't believe that science will ever be able to answer everything. Science is stuck with the same problem that religion is really. It's is restricted by it's own founding principles to such an extent that it will never be able to achieve the purpose of its existence. Religion is restricted by the need to have faith that things just are a certain way, even if the conclusions aren't always logical or sensible. And science is restricted by the need to have "proof" before things can be believed or accepted as true.

as far as i know, science isnt trying to be the answer to everything. sceince is the answer to how things work. nothing more. thats it.

you are right about the restrictions on religion though.

Ah, but philosophy is a science.

philosophy is by definition NOT science. in fact, if you were to ask me what was anti-science, then i would say philosophy. (lol if you ever wanna talk about string theory and how it is most definitely not science (yet), then we can go nuts on that one as well )

Where did the chemicals come from? Oh, they just appeared because of the Big Bang and all that. It was hot and fiery and stuff happened all in half a second. A before you know it all the elements in the universe just appeared!! Hmmm. Come on. This is almost a religious notion, not a scientific one!!

All the logical scientific conclusions stem right back to this notion, which shows that there is a fundamental difficulty with the premise of creation of the universe with any God existing and basing it all on scientific randomness.

go and read up on the science of the big bang and the evolution of the universe. (even from wikipedia)

Where did the chemicals come from?

at, or just after the big bang, there was basically a big plasma of quarks, the building blocks of nuclei. under these very high temperatures and pressures, these formed into protons, i.e hydrogen atoms, and electrons and neutrons etc.

just after the big bang, there was a very rapid period of expansion that made the universe HUGE very quickly, but essentially spread heaps of elementary particles all over the universe.

after a while, gravitational forces forced these elementary particles to clump together into gases, and eventually the cores of stars. at the centre of the stars, the intense pressures and temperatures, forced the hydrogen atoms together to form more complex elements like helium, carbon, silicon, etc etc.

so, no, all of the elements and chemicals werent' formed just after the big bang, but the building blocks of them were.]

This is almost a religious notion, not a scientific one!!

no, it just shows a lack of understanding of the science.

[Adrian]

im sorry, but how can you not believe in scientific method?

yes, you can not believe the theory, but the method is much deeper and separate from each individual theory.

I never said I didn't believe in it. I'm just saying we must not have blind faith it its absolute perfection. It is subject to human flaws, just as everything else human created is flawed.

Therefore, just because science can "prove" something, it does not automatically make it true.

im not sure what you are getting at here. i haven't been indoctrinated about anything - if i had, i would be a devout Christian. i dont accept or believe all of the science out there either, because there are obviously problems with a lot of the current theories. but i DO believe that, in time, we CAN get a full description of the physical properties of the universe.

that says nothing about things that lay outside observation and experiments though.

You seem pretty well indoctrinated into the belief that the scientific method will always yield reliable results. That's a form of indoctrination.

I think that all that will happen with future scientific discoveries as that we will just learn how much more there is to learn and we will never know everything.

as far as i know, science isnt trying to be the answer to everything. sceince is the answer to how things work. nothing more. thats it.

you are right about the restrictions on religion though.

And I'm also right about the restrictions on science.

Of course science is trying to answer everything. Trying to describe the formation of the universe is pretty much everything, because by doing so one must be able to explain the source and interation of everything within said universe. You have obviously heard of the search for "The Theory of Everything".

That is on the assumption that there is even only one universe in the first place. There may well be millions of them. Who knows for sure.

philosophy is by definition NOT science. in fact, if you were to ask me what was anti-science, then i would say philosophy. (lol if you ever wanna talk about string theory and how it is most definitely not science (yet), then we can go nuts on that one as well )

Well that would depend how you describe philosophy, wouldn't it. I would describe it as the science of knowledge.

Ah yes, The Elegant Universe and all that. Interesting doco. Little springs floating about creating gravity and electromagnetism and all that, if I remember rightly. A little far-fetched.

go and read up on the science of the big bang and the evolution of the universe. (even from wikipedia)

I don't think that will help if I already accept the notion that human thought is flawed by it's very nature, and all these theories are a product of human thought. Even my belief in God is, so where does all that actually leave us?

at, or just after the big bang, there was basically a big plasma of quarks, the building blocks of nuclei. under these very high temperatures and pressures, these formed into protons, i.e hydrogen atoms, and electrons and neutrons etc.

just after the big bang, there was a very rapid period of expansion that made the universe HUGE very quickly, but essentially spread heaps of elementary particles all over the universe.

after a while, gravitational forces forced these elementary particles to clump together into gases, and eventually the cores of stars. at the centre of the stars, the intense pressures and temperatures, forced the hydrogen atoms together to form more complex elements like helium, carbon, silicon, etc etc.

so, no, all of the elements and chemicals werent' formed just after the big bang, but the building blocks of them were.

Oh gee. You can believe in quarks, but you can't believe in God.

A bit ironic. Yes, I'm fleetingly familiar with the concept, but you gotta admit it really reads like a bad science fiction movie.

And it doesn't really matter how far back in the history of the universe you want to go, or how deep unto the subatomic world you want to go, there must always be a starting point. A point of creation of whatever infitisimally tiny thing that was the source of everything. Your big plasma of quarks can't just appear out of nowhere. This is the fundamental problem of science trying to explain the beginning of the universe.

I don't trust it at all. So I just decide to believe in God instead.

no, it just shows a lack of understanding of the science.

Oh, well this I can easily admit.

Now I'm running late for the game. And you've fried my brain so I can't think. And now I'll lose.

[bennymacca]

Oh gee. You can believe in quarks, but you can't believe in God.

for the record, i voted yes above.

secondly, the science that i am talking about is all very real. im sorry to say that the fact that you dont' believe in it comes from a lack of understanding and knowledge of the science. nothing more. thats not a fault of yours, you just haven't studied science. its all VERY real and tested by experiment, not just made up out of thin air.

Therefore, just because science can "prove" something, it does not automatically make it true.

ok. well then how is anything true? by this flawed logic, you can argue against anything. murder? sure why not, the science, while providing proof that i did it, is wrong. i can get away with anything.

of course thats rediculous.