-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Djevv said:
I know because the data supports such a conclusion. You show me evidence that would suggest otherwise and it will have to be incorporated into the current model. The inclusion of a 'god' into this model is superfluous and Occam's razor applies. Remove that idea from the model and it still fits the evidence.
Panthera tigris FC said:
We both agree that the data supports the conclusion. My question is why?
My model at least makes a prediction that the laws should not fluctuate and be the same everywhere. A lawgiver/upholder is nessecary to set the laws up in the first place and keep them in place.
Also that since we are modelled on the creator of the universe that our mode of thinking (what we call rationalism and logic) actually 'works' in our universe.
You're model of a universe without a cause doen't predict any laws at all as far as I can see. Neither does it predict that our thinking should be able to comprehend logically the world as we see it.
Djevv said:
Sorry Djevv, but that is a crazy idea.
Evolutionary theory doesn't predict the ability to interpret the universe around us in a logical fashion? You don't see that would an advantage? Our ability to observe and rationalise would be strongly selected for as it permits us to interact with our environment with much more precision and allow decision-making based on our variables in our environment. To say that it requires an intelligent designer again adds complexity to the model that isn't called for.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I think it's easy for an evolutionist to look at something like our ability to think logically and invent systems like mathematics that give a good model of natural laws and say it must have a selective advantage. I can think of many other ways of thinking and doing things which might be sucessful, but fail to be able to adequately comprehend the natural world. To me, people skills coupled with the desire to risk take seem to make people successful in this life (low cunning seems to work well too ;D) - I don't often see those qualities in people with strong Maths/Science ability.
You haven't addressed my point about the organising principle that underlies our universe. Why is it there?
Disco08 said:
Because there is no plan or purpose behind the universe according to your worldview. There is also nothing that keeps the laws stable. No reason there should be any at all.
When scientists look(ed) for simple patterns and organising principles in our universe, they are really saying 'we believe that everything ought to make sense to us in this universe'. This has proved to be the case. Without a creator who is like us, I don't see why this should be.
Steven Jay Gould, Michael Schermer and others have observed that known causes and effects seem to have been reversed in the Anthropic Principle. Dr. Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life to claiming that hotdogs were originally made long and narrow so that they would fit modern hotdog buns, or that ships had been invented to provide homes for barnacles. These critics cite the vast store of physical and evolutionary evidence which shows that life has been fine-tuned by the universe, through natural selection, to match the conditions in which life exists. Fossil, genetic and other biological evidence abundantly supports the observation that life adapts to physics, not the other way around.
The paleophysicist Caroline Miller has said:
The Anthropic Principle is based on the underlying belief that the universe was created for our benefit. Unfortunately for it's adherents, all of the reality-based evidence at our disposal contradicts this belief. In a non-anthropocentric universe, there is no need for multiple universes or supernatural entities to explain life as we know it.
Wikipedia
The paleophysicist Caroline Miller has said:
The Anthropic Principle is based on the underlying belief that the universe was created for our benefit. Unfortunately for it's adherents, all of the reality-based evidence at our disposal contradicts this belief. In a non-anthropocentric universe, there is no need for multiple universes or supernatural entities to explain life as we know it.
Wikipedia
Pantera(and i mean this with no disrespect),you are falling into a trap that most scientists fall into.You are trying to answer a question that a scientist can't answer.
So is Roger Penrose incidently,one of the cleverest scientists currently on the planet-so you're in esteemed company.
Djevv:
In fact Djevv is asking a logically unaskable question.To use a classic philosophic example he is asking "why are all batchelors unmarried?"
Batchelors are unmarried by definition.
Life exists by defintion.
There is no 'why?'
I saw an interesting interview recently with the philosopher/cognative scientist Daniel Dennet - the writer of "on consciousness'mentioned in this thread.
To paraphrase he said "philosophers are in the buisness of discerning the right questions to ask,scientists are in the buisness of then trying to answer these questions"
He is right.
So is Roger Penrose incidently,one of the cleverest scientists currently on the planet-so you're in esteemed company.
Djevv:
-If scientists do in fact say that,then they shouldn't.It is impossible for everything to make sense empirically-humans are limited by their senses,investigations are always inevitably subjective.For a scientist to know everything he would have to be a God.
In fact Djevv is asking a logically unaskable question.To use a classic philosophic example he is asking "why are all batchelors unmarried?"
Batchelors are unmarried by definition.
Life exists by defintion.
There is no 'why?'
I saw an interesting interview recently with the philosopher/cognative scientist Daniel Dennet - the writer of "on consciousness'mentioned in this thread.
To paraphrase he said "philosophers are in the buisness of discerning the right questions to ask,scientists are in the buisness of then trying to answer these questions"
He is right.
evo said:
Evo, no offence taken, I appreciate your insight.
There is no 'why' to life, there is a 'how' though and our scant knowledge in the origins in this area leaves it open to the omnipresent 'god of the gaps'. I am not trying to answer the 'why', just pointing out that a lack of positive evidence in one area provides no evidence for a competing explanation that lacks its own evidence. A false dichotomy is constantly being constructed by creationists to argue for the existence of their god. I just point that out.
As to the limitations of our understanding, of course we are limited by our own subjective experience and, of course, we will never know everything . We can take conscious steps to control for our subjective experience and gain a little more insight into the world around us and a better picture of the objective reality. The scientific process has been more successful than any other in this respect even with its inherent limitations.
A ok, fair enough.I may have ascribed to you something you weren't trying to achieve.I'm glad then you see it this way,you're right.Panthera tigris FC said:
Penrose et al are trying to consider the 'why'.They should stick to what the're best at in my view,science.It's no small thing to answer the 'how'.
There is no 'objective reality' (I declare loftily)-only the subjective.
I think all people(scientists,theists,laypeople) should consider more closely a question that has become a cliche these days but is a very handy pointer to Reality in my view.
the riddle If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? has many connotations most people haven't considered.Answer the question to that and you're well on your way.
PS. i'm not telling you the answer. ;D
