"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist"

[phildwyer]

Just out of interest what created God?

Nothing, by definition. God is the Creator, He is not a creature.

 

[phildwyer]

That's 'cos the buttons on their cardigans would burst.

Well that's as maybe, but I certainly think I hear the distant sound of pencils snapping in exasperation.

 

[angry bob]

Given that some scientists reckon that Sol is a 3rd generation star I'd say that it's order is about as accurate as a teenage boy's claim of penis size.



Big Bang theory posits that there was a 600Kyr warming up period after the BANG! before there was any light, and geology can proove that the earth is younger then the rest of the universe...which kinda fucks your 'pretty accurate' assertion by about 8 billion years...

ok ... i got my genesis wrong. i take it back. it really wasn't my point.

still ... if you read the 'let there be light' as the parting of the foggy. sulphery whatnot type mist that hung over the earth in its early days then its not too far off.

 

[gurrier]

A dice roll is not chaotic. The outcome may be determined precisely given all the initial conditions.

Ahem. Chaos != Random. A dice roll is chaotic. Chaos theory is a method of analysis of complex non-linear systems (which are systems where small changes in initial conditions can lead to large differences in final states). Complex non-linear systems with large numbers of independent variables are intractable to deterministic analysis, hence chaos theory which gives you probabilistic outcomes and boundaries. You could precisely determine the outcome of a dice roll if you were able to model all the initial conditons precisely. But, if you make a miniscule mis-estimation of the velocity of a single cosmic ray in the vicinity and your prediction can turn out to be completely wrong. In effect, given the large number of independent variables involved in a system as complex as our universe, saying 'given all the initial conditions' is like saying 'given a magic wand'.

And, to re-stress the point "mysterious ways" is just a cop out. It's an admission that your theory is so weak that you can't even explain it yourself.

You say that the divine mathematician is in line with all the evidence - of course it is, that's the whole point of unfalsifiable theories, they are constructed precisely to prevent the possibility of them ever being tested. However, can you explain exactly where your theory is _more_ plausible than the flying spaghetti monster? Because I can't think of any good reason to differentiate the two.

 

[kyser_soze]

True I suppose. I'm just giving a name to your "what set the big bang in motion"

Saying 'i don't know' IS more rational than saying there is a god. It is also more rational than saying there isn't a god. That's why I'm agnostic ...

Wellllllll...could've been branes colliding...or my personal out there fave...a quantum event that became massive.

You know all the stuff about the impossible/ultre improbable happening in the quantum realm, well it's pretty fucking unlikely that *this* universe appeared allowing us to live in it. So I reckon it's a completely unique quantum event.

And of course if it ever happens again we'll probably be completely fucked.

Actually that would be quite mad, experiencing a 'new' big bang...

 

[phildwyer]

Its got plants coming into existence before the sun and the Earth existing from the beginning. What on earth are you chattin?

Its got "light" coming into existence before the sun and stars too. Does this tell you anything about how to read the Bible, Bloom?

 

[kyser_soze]

Its got "light" coming into existence before the sun and stars too. Does this tell you anything about how to read the Bible, Bloom?

It's got earth coming into existance at the same time as the rest of the universe which it didn't.

And the oceans and stuff didn't happen for about a billion years even after the earth was formed.

But then you don't accept any of this do you phil? AFAYC it's all just 'ideas' and 'perception' but not actually real.

(Of course if someone presents me with evidence to show that there were oceans on earth WHEN IT FIRST FORMED I'll eat my hat)

 

[phildwyer]

Mystery pulls the chicks, though.

You jest, but there's a kernal of truth in your tomfoolery. As the term its advocates proudly use suggests, "hard" science is most definitely a male preserve. And I detect a worrying level of sublimated sexual frustration in many of the raging responses on this thread. You really should give Plato a try next time you're on the pull, trust me on this one, and thank me later.

 

[Fruitloop]

I reckon it might have been a bit warm for oceans.

 

[kyser_soze]

You jest, but there's a kernal of truth in your tomfoolery. As the term its advocates proudly use suggests, "hard" science is most definitely a male preserve. And I detect a worrying level of sublimated sexual frustration in many of the raging responses on this thread. You really should give Plato a try next time you're on the pull, trust me on this one, and thank me later.

You're drifting into sexism now PD...treefrog will be here soon with an armoury of righteousness.

Altho one would expect that kind of attitude from an Oxbridge grad I suppose...

 

[treefrog]

Its got "light" coming into existence before the sun and stars too. Does this tell you anything about how to read the Bible, Bloom?

where does the light come from?

The only thing this teaches me about reading the bible is that I'm better off reading something else if I wish to learn about evolution. Like the Usbourne Bumper Book of the Big Bang for Kids, which is far more accurate.

 

[phildwyer]

It's got earth coming into existance at the same time as the rest of the universe which it didn't.

I'm well aware of that. My intent was to prod Bloom into the realization that Scripture is to be interpreted figuratively rather than literally. Biblical hermeneutics is an ancient and infinitely complex discipline. Try it sometime, 'sfun.

 

[phildwyer]

where does the light come from?

Jaysus. Its not a literal light. Do you *really* think the author of Genesis was silly enough to believe light came before the sun? Do you, really?

 

[treefrog]

You jest, but there's a kernal of truth in your tomfoolery. As the term its advocates proudly use suggests, "hard" science is most definitely a male preserve. And I detect a worrying level of sublimated sexual frustration in many of the raging responses on this thread. You really should give Plato a try next time you're on the pull, trust me on this one, and thank me later.

Damn right I'm here! As a woman and a strong advocate of "hard" science, I find your insinuation disgusting and chauvinistic.

Much like christianity, come to think of it.

I'll beat you over the head more strongly later, after I've gone for a smoke to calm down...

 

[treefrog]

.

 

[treefrog]

Jaysus. Its not a literal light. Do you *really* think the author of Genesis was silly enough to believe light came before the sun? Do you, really?

well you seem to...

 

[kyser_soze]

Jaysus. Its not a literal light. Do you *really* think the author of Genesis was silly enough to believe light came before the sun? Do you, really?

Well it did. The sun is about 4 bn yrs old, most cosmologists estimate the universes age at about 12bn years, and sol to be a 3rd generation star.

 

[angry bob]

Ahem. Chaos != Random. A dice roll is chaotic. Chaos theory is a method of analysis of complex non-linear systems (which are systems where small changes in initial conditions can lead to large differences in final states). Complex non-linear systems with large numbers of independent variables are intractable to deterministic analysis, hence chaos theory which gives you probabilistic outcomes and boundaries. You could precisely determine the outcome of a dice roll if you were able to model all the initial conditons precisely. But, if you make a miniscule mis-estimation of the velocity of a single cosmic ray in the vicinity and your prediction can turn out to be completely wrong. In effect, given the large number of independent variables involved in a system as complex as our universe, saying 'given all the initial conditions' is like saying 'given a magic wand'.

And, to re-stress the point "mysterious ways" is just a cop out. It's an admission that your theory is so weak that you can't even explain it yourself.

You say that the divine mathematician is in line with all the evidence - of course it is, that's the whole point of unfalsifiable theories, they are constructed precisely to prevent the possibility of them ever being tested. However, can you explain exactly where your theory is _more_ plausible than the flying spaghetti monster? Because I can't think of any good reason to differentiate the two.

OK r.e. dice roll. Still I would say that it would not be sensitive to a single cosmic ray! and I'm talking god here. It is surely comcievable that he is capable of comprehending all the initial conditions?

By mysterious ways I was saying we don't know. Same as you. I could equally say your theory is so weak you don't have an answer to that most fundamental of questions: where did life come from and where did the universe come from?

My theory is no more plausible than the giant spagetti monster. Although I haven't rwally seen a theory that explains life and the universe according to the GSM.

 

[Fruitloop]

It is surely comcievable that he is capable of comprehending all the initial conditions?

Only if he can violate the uncertanty principle and have knowledge of things without interacting with them.

 

[phildwyer]

You're drifting into sexism now PD...treefrog will be here soon with an armoury of righteousness.

SCENE: The Albert. Kyser Soze is engaged in his habitual Saturday night ritual of trying to Hit On A Babe.

Kyser: So darling, what have you been reading lately?

Babe: Well actually I was just taking a look at the Bible, I love the poetry and the stories are so moving.

Kyser: What? You ignorant, superstitious, Platonist, fundamentalist, tree-hugging, spaghetti-monster-worshipping, sky-kissing, Pat Robertson-following hussy. Can I get you another drink?

Babe: Later, dawg.

See what I mean? Its not really on, is it? But don't mind me, carry on as you were, leaves the field free for the rest of us.

 

[treefrog]

SCENE: The Albert. Kyser Soze is engaged in his habitual Saturday night ritual of trying to Hit On A Babe.

Kyser: So darling, what have you been reading lately?

Babe: Well actually I was just taking a look at the Bible, I love the poetry and the stories are so moving.

Kyser: What? You ignorant, superstitious, Platonist, fundamentalist, tree-hugging, spaghetti-monster-worshipping, sky-kissing, Pat Robertson-following hussy. Can I get you another drink?

Babe: Later, dawg.

See what I mean? Its not really on, is it? But don't mind me, carry on as you were, leaves the field free for the rest of us.

That's straight from a Jack Chick tract. Nice to see we got you pinned down at last

I'm assuming then that all women read the bible and it's nasty men who do all the thinking?

 

[angry bob]

Only if he can violate the uncertanty principle and have knowledge of things without interacting with them.

Well I did say QM aside!

 

[Crispy]

re. the virus thing.

Scientists have assembled a virus from it's constituent atoms, as they have worked out its structure. in all of the living world, there's nothing more simple (except maybe prions and there's some debate as to how alive they really are)

Please tell me where in this process, the atoms stopped being unreal and became a real thing?

EDIT : PS I happen to know that there's nothing like a bit of hard science to get treefrog going (oo-er!), so less of the gender stereotypes please!

 

[kyser_soze]

SCENE: The Albert. Kyser Soze is engaged in his habitual Saturday night ritual of trying to Hit On A Babe.

Kyser: So darling, what have you been reading lately?

Babe: Well actually I was just taking a look at the Bible, I love the poetry and the stories are so moving.

Kyser: What? You ignorant, superstitious, Platonist, fundamentalist, tree-hugging, spaghetti-monster-worshipping, sky-kissing, Pat Robertson-following hussy. Can I get you another drink?

Babe: Later, dawg.

See what I mean? Its not really on, is it? But don't mind me, carry on as you were, leaves the field free for the rest of us.

Hey, that's almost amusing!

Altho if 'babe' came out with the word 'bible' in that context she wouldn't even be offered a second drink. IME bible and chances of a quick shag don't generally go hand in hand.

 

[phildwyer]

That's straight from a Jack Chick tract. Nice to see we got you pinned down at last

I'm assuming then that all women read the bible and it's nasty men who do all the thinking?

Who is Jack Chick, is he related to Jack Shit? And more seriously, as a feminist, wouldn't you concede that professional "hard" scientists are overwhelmingly male? Absolutely disgraceful state of affairs I know, but that is the fact of the matter, non?

 

[phildwyer]

Hey, that's almost amusing!

Altho if 'babe' came out with the word 'bible' in that context she wouldn't even be offered a second drink. IME bible and chances of a quick shag don't generally go hand in hand.

No mate, you have to direct them to the Song of Solomon, you'll be in like Flynn.

 

[Fruitloop]

My theory is no more plausible than the giant spagetti monster. Although I haven't rwally seen a theory that explains life and the universe according to the GSM.

It's an occasionalist religion - there is no causation, everything flows from the GSM who is the sole causal agent.

 

[In Bloom]

Ah well ... the clearing of the skies is written as the creation of the sun,moon,stars.
It's got day and night first I believe?

earth, seas and plants.
clearing of skies.
fish and birds
mammals
man

I'm sorry, but Genesis quite specifically refers to the creation of the sun, moon and stars. It also implies that the moon is a source of light as opposed to a big fuck off chunk of rock orbitting the Earth.

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." - Genesis 1:14-16

 

[gurrier]

By mysterious ways I was saying we don't know. Same as you. I could equally say your theory is so weak you don't have an answer to that most fundamental of questions: where did life come from and where did the universe come from?

My theory is no more plausible than the giant spagetti monster. Although I haven't rwally seen a theory that explains life and the universe according to the GSM.

Life and the universe came from the big bang and the chaotic unfolding of the laws of the universe. Beyond that, neither I nor anybody else can say, nor is it currently possible for us to even attempt an answer to the 'why' or 'what was there before' questions. Any answer to these questions is inferior to the "Unknown" response because it pretends that it is known whereas it clearly isn't. In particular, answers which involve mysterious and unknowable entities doing mysterious things are particularly inferior because they have negative explanatory power - they introduce more problems without solving any existing ones.

Occam's razor is one of the most important elements of proper scientific method. A theory of gravity that says 'matter attracts other matter according to this law, until and unless we find an underlying law that this is an expression of, the only reason we can offer for this is that it just happens to do so in this universe.' is superior to a theory that says "matter attracts other matter according to this law because a mysterious entity wants it to". Both theories explain the action of gravity, but the second one has a glaringly razor-able factor. Similarly with tales of the creation of the universe and the big bang. The god / spaghetti monster character is just begging to be razored away.

 

[In Bloom]

Its got "light" coming into existence before the sun and stars too. Does this tell you anything about how to read the Bible, Bloom?

My point is that the writer of Genesis didn't know a whole lot about cosmology, biology or physics.