GOD: The Failed Hypothesis

[JackC 0]

Quote

Myers-Briggs is approximately as accurate as a tarot card reading.

I'm inclined to largely agree, although MBTI has at least had a half-arsed basis in reality and similar MBTI personalities do tend to identify with certain professions etc whereas Tarot is complete bollox from top to bottom.

[billvon 2,991]

>Also, as stated in the quote, information is also a key. If we received
>a series of radio wave pulses from outer space which could be
>interpreted into a single sentence such as “We are here” everyone
>would conclude that aliens sent the message, and rightfully so.

?? No. We have received such messages, and at first we did indeed think they were signs of a civilization. Turned out they were pulsars, stars that send out very regular, modulated bursts of radio waves.

> We now know of something called DNA which contains so much
>information that it results in beings, such as us, which are more
>complex that anything we have every created or even imagined.

Right. But lack of imagination does not equal proof of divinity. If that were true, then the fact that the elevator comes when you push the button would be proof of God - provided you did not understand how elevators worked.

>Just as an archeologist would do, we conclude from such evidence that
>we were created. This is sound science.

Any archaeologist who saw a regular pattern of complex hexagonal rocks on a beach, and thus concluded that someone intelligent must have made them, deserves to lose his grant.

>When we look in some cells we find an electric motor called a flagella.

It's not electric; it's chemical.

>Why can we not conclude that it was created?

Because it's based on simpler structures that pump stuff in and out of cells.

>one day we will find a way to explain how DNA and the Flagella Motor
>can come about.


===========
Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum

Copyright 2003 by N. J. Matzke

Abstract: The bacterial flagellum is a complex molecular system with multiple components required for functional motility. Such systems are sometimes proposed as puzzles for evolutionary theory on the assumption that selection would have no function to act on until all components are in place. Previous work (Thornhill and Ussery, 2000, A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. J Theor Biol. 203 (2), 111-116) has outlined the general pathways by which Darwinian mechanisms can produce multi-component systems. However, published attempts to explain flagellar origins suffer from vagueness and are inconsistent with recent discoveries and the constraints imposed by Brownian motion. A new model is proposed based on two major arguments. First, analysis of dispersal at low Reynolds numbers indicates that even very crude motility can be beneficial for large bacteria. Second, homologies between flagellar and nonflagellar proteins suggest ancestral systems with functions other than motility. The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum’s complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.
=================================

[chasteh 0]

In which case the importance of being able to actually say (in fact) that God does or does not exist is exponentially greater.

[JackC 0]

Quote

>That religosity/spirituality is an emotion?

No, but rather that it is manifested through how it works in people, not by how much God weighs or how many amps one of his lightning bolts produces.

If religosity is not an emotion, then it should be independent of the person experiencing it. There should be some kind of physical religiosity field I can stand in, or a religosity particle I can detect, or some external thing that can be used to affect religosity in some way that differentiates it from an emotion. Is there any other non-emotional corollary that is proven to exist that can be detected only by people who believe in it and not by people who don't?

Or you could have absolutely no reason to postulate this at all which makes it nothing more than a blind guess that is neither supported by any evidence or even fits with what evidence there is. But that would be very unlike you.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Myers-Briggs is approximately as accurate as a tarot card reading.

I'm inclined to largely agree, although MBTI has at least had a half-arsed basis in reality and similar MBTI personalities do tend to identify with certain professions etc whereas Tarot is complete bollox from top to bottom.

Actually, in a "good" tarot card reading the person giving the reading is actually looking at the person externally and may in fact have some basis for their perceptions of the person and the information they give them.

Whereas in a MBTI the participant may just be lying to themselves and giving the answers they "believe" fits them, when they're answering the test.

That said, they're both still complete and utter bullshit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>There is no need to show that God does not exist until someone shows it does.

Unless someone just assumes it does and then becomes responsible for 2000 years of war, crusades, and disagreement. Then we need to show it.

Good luck with that. Even if it were proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that god does not exist, you really think they'd just accept that from "infidels" and stop fighting?

Western European scientific logic has no real bearing on religion. Especially if they keep their people uneducated.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[quade 4]

Quote

Especially if they keep their people uneducated.

So, which "their people" are you talking about? The western europeans or some other part of the world, because I think you can pretty much say that about the entire world and religion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Especially if they keep their people uneducated.

So, which "their people" are you talking about? The western europeans or some other part of the world, because I think you can pretty much say that about the entire world and religion.

I was mainly referring to the Middle East as they tend to be the most blatant about religion in government, hating and killing others because they are different: ya know, the things that most western religions don't do so much anymore...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

I'm fairly sure things like the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator is an attempt to do something very much like that.

Myers-Briggs is approximately as accurate as a tarot card reading.

I think you're unfairly maligning Tarot.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[quade 4]

Quote

I was mainly referring to the Middle East as they tend to be the most blatant about religion in government, hating and killing others because they are different: ya know, the things that most western religions don't do so much anymore...

Oh? Really?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://www.jewskilledjesus.com/
http://www.kkk.bz/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chasteh 0]

>Good luck with that.

I've said that it isn't possible, particularly since we are limited to gaining such information by empirical means. You must mean to wish luck on someone else's search. The problem is that people (religions) assume that they "know" that God exists and act on behalf of that assumption. I am saying that it is absurd to take such an assumption and act on it-particularly in ways that are violent.

>Even if it were proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that god does not exist, you really think they'd just accept that from "infidels" and stop fighting?

Did I say I think they would stop? People go to war for reasons other than religion, like for example: power, resources, political ties, revenge, and so on.

If it were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, does that mean that it matters if "infidels" had proven it?

Anyways, I think you have lumped a few more things into my statements than you realize.

Bottom line:
If the religious want to make claims and act on those claims, then it is necessary for them to be able to prove what they based those claims on.
Unfortunately for them, their claims about the existence or the goodness of God are out of reach. Shucks. But wait, they are still using those assumptions as justification! Now how the hell did they do that?

>Western European scientific logic has no real bearing on religion.

Scientific logic? What?

Science and Logic have bearing on religion. Science allows us to test and observe empirically verifiable phenomenon, including the truth-assignment of propositions we have. The problem religion poses to science is that science does not have a way of proving or disproving a whole assortment of propositions, including: "God exists." The only reason you have left to say that "it has no bearing on religion" is because the religious don't allow science to have a bearing on religion. This is not because science doesn't actually have an input here, it is be cause they are dogmatic in their approach to their religion.

"Especially if they keep their people uneducated."

Keeping people uneducated greatly aids the dogmatist's argument by suppressing counter-evidence.

Sort of like when people confuse logic with science.

"But chasteh, religion is beyond science and logic!"

"Maybe science but not logic. You can make many statements within your religious writings, but logic still dictates whether or not they can all be true at the same time. Sorry Jesus."

>Especially if they keep their people uneducated.

[chasteh 0]

godhatesfags.com

Brilliant!

[quade 4]

Quote

godhatesfags.com

Yep, while most people use religion as just a way to get through their miserable lives, these idiots use it to cause other people more grief. Nice huh? And they blame everything from 9/11 to Katrina to whatever on the "sins" of America.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy the 1st Amendment as much as anybody (maybe even more so than some) but occasionally I'd just like to lay the smack down on folks like this because much like the KKK, they're able to hide their hate and idiocy behind the shield of "religious" freedom.

And yeah, Bolas, this is in America . . . not the middle east.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Quote

the HOW of things is not the same as the WHY of things. One is the province of science, the other of faith.

The question is though, faith in what? Which creation myth? Which prophesy about the end of the world?

Science, while not having perfect models for either, would logically conclude that there can only be one true answer, but faiths around the world and throughout time have many different beliefs about them.

Since only one can be true, all the others are logically false.

There is simply no way they can all co-exist.

Who cares? You are trying to do what my post says you cannot - because it makes no sense - and that is to apply science (or logic, if you will) to faith, which by its very nature is not based in the realm of logic or the scientific method. And don't get me wrong, BOTH sides try to do this, most unfortunately.

that's why it's called FAITH. My problem with this entire line of "debate" is that it's like trying to describe a computer in terms of a fish. Try it. Describe how to build a computer but you can only use fish terms and parts. It makes no sense. None at all.

Science tells us how, faith tells us why. and it's faith because it's based on belief, not proof. If you so choose to believe that there is no "why" or that the "why" doesn't matter at all, then that's fine. What i don't understand is this insistence on telling those who do choose to believe in a "why" that they are wrong or stupid because science says so (which it really doesn't by the way). Science has absolutely nothing to do with it!

Just because faith falls outside the realm of rationality does NOT mean that it's existence is not valid. Or would you say emotions are also invalid for the same reason?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[quade 4]

Quote

Or would you say emotions are also invalid for the same reason?

I would say that there is a very good evolutionary reason emotions exist. From an anthropological perspective, they make sense as a way to ensure a group survives. While I can say the same thing for religion and belief in God, that doesn't mean God actually exists.

Maybe that's it. Maybe our just slightly more advanced than ape brains are hard wired to "believe" in God because millions of years of evolution selects that as the easiest way to keep the tribe under control.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chasteh 0]

>that's why it's called FAITH. My problem with this entire line of "debate" is that it's like trying to describe a computer in terms of a fish. Try it. Describe how to build a computer but you can only use fish terms and parts. It makes no sense. None at all

Unfortunately, you use the language of Philosophy to describe your religio-realm within the confines of a sense-perceived world. Philosophy has the capability of pulling apart the claims of religion and comparing it to logic and empirical means - like science. The problem is, the outputs of those components of philosophy almost never agree with religious tenants. Shit.

>Science tells us how, faith tells us why.
So science tells us the methods that things occur through, and faith tells us the causes. Is the only way for us to examine why things occur the result of "God's will?" Maybe. I can't tell you otherwise truthfully. Neither can you tell me truthfully. You run the risk of being a liar everytime you say "God exists."

>it's faith because it's based on belief, not proof
That answers the one above pretty well. Agreed. Unfortunately, for those who seek reason, religion means nothing more than a very empty set of maybes with which to explain things. So much for a meaningful way of leading a life, huh? It isn't much of a benefit for those who are willing to look for explanations outside of assumptions. (Well, of course, unless your a scientist - at that point you assume the validity of the empirical world- the scientist is just as naive as the religious person, for the same reasons.)

>What i don't understand is this insistence on telling those who do choose to believe in a "why" that they are wrong or stupid because science says so

I don't understand why Televangelists tell themselves that science thinks this of them. Can't god exist as the creator of a scientific world and as a creator of beings who explore their realms without pissing God off? Yes.

>Just because faith falls outside the realm of rationality does NOT mean that it's existence is not valid.
Believing in assumptions does not mean that faith falls outside the realm of rationality. That is a common rationalization. Instead of religion being an "irrational" notion it is "beyond rationality." Isn't that cheating?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

My problem with this entire line of "debate" is that it's like trying to describe a computer in terms of a fish. Try it. Describe how to build a computer but you can only use fish terms and parts. It makes no sense. None at all.

Oh and this tops out the irony meter:
(from god Hates fags)
http://www.signmovies.net/videos/music/index.html

Using a song by a dead pedophile and a choreographed dance number to express your hatred of homosexuals.



And Quade I did say "don't do so much" not don't do at all. Besides, compared to The Crusades...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[BikerBabe 0]

weird.

Chasteh, i really don't think i'm the one you need to be arguing with, since i'm pretty sure we basically agree.

Unless, of course, you are like the radical Christian right, and are trying to make the argument that faith and science can't coexist because science undermines God.

But whatever. I shall remain confused at you...

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Niki1 1]

Quote

Quote

These things you can figure out for yourself.

The last thing any religious organization wants or needs is for its followers to think for themselves...

Yeah. That's my point. So now, let's all think for ourselves and say goodbye to religion and all its crap that it says the followers are supposed to think.

Not exactly on point, my theory of Skydiver Peaceful Coexistance: Skydivers are of a personality type that gives us a great potential to be assholes. We coexist because I put up with you even though you're an asshole because you put up with me even though I'm an asshole.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[chasteh 0]

>Unless, of course, you are like the radical Christian right, and are trying to make the argument that faith and science can't coexist because science undermines God.

No, of course I am not making that statement. I am saying they can be used in conjunction, with major changes to religion of course. Reason often undermines religion, and reason always has room to undermine science and its empirical foundation.

BL:
Religion = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions
Science = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions (The assumption that this realm of sense-perception is the true world; Although the probability that it is the realm of Actuality is quite high, it is not something we can attach certainty to)

If you accept the bottom-line and do not attach yourself to Christianity nor necessarily to science, then we agree.

[maadmax 0]

...I'd go along with that and still say religion is of no benefit to modern society whatsoever.

[riddler 0]

Quote

I agree, but a personal relationship with God yields the greatest benefits of all.

"I'm so happy 'cause today I've found my friends ... They're in my head" - Kurt Cobain

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[D22369 0]

havent read it, might be a good read.


personally I dont believe in god, it goes against ever fibre of my being to put faith in something I cannot see/touch.

that said, I envy people that can do this and gain comfort from it.

I wish I could, but cannot.

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[Erroll 80]

Quote

...this finely tuned universe...

You should spend more time in the Global Warming threads.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Well, of course, unless your a scientist - at that point you assume the validity of the empirical world- the scientist is just as naive as the religious person, for the same reasons.

I disagree. All knowledge derived through our perceptions is axiomatic to some extent, we must accept this as another axiom (oh the irony). In maths we must take the axiom that 1=1 before we can even start. With science we take the axiom that empiricism will tell us something about the empirical world we live in. But it is not unreasonable or naive to do so since our world unvaryingly appears to be empirical. Even if there is a hidden unempirical reality behind our empirical reality, that is somewhat irrelevant since science only tells us about the working of the observable, empirical universe; no more and no less than it is expected and designed to do. Scientists are not naive of the assumptions they make.