|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Science or Faith? |
| Science |
|
75% |
[ 25 ] |
| Faith |
|
24% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Xian wrote: |
Science and faith are not mutually exlcusive.
Science simply examines and explains aspects of God's creation. |
They are actually. Science requires proof, faith requires that there be no proof. If there is proof, it's not faith. So ye verily, science and faith are mutually exclusive. |
but there was proof. so now its faith. right?? |
Proof of what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
skinhead
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Satori, a Son buddhist would say that such a question drives you away from truth, so to pursue a 'right' answer to it is futile.
For the record, Einstein did not have a 'religious faith'. His was a Deist perspective on the dynamics behind physics. He did not believe in an interventionist god in the Judeo/Christian tradition.
I'm looking forward to Mithridates' response to the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manlyboy
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Location: Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| manlyboy wrote: |
The chances of our particular universe coming into being out of the big bang, as against the number of possible universes, is one chance in 10 to the power of 123 (Lee Smolin). That number has more digits than there are protons in the universe. If the settings had been infinitessimally different, there would be no life as we know it, not to mention the inexplicable phenomenon of human consciousness.
Most of the modern day scientific priesthood would have me accept, on faith, that this astronomically improbable event happened as an accident of pure randomness.
To have that kind of faith not only requires one to suspend disbelief, it requires one to take their disbelief out the back and shoot it in the head. |
Douglas Adams had a great way to describe this sort of thinking:
| Quote: |
| �This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'" |
|
I'll see your Douglas Adams and raise you a Stephen Hawking:
It is "perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for the laws of physics".
However, for the record, he's an atheist, so I'd better go all in with an Einstein:
Scientists are not unlike children "entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of books, but doesn't know what it is.That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
eww the quote game, I like it
"Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asamov |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| skinhead wrote: |
Satori, a Son buddhist would say that such a question drives you away from truth, so to pursue a 'right' answer to it is futile.
|
Well then, Im not pursuing a "right" answer to this question, nor do I believe in "truth". I just liked the two flow charts and thought it might make a good discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| manlyboy wrote: |
The chances of our particular universe coming into being out of the big bang, as against the number of possible universes, is one chance in 10 to the power of 123 (Lee Smolin). That number has more digits than there are protons in the universe. If the settings had been infinitessimally different, there would be no life as we know it, not to mention the inexplicable phenomenon of human consciousness.
Most of the modern day scientific priesthood would have me accept, on faith, that this astronomically improbable event happened as an accident of pure randomness.
To have that kind of faith not only requires one to suspend disbelief, it requires one to take their disbelief out the back and shoot it in the head. |
How do you know there haven't 10 to the power of 123 big bangs? |
Or there are not 10^123 universes. We just happen to be in one of the ones capable of supporting life as we know it. Someone has to win the lottery. Just because it's very improbably you'll not win doesn't mean no one can win it.
This argument is ultimately akin to the argument that producing a giraffe from the process of evolution is amazingly improbable. Indeed, however the niche that the giraffe fill could have been filled by any number of possible creatures. The giraffe is just the current winner of the niche lottery.
A better example is consider the amazing chain of events that led to you. Your parents had to meet. A thousand things could have kept them from meeting. They had to have had sex at that particularly moment to conceive you. A thousand things could have prevented it or even kept your dad from squirting in your mother's hoo hoo instead of her face or belly. Now multiply all those with the probabilities that could have kept your grandparents apart and your great grandparents. Golly. To believe you're here via such randomness, does that require similar amazing suspension of disbelief? Someone had to be born.
Anyway, the fine tuning argument is a bit like the creationist claim the universe would have had to exist a million times longer for a single complex protein to have emerged by random chance. The fallacy there is it is not random chance. There is an underlying mechanism that increases the likelihood. So maybe the universe was created with the fine tuning by remarkable chance, maybe a god set it up, or maybe there's a natural explanation that we've not yet uncovered. Anything to emerge from a big bang simply has to be that way or the big bang simply can't happen.
The fine tuning argument also gets it ass backwards. The universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is fine tuned for the universe we have. And the universe is not exactly hospitable to life. And why would a god care? God could make humans breath vacuum if he so cared.
Nothing about the start of the universe removes a place for god, but it doesn't compel a belief in a god either.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:50 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| manlyboy wrote: |
I'll see your Douglas Adams and raise you a Stephen Hawking:
....
However, for the record, he's an atheist, so I'd better go all in with an Einstein:
... |
Both were very smart puddles... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| manlyboy wrote: |
| The chances of our particular universe coming into being out of the big bang, as against the number of possible universes, is one chance in 10 to the power of 123 (Lee Smolin). |
I disagree. The chances were 100%. It happened. That's how we know.
Edit - voted and posted before I looked at the the imageshack diagrams. Called the wife in, then sent it off to 5 other people, I think she'll send it to 5 more tomorrow. Love it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| skinhead wrote: |
Satori, a Son buddhist would say that such a question drives you away from truth, so to pursue a 'right' answer to it is futile.
For the record, Einstein did not have a 'religious faith'. His was a Deist perspective on the dynamics behind physics. He did not believe in an interventionist god in the Judeo/Christian tradition.
I'm looking forward to Mithridates' response to the question. |
Okay. I thought the poll was silly so I flipped a coin and it came up faith. This poll bears an odd resemblance to that story in the New Testament about the coin, and whether taxes should be paid to Caesar or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...
| Quote: |
| Hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman occupation. The trap was that if he advocated tax-paying, he would lose his credibility as a Messiah (if not his life to a lynch mob), but that if he advocated nonpayment, the power of the Roman state could be turned against him. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. Jesus first called them out on their attempt to trap him, then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying such a tax. One of them handed such a coin to him, and he held it up and asked them to tell him whose name and inscription were on it. They answered that these were Caesar�s and he responded �Give to Caesar what is Caesar�s, and to God what is God�s.� His interrogators were flummoxed by this, and left without having succeeded in pinning him down. |
I might as well start a poll asking whether someone's pro or anti-Korean. If you're a bit pro, go on the pro side and if you're a bit anti, go on the anti side and no room for anything else - a meaningless poll.
There's something else the op hasn't taken into account, and faith isn't quite the word for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| manlyboy wrote: |
| The chances of our particular universe coming into being out of the big bang, as against the number of possible universes, is one chance in 10 to the power of 123 (Lee Smolin).. |
You mean 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?
Man, that is a BIG number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kyrei
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| manlyboy wrote: |
The chances of our particular universe coming into being out of the big bang, as against the number of possible universes, is one chance in 10 to the power of 123 (Lee Smolin). That number has more digits than there are protons in the universe.
<<snip>>
|
Is that really what you meant to write because, if so...
| jajdude wrote: |
You mean 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?
Man, that is a BIG number. |
This means there are only 124 protons in the entire universe? Wow... there are going to be some seriously angry particle physicists when the news breaks...
**edited for stupidity**
Last edited by Kyrei on Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We need Vitamin B6 for protein and red blood cell metabolism.
One of nature's best sources for Vitamin B6 is bananas.
In order to hold and peel bananas, your hands have to be just the right size and shape.
In prehistoric times, there may have been a few manual misfits.
But those poor fellows perished when their protein and red blood cell metabolism went out of whack.
That cleared the way for their more fortunate brethren, who then passed on their banana gourmet genes to the next generation and the next and the next.
And that, my friend, is how you and I became champion banana-holders-and-peelers!
Last edited by tomato on Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't forget that the chances of life arising out of the primordial soup is equal to a tornado sweeping through a scrap metal junkyard and emerging with a 707 jet.
That story happens to be one of Duane Gish's greatest hits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manlyboy
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Location: Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Is that really what you meant to write because, if so...
jajdude wrote:
You mean 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?
Man, that is a BIG number.
This means there are only 124 protons in the entire universe? Wow... there are going to be some seriously angry partical physicists when the news breaks... |
Ahh... sorchasm (that is, the sorry chasm between what I'm getting at and how you chose to interpret it). Yes, that is what I really meant to write, and that is what renowned theoretical physicist Lee Smolin actually wrote. I'm no mythmatician, but I'm sure his notion is valid on some level. Perhaps you shouldn't be conflating "digit" with "decimal place". I'd chase it up for you but for the stank coming off of that sorchasm.
| Quote: |
Or there are not 10^123 universes.
The giraffe is just the current winner of the niche lottery.
Anything to emerge from a big bang simply has to be that way or the big bang simply can't happen.
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is fine tuned for the universe we have.
And the universe is not exactly hospitable to life.
And why would a god care?
God could make humans breath vacuum if he so cared. |
Mindmetoo, I count seven examples of a priori reasoning in your argument. That is, these are nothing more than unsubstantiated assumptions -- no more critically examined than the myths of antiquity.
The fact that atheists can entertain notions as fanciful as there perhaps being 10 to the power of 123 universes, without any experience or empirical evidence whatsoever, while simultaneously rejecting the notion of a creator based on that same "lack" of empirical evidence, demonstrates with great force the hypocrisy of which they are guilty.
As others have argued, if such a higher intelligence is even philosophically possible, then it is logically necessary, as compared with the alternative, that is, the almost impossible odds against randomness resulting in such fantastic order and complexity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| manlyboy wrote: |
As others have argued, if such a higher intelligence is even philosophically possible, then it is logically necessary, as compared with the alternative, that is, the almost impossible odds against randomness resulting in such fantastic order and complexity. |
Well just because these others believe it is true it does not make it so. How is it logical that 'possible' equals 'existence'? Unicorns are possible but to all know knowledge and evidence they don't and never have. Also a just God may be seen as necessary, it doesn't prove one exists. You can't just think things into existence. Complexity can arise from very simple structures interacting on each other, we see this when it snows. As humans we feel that anything complex was created by something more complex to fulfil a need. That rings true for artefacts but not for biological lifeforms which behave in a totally different way to artefacts.
There are natural forces at work which select upon the randomness of species, complexity in this instance comes from an accumulation of genes good at surviving not from junkyard tornado randomness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
