Formulae

[August1991]

A good argument I heard on this was that if you take a car to pieces, put all the parts in a giant mixing machine and mix them for a million years you will never end up with a complete car.

On the contrary, this is a good argument for evolution. A million years? Try a million experiments of the sort for a million years each.

IME, there are two sets of numbers of which people have little grasp. Time and space. To say that the universe is 15 billion years old is meaningless. To say that the universe has some 100 billion X 125 billion solar systems is also meaningless. Finally, people have a very poor grasp of probability which in fact is critical to the functioning of the universe. We can't predict perfectly because the universe is not deterministic.

This incomprehension leads to the Ronald Reagan simplism of "with such a lavish banquet, how can anyone believe there is no chef?" (BD's watchmaker above.)

But it's a helluva stretch to go from this conceptual deity to one that dabbles in human affairs, listens to prayers and arbitrarily consigns humans to the pleasures or horrors of an afterworld.

IMV, BD has put his finger on the key issue.

We have no ready answers to how the universe started or why certain laws of probability are the way they are. So, if you want, assume that some entity got the ball rolling. (Who started the entity is just as good a question but I'll let that slide.)

But that is far, far removed from the religion portrayed around me. In fact, I long ago concluded that religion is simply another form of politics. IOW, religion simply contributes more ways to organize society.

Modern science rose in the West, largely because Christians believed it was a good thing to examine the orderly world God made and try to understand it.

A good thing?Christians fought at every turn modern science. Galileo died a broken man. Some Christians still deny evolution.

You are free to believe what you want, religion is a personal matter and you have no obligation to anybody's spiritual welfare but your own

Precisely. Let's keep "God" out of this completely.

IOW, let us argue about how to organize ourselves in society without making injunctions (invariably self-serving) to God Almighty.

[Digby]

Just got back from the sea ,4 days , so my mind is not working the best to address this topic .Ill try to do better someday soon when im not over tired.

What proof could we ever find to beleave in a God ?

Well i think we all got to admit the mathmatical chances of evolution are not even sensible for a beleaf system , that this road can only be taken serious by someone who don't want a God ,would rather have freedom from all lawmakers . Or who just plain would beleave any thing others come up with . Ive heard that even Darwin could not beleave so many accepted his far out theories as facts , It was Just like They would accept any thing so as to shed an obligation to a higher power.

I think there is proof of a God i think we all got to admit with a close look at nature that it was designed and could not of come by time and chance , things like the bee helping the plants ,the migration of birds , and many other things surely look like a perfect design .I know even in my own life as a fishing captain and watching the eco systems of our oceans i beleave its got to be created , it surely could not of come from nowhere with no design.

But to me there is even more proof then that of there really being a God , i would say the bible itself is the biggest proof of there being a God , and this God is the one known by abraham ,isac ,and jacob.

To start with if you look close at the bible nothing on this planet is out of place from what the bible predicts its hitting every thing right on .

Even the attitudes of some on this forum have been fortold by scripture (romans 1) . with close study of the bible you will see the bible is hitting right on in fortelling the worlds conditions thousands of years in advance of when it happens .

For a Little Exsample just look at Rev 11 :9 .remember that was wrote 2000 years ago and it is fortelling mass media . its telling you there would be a time that all the earths peoples could see one event take place at one time in one place no matter where they are . TV or CNN fortold 2000 years ago , back when it was wrote most would never dream john was putting truth to paper to fortell mass media .

Nothing is out of place , every thing is happening as the bible fortells .

one other point if the bible is just a foolish old book with nothing but fairy tales like some beleave ,then why is there so much effort put into people twisting its message or hideing its message . if its all lies why not just all agree on what it says ? In our modern world we probly got like 1000 doctrines of christianity all useing the same book , all with their own twist . even this is fortold in the bible in rev 17 , MYSTERY BABALON THE GREAT = confusion the great or modern christianity , the mother lives in 7 hills (ROME HAS SEVEN HILLS) . The merchants of the earth wax rich with her delicacies , CHRISTMAS ,EASTER , HALOWEEN make our merchants rich and none of them have their orgins in the pages of our bibles ,they are all creations of the mother church forcing herself on pagan s . and instead of stopping their unchristian rituals she christianised them . Shes a Whore , its all in the bible .

Before people throw their bibles out as a foolish old book i just wish they would for themselfs look at the promises of the bible , WHO WOULD WANT THEM NOT TO BE TRUE .

Go look at chapters like micah 4 , isaiah 11 , zech 14 , the last 2 chapters of rev . don't pay know attention to all the fools who carry bibles . READ ONE FOR YOURSELF .

The fools who carry bibles are there to discorage you from reading one ,don't let it happen.

REmember Christ Gospel , Was thy Kingdom Come . Today most ministers don't even know this .

The problem with most beleaveing the bible .I think its ment to be that way ,go read rev 5 ; 9-10 thats the song the real overcoming saints sing in the future . Is it possible that this whole world as we know it is only for the spring harvest (the Kings And Priest) the great fall harvest is later . most christian churches will hide this from you . They don't want the bible to start making sence .

REMEMBER here a little ,there a little ,line upon line prciept upon preciept

. some of these lines was wrote 100s of years apart but yet you get the whole story only when reading both writers . Daniel and Rev fit together wrote hundreds of years apart , but one needing the other to be unlocked .

I beleave the Bible is not here for all to understand now , its only for those of you out there thats got the eyes and ears , those of you chosen By our heavenly FATHER to set on the thrones of this earth for eternity.

WHY Is gOD JUST SETTING BACK and not fixing the earths problems ,,,,,,,,,IT IS WRITTIAN , its fortold that way .

Hes letting us do some governing this world before he forces his goverment on us , thats the best way for us to learn to beleave in him . for him to let us see a world with out him taking control first . This earth now is being controled by the Father of lies ,now lets just see where it will lead .

In the Future that old Serpent is Locked up ,and the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord ,,,, THY KINGDOM COME

Most christian churches are there to hide this clear biblical message from us .Proof God Exist !

[Digby]

The Real biblical holy days , the ones kept by the real church of the bible have hidden meanings . They Shadow Gods plans for this earth . Its taught clearly in Scripture .

Paul told the real church in Col 2 their Holy days and sabbaths shadowed or fortold things to Come .

He warned the real Christians in Col 2 not to Accept traditions or Doctrines of Men or they would parish (lose eternal life). He was implying that these True Holy(God Made) Days was very important .

With a study of the Old testament you will find The God of this universe found these days and sabbaths he created as very important stuff , so important it was one of the main ways to raise him up in anger .He never wanted them forgoten as they had hidden meanings for mankind.

Today 99% of so called christian ministers teach we should forget These God Ordained Holy days that had hidden meanings and accept their version of Holy days or ones with out God involved in the Creation of .

Forget Gods Days with the hidden meanings Accept some we borrowed from Godless men and put christ name too .

Even Sunday keeping has no orgins in Scripture , its all a man made perversion of a commandment of God .

God wrote 10 commands in Stone ,and according to Scripture men only have to lead you to break one and you might as well break them all . One of them is the Sabbath . So modern ministers will teach 9 of these 10 commands in most cases but subtly decieve you into breaking this one command of God almighty .

Man has no right to make Days holy or to Chose Sabbaths as they are Road maps to truth . Any Christian minister leading you to forget Gods Holy days and Sabbaths is Not lead by the spirit of TRUTH.

I don't even Cosider Churches That follow Rome instead of God as being in the slightest from God . Their here to discorage this world and lead folks astray .

[KrustyKidd]

I think there is proof of a God i think we all got to admit with a close look at nature that it was designed and could not of come by time and chance

I see science and the Hubble looking at solar systems. The planets they have seen so far ar large and highly suspect in their ability to sustain life much less intelligent life. Maybe there are more live friendly planets but none have been seen.

No signals with the SETI program, no real indications of visits. I don't think that we are the only intelligent life form in the Universe but will state that I firmly believe that we are an exception rather than a usuality.

What are the odds? A planet this close to the right type of sun, the right mix of chemicals and age of the planet to be the proper temerature and gravitational field? Coincidence?

If the odds are one in a trillion, then would that make the odds of there being a God 999,999,999,999:1?

[Digby]

Well in evolution their is so many things you just have to ignore.

Is there a spirit world ? don't sooth sayers sometimes get hired with tax payers money ?

don't we have people with multiple personalities just like found in the bible?

Is there not evedence of unexplained dreams fortelling the future ? my own mother seen her brother die in a car accident before it happened when they came to tell her she knew what they was to tell her . In my small circle of life ive met many who tell simular storys ,all unexplained by our science comunity all ignored .

GO TO A UNITED penticostal church some night if you don't beleave in a spirit world and watch the show put on . I think you will be watching a pack of demons , but i doubt if you would come out of there thinking you saw nothing . When i was searching the religous world i use to visit such places just to see if there was something there , ya there was !!!!!! But it was not God , their voices even changed to deep horse voices . some was vibrating in the floor in unhuman ways .

Try one of these side shows put on by the spirit world , try one of the ministers knocking people on their backs ,see if they can do you ?

In the bible in Gods presence you fell on your face , but these ones fall on their backs , its not God . but go see if there is something there you might get a surprise .

evolution might have numbers way bigger then 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

but with a real search of the religous world i think you come home with 100% yes there is something there .

[Black Dog]

Well i think we all got to admit the mathmatical chances of evolution are not even sensible for a beleaf system , that this road can only be taken serious by someone who don't want a God ,would rather have freedom from all lawmakers . Or who just plain would beleave any thing others come up with . Ive heard that even Darwin could not beleave so many accepted his far out theories as facts , It was Just like They would accept any thing so as to shed an obligation to a higher power.

The argument that the low mathematical probability of evolution ivalidates it as a theory is utterly fallacious. To use probability to decide between two alternatives requires a comparison of the probabilities of each alternative. Simply saying that one has low probability without calculating the probability for the other is inadequate. Mathematically, what is the probability of there being all seeing, all-knowing supreme being (in particlar, one whose very existence violates the laws of the universes as we know them and whose every attribute is contradictary)?

Furthermore, low-probability events happen all the time: one could argue that the everyday event of an individual sperm finding the egg and developing into a human being is a fantastically low-probability event, yet we accept such events without question.

I think there is proof of a God i think we all got to admit with a close look at nature that it was designed and could not of come by time and chance , things like the bee helping the plants ,the migration of birds , and many other things surely look like a perfect design .I know even in my own life as a fishing captain and watching the eco systems of our oceans i beleave its got to be created , it surely could not of come from nowhere with no design.

Why not? As I said, the complexity of nature itself is not an argument for a supernatural explanation for existence. Indeed, such an argument simply reveals the limits of the human mind.

But to me there is even more proof then that of there really being a God , i would say the bible itself is the biggest proof of there being a God , and this God is the one known by abraham ,isac ,and jacob.

Religious texts can hardly be considered reliable and objective evidence.

Furthermore, the God of the Bible and Torah was, orginally, but one of many gods worshiped by the polytheistic, pre- semetic peoples of the Middle East. Chapter One of Genesis is from the Elohist source that used Elohim (plural) in referring to "God." Originally, the male god was Baal, and the female god was his consort Ashtoreth.

What are the odds? A planet this close to the right type of sun, the right mix of chemicals and age of the planet to be the proper temerature and gravitational field? Coincidence?

Again: why not a coincidence? The simple fact of existence, as incomprhensible and as improbable as it may seem, does not necessitate a supreme creator. Indeed, such an explanation flies in the face of logic and all empirical evidence.

If the odds are one in a trillion, then would that make the odds of there being a God 999,999,999,999:1?

There's mountains of emprical evidence that shows us how the world and universe works, how it developed and gives us insight into our beginnings. There's not a single, solitary shred of proof that points to the existence of god. So, based on available evidence, the odds against God lengthen considerably.

Is there not evedence of unexplained dreams fortelling the future ? my own mother seen her brother die in a car accident before it happened when they came to tell her she knew what they was to tell her . In my small circle of life ive met many who tell simular storys ,all unexplained by our science comunity all ignored .

Evidence, by definition, is something that can be verified objectively. The stories you speak of are individual experiences, subjective and totally unverifiable. Indeed, eyewitness evidence is among the most unreliable forms.

[DAC]

There's zero evidence to indicate the existence of God.

Just because a belief system is well-structured and neatly packaged does not make it "rational" if it is based on an assumption usnsupported by any real evidence. Moreover such a belief system is fundamentally flawed in that it replaces doubt (ie. "we don't know") with faith, which is applied in a haphazard, ad hoc fashion: if we can't explain it, it is the work of an invisible superhero in the sky.

My, Black Dog, you do have a good opinion of yourself, don’t you? Making that first statement assumes that you know everything. Otherwise, there might well be evidence that you haven’t heard. Right? I’d be very happy to debate the evidence issue with you, if you are serious and not just a dogmatic objector on the basis of blind faith in modern “science”.

Beyond that, you still have not answered my question. I have pointed out three points at which the secularist relies on blind faith. Two of them are taken as exceptions to generally accepted scientific principles. An abusive, opinionated attack, which assumes its conclusion (that there is no God), does not answer that question.

Nobody of any repute denies evolution as the mechanism by which life developed on Earth. And to me it's distressing that, in the 21st Century, people still cling to outmoded superstistions and sky-god fairy tales.

In evolutionary circles today, if you disagree with evolution, you are considered to be of no repute. It’s kind of like the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages and the inquisition. It makes life much easier to write off the “heretics” than to consider what they are saying.

There are many well-known scientists who challenge the chance, random-mutation evolutionary approach. If you are very good at mathematics, read William Dembski’s “No Free Lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence”. If you are up on microbiology, follow that with M.J. Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution”. They make a very careful mathematical and biochemical case that the development of life as we know it requires a designer. When you’ve read them, you might be in position to argue against them meaningfully.

For what it’s worth, many Christians believe that what Darwin called evolution was a God-directed development. Their objection is not to development, but to the idea that it all comes by accident.

I’m afraid the outmoded superstition of our day is blind belief that chaos led to order.

Bottom line. You have said not one word to establish that the secular system is rational.

[DAC]

Nonsense. The complexity of nature is by no means a corollary of intelligent design. The "watch maker" analogy is weak in that such a "first step" is not required, nor does it explain where this "designer" originated in the first place. It's one of the great contradictions and weakness of theistic thought: we are expected to believe that a supreme being is responisble for setting all in motion, while at the same time believing the existence of said supreme being is eternal and predates the universe itself. Why not simply assume the universe itself is eternal and constantly in flux, thus cutting out the cumbersome and highly illogical notion of a supreme being? Natural explanations are simpler, and more in line with what we know about the universe.

Did you ever study any physics, Black Dog? There are two fundamental laws which tell us the universe as we know it cannot be eternal.

The second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy, was considered the best supported physical law we know, when I studied. It says that the universe is running down. Every action, everything that happens, leads to an overall decline in available energy. If the universe as we know it were eternal, we’d be dead.

The law of radioactive decay says that the universe can’t be a whole lot older than the largest present theoretical estimates. If it were, it would all be in the form of large radioactive elements, which would then go BANG.

Now you can choose on blind faith to assume that before that BANG there was a universe which worked differently, which led to ours, and which derived from something else. But recognize that it is not science; it is blind faith. The best scientists today, indeed all scientists today that I have heard of, will tell you that we can’t project back past the “primordial atom”, and in fact, can only guess about it.

It appears that there is no known evidence today for any pre-existent universe. That makes a lot less evidence than there is for God.

[DAC]

Furthermore, the God of the Bible and Torah was, orginally, but one of many gods worshiped by the polytheistic, pre- semetic peoples of the Middle East. Chapter One of Genesis is from the Elohist source that used Elohim (plural) in referring to "God." Originally, the male god was Baal, and the female god was his consort Ashtoreth.

I'd really like to see your evidence for the claim that "Originally, the male god was Baal, and the female god was his consort Ashtoreth".

While you're looking for it, let me point out to you that the "Elohist source" idea (the documentary hypothesis about the Pentateuch), has long been discredited. That doesn't mean that people who know the basis for it has been torn to shreds don't continue to apply it. But that's a function of people who insist on believing what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence. It's an attitude that is very strong in those who don't want to believe in God.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy, was considered the best supported physical law we know, when I studied. It says that the universe is running down. Every action, everything that happens, leads to an overall decline in available energy. If the universe as we know it were eternal, we’d be dead.

What? How do you leap to that last sentence from the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Am I missing something, or are you?

The law of radioactive decay says that the universe can’t be a whole lot older than the largest present theoretical estimates. If it were, it would all be in the form of large radioactive elements, which would then go BANG.

Again, your claim is very confusing. If the universe were older, heavy radioactive elements would have had a longer time to decay (i.e. lose energy exactly as the 2TD law predicts). Ergo, if the universe were older there would be less likelihood of BANG.

Now you can choose on blind faith to assume that before that BANG there was a universe which worked differently, which led to ours, and which derived from something else. But recognize that it is not science; it is blind faith.

This is something you've repeated several times, but ignored the replies you've receieved. People could believe such a thing based on 'blind faith', or they could simply think it is the most likely based on an understanding of the available information. The latter is a logical/scientific approach, the former is not.

The best scientists today, indeed all scientists today that I have heard of, will tell you that we can’t project back past the “primordial atom”, and in fact, can only guess about it.

'Guess'? There would be no point is guessing. Informed speculation however can lead to testable hypotheses.

It appears that there is no known evidence today for any pre-existent universe.  That makes a lot less evidence than there is for God.

This 'pre-existing universe' you discuss is merely your argumentative fabrication, however (i.e. a red herring or straw man). Science does not need to claim any pre-existing universe to be able to make statements, based on evidence in THIS universe.

As to 'evidence' for God, WHAT IS this 'evidence'?

[Black Dog]

Beyond that, you still have not answered my question. I have pointed out three points at which the secularist relies on blind faith. Two of them are taken as exceptions to generally accepted scientific principles. An abusive, opinionated attack, which assumes its conclusion (that there is no God), does not answer that question.

That's amusing. Here's your original "point".

Tell me what is more rational about the secularist approach than the religious approach.

Scientific theories are arrived at through rigorous testing revision and duplication. You start with a set of assumptions and test them. If they conform with the assumptuions, the initial tehory can be persumed to be correct. It's a sound and rational approach that's open to change, depending on new evidence. Gould's theory of punctuated equilibriumis an example of a theory that, initially, ran counter to the accepted theories concerning evolution and natural selection, but is now accepted as conventional wisdom.

However, if one believes in god, the order is reversed: you start with a conclusion (God exists, and is responsible for the univere's existence) and try to make the evidence fiot the conclusion. It's an irrational perversion of the tried and true scientific method.

There are many well-known scientists who challenge the chance, random-mutation evolutionary approach. If you are very good at mathematics, read William Dembski’s “No Free Lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence”. If you are up on microbiology, follow that with M.J. Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution”. They make a very careful mathematical and biochemical case that the development of life as we know it requires a designer. When you’ve read them, you might be in position to argue against them meaningfully.

There were also well-known scientists who challenged the theory that the earth was round and who argued the sun revolved around the earth. Science is not dogma, but serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

That said, having not read the books you cite, I can't very well comment on them, save to pint out that

The second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy, was considered the best supported physical law we know, when I studied. It says that the universe is running down. Every action, everything that happens, leads to an overall decline in available energy. If the universe as we know it were eternal, we’d be dead.

Creationists love to abuse physics. The second law of thermodynamics actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. The second law allows for the transference of energy from one part of a closed system to another. So the universe is not "running down" as there is no "decline" in energy, only transferance.

The law of radioactive decay says that the universe can’t be a whole lot older than the largest present theoretical estimates. If it were, it would all be in the form of large radioactive elements, which would then go BANG

What's your point here?

Now you can choose on blind faith to assume that before that BANG there was a universe which worked differently, which led to ours, and which derived from something else. But recognize that it is not science; it is blind faith. The best scientists today, indeed all scientists today that I have heard of, will tell you that we can’t project back past the “primordial atom”, and in fact, can only guess about it.

True, one can only theorize about the origins of the universe base don available evidence. We are limited. However, this is not de facto evidence for the existence of god, only pointing out (already obvious) shortcomings of scientific theory.

It appears that there is no known evidence today for any pre-existent universe. That makes a lot less evidence than there is for God.

Theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a pre-existing one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling (which I won't even touch here).

Where is all the evidence for God's extsitence?

But that's a function of people who insist on believing what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence. It's an attitude that is very strong in those who don't want to believe in God.

I can't resist pointing out the irony of this statement coming from an ardent theist.

Finally, my statement vis a vis the polytheistic origins of the Judeo-Chrsitian god was to indicate that religious beliefs themselves change over time. There remains significant evidence that the sky-god Yawheh/Jehovah orginated from the pantheon of deities worshipped by Israelites.

There's nothing to distinguish the contemporary Judeo Christian god from other mythological sky-gods, such as Zeus, save the former's follower's persistance.

[DAC]

(DAC @ Jul 12 2004, 11:04 PM)

The second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy, was considered the best supported physical law we know, when I studied. It says that the universe is running down. Every action, everything that happens, leads to an overall decline in available energy. If the universe as we know it were eternal, we’d be dead.

What? How do you leap to that last sentence from the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Am I missing something, or are you?

In this case, you’re missing something. If the universe had existed forever, all available energy would be gone. Life depends on available energy. In simple terms, if you think of energy derived from water going down (through turbines at Niagara falls, for example), the water tends to run down until it is all at the same level. Once that happens, you have no more available energy, for anything.

Of course we get energy from the sun, which evaporates the water, and so the cycle repeats, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that in all such processes there is an overall loss of available energy. The universe is running down, and unless the spring is rewound from outside, will eventually stop. If it had existed forever, that process would have been completed an infinite time ago. Life as we know it would not be possible.

The law of radioactive decay says that the universe can’t be a whole lot older than the largest present theoretical estimates. If it were, it would all be in the form of large radioactive elements, which would then go BANG.

Again, your claim is very confusing. If the universe were older, heavy radioactive elements would have had a longer time to decay (i.e. lose energy exactly as the 2TD law predicts). Ergo, if the universe were older there would be less likelihood of BANG.

My tilt. I expressed myself very poorly. What I meant to say was that for the presently available decay products to exist, if we extrapolate backwards, at a point not greatly prior to the present estimates of the age of the universe, it would have to consist entirely of heavy radioactive elements, which would then go BANG. The point is that whether or not you accept the Big Bang theory, there has to be a beginning point, which cannot be explained by science. What we know of science tells us that matter cannot be self-starting and cannot have existed forever.

Now you can choose on blind faith to assume that before that BANG there was a universe which worked differently, which led to ours, and which derived from something else. But recognize that it is not science; it is blind faith. /QUOTE]

This is something you've repeated several times, but ignored the replies you've receieved. People could believe such a thing based on 'blind faith', or they could simply think it is the most likely based on an understanding of the available information. The latter is a logical/scientific approach, the former is not.

Fancy words don’t cover the fact that it is blind faith. “the most likely based on an understanding of the available information”. Leave aside debates about the details.

We see an expanding universe of immense size. We extrapolate backwards to a “point” source of immense mass/energy, the primordial atom. Everything we know says it can’t have been eternal and it can’t have come out of nothing. But we have zero, zip, no evidence of anything before it. So where is your “available information” that says there must have been something besides God before that?

We see material life. It has a wide variety. We have a fossil record that can be interpreted to show gradual development (we’ll ignore alternate interpretations to focus on the present issue). Somewhere back when there was apparently no material life. A basic scientific principle is Pasteur’s law, that life does not come from non-life. Where is the “available information” that sometime in the distant past life came from non-life, purely by accident, without the intervention of a designer? For that matter, where is the “available information” that tells us that the steps along the way happened without the hand of a designer?

Until you can show evidence, your acceptance of these things is blind faith, however you try to disguise it.

[DAC]

Creationists love to abuse physics. The second law of thermodynamics actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. The second law allows for the transference of energy from one part of a closed system to another. So the universe is not "running down" as there is no "decline" in energy, only transferance.

Your statement of the second law is correct, but your application misses the boat, Black Dog. The Second Law denies the possibility of a decrease in entropy, that is an increase in available energy, in a closed system. If nothing happens there is no change. If energy is expended, entropy increases, and available energy decreases. If the universe had already existed for an infinite time, this process would necessarily have moved to completion, and available energy would be gone.

There remains significant evidence that the sky-god Yawheh/Jehovah orginated from the pantheon of deities worshipped by Israelites.

That's easy to say, but where is your evidence?

That's amusing. Here's your original "point".

Tell me what is more rational about the secularist approach than the religious approach. 

Wrong again. That was not my original point but the question which rose from it. My point specified three things in which the secular view goes on blind faith, even against its normal principles, where the religious view is consistent with its principles and derives from them. Until you can show scientific evidence for those points, the claim to be more rational is wishful thinking.

[Black Dog]

In this case, you’re missing something. If the universe had existed forever, all available energy would be gone. Life depends on available energy. In simple terms, if you think of energy derived from water going down (through turbines at Niagara falls, for example), the water tends to run down until it is all at the same level. Once that happens, you have no more available energy, for anything.

Where would this energy go? Nowhere: as I said, the laws of thermodynamics state that the total amount of energy in a closed system (such as the universe) remains fixed. So energy isn't going anywhere.

Of course we get energy from the sun, which evaporates the water, and so the cycle repeats, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that in all such processes there is an overall loss of available energy. The universe is running down, and unless the spring is rewound from outside, will eventually stop. If it had existed forever, that process would have been completed an infinite time ago. Life as we know it would not be possible.

Your analogy is flawed in that the earth and solar system are not "closed" systems.

The point is that whether or not you accept the Big Bang theory, there has to be a beginning point, which cannot be explained by science. What we know of science tells us that matter cannot be self-starting and cannot have existed forever.

Your claim that the universe cannot have existed forever has no theoretical basis. The Big Bang theory states the univeres "began" as a singularity; however, recently developed cosmological models give us reason to suppose that some prior state of the universe led to the production of this particular singularity. The physics behind it are mind-bending, of course, but that's to be expected: questions of the origins of the universe are unlikely to have pat answers (indeed, this lack of simplicity is no doubt to blame for the persistance of the logiocally flawed creator hypothesis).

The Second Law denies the possibility of a decrease in entropy, that is an increase in available energy, in a closed system. If nothing happens there is no change. If energy is expended, entropy increases, and available energy decreases. If the universe had already existed for an infinite time, this process would necessarily have moved to completion, and available energy would be gone.

First, you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. the universe as we know it began, as I said above, with the Big Bang: I'm talking about the possibility that the Big Bang came about from conditions in a pre-existing universe. As to your misunderstanding of the Second Law, total entropy increases as the univerese expands (as per the Second Law), but the observable universe has not existed long enoug to achieve total entropy (it's been around for 13.7 billion years).

That was not my original point but the question which rose from it. My point specified three things in which the secular view goes on blind faith, even against its normal principles, where the religious view is consistent with its principles and derives from them. Until you can show scientific evidence for those points, the claim to be more rational is wishful thinking.

Your three points:

My Christian understanding does not have an irrational beginning, an irrational orderliness, nor an irrational origin of life.

Naturalistic explanations of origins, order and life itself are not "irratonal", but based on real knowledge. For example, the Big Bang theory (which remains the most widely accepted theory of the origins of the universe) is rational in that it conforms to existing knowledge of how the universe works (ie. the laws of thermodynamics and quantum physics). However, a creationist explanation simply ignores all existing laws and functions, assigning incomprehnsible power to an unknown supreme being, one who'se existence is supported only by abscence of evidence.

Furthermore, unlike theistic explanations, naturalistic explanations are adaptable to new evidence and open to change. The theistic approach, founded as it is on unshakeable assumptions and pure faith, is wholly irrational.

[The Terrible Sweal]

(DAC @ Jul 12 2004, 11:04 PM)

The second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy, ... If the universe had existed forever, all available energy would be gone.

...

Okay, that's seems like a sound point.

...for the presently available decay products to exist, if we extrapolate backwards, at a point not greatly prior to the present estimates of the age of the universe, it would have to consist entirely of heavy radioactive elements, which would then go BANG.

Well, an important theory of science does bring us back to a Bang beginning the universe, doesn't it. So this would seem to support that.

...whether or not you accept the Big Bang theory, there has to be a beginning point, which cannot be explained by science. What we know of science tells us that matter cannot be self-starting and cannot have existed forever.

True. Entirely true. But not particularly telling, in that science never claims to do more than offer the best probable explanation about these things based on observations of data. So, to criticise science for lacking a verifiable answer only confirms the difficulty of the question rather than pointing out a deficit in science.

But Okay, start right there... Science cannot explain everything. No problem. How does that say anything positive for religion?

[DAC]

Black Dog, you have repeatedly spoken as if an authority to challenge my application of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. Enough. Here are three definitions & applications of the word. I have stripped out of the Britannica article the parts that did not directly further our discussion, but you can easily check them. Please note that each of them, and all others I have checked, apply the principle to speak of the universe “degrade[ing] to an ultimate state of inert uniformity”. In infinite time that process would necessarily have gone to completion. Hence my argument that matter/energy, as we know them, can only have existed for a finite time. They must have a beginning outside the structures we know.

entropy

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

n 1: (thermodynamics) a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity [ant: ectropy] 2: (communication theory) a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome; "the signal contained thousands of bits of information" [syn: information, selective information]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

  1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.

  2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

  3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.

  4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

  5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

Copyright 1994-1999 Encyclopædia Britannica

entropy, the measure of a system's energy that is unavailable for work. Since work is obtained from order, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the disorder, or randomness, of a system.

.....

All natural processes are irreversible and involve an increase in entropy, dS > dQ/T. Entropy is an extensive property; that is, its magnitude varies from zero to the total amount of energy within a system.

The concept of entropy was proposed in 1850 by the German physicist Rudolf Clausius and is sometimes presented as the second law of thermodynamics.... According to this law, entropy increases during an irreversible process such as the spontaneous mixing of hot and cold gases, the uncontrolled expansion of a gas into a vacuum, and the combustion of a fuel.

....

All spontaneous processes are irreversible; hence, it has been said that the entropy of the universe is increasing: that is, more and more energy becomes unavailable for conversion into mechanical work, and because of this the universe is said to be "running down."

[DAC]

First, you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. the universe as we know it began, as I said above, with the Big Bang: I'm talking about the possibility that the Big Bang came about from conditions in a pre-existing universe.

I don’t think I’m misunderstanding you, Black Dog. Please keep in mind the real issue. It is not whether or not there was a primordial atom and a big bang. The issue of this thread is the claim that secularism is more rational than religion. The testing issue at stake is whether or not science goes on blind faith about origins. The science we know says that the universe we know had to have a beginning. It also says that mass/energy does not come from nothing. So, by the science we know, there must have been something before the primordial atom, but something that was not bound by the laws we know. We’ve never observed it. We can’t observe it. But there must be a source.

Christians and those of other religions believe that source is God. Secularists believe that source is something purely natural, no god. Secularists have no evidence at all to support their view. It is blind faith in something contrary to all that we know through our science. The religious view offers an explanation which is not contradicted by our known science. That’s more rational than an explanation that is contradicted by the science which it takes as its base.

Now you have argued that some theory is being developed which suggests a mechanism. So what? Scientific method involves testing, and this is untestable. That means acceptance of the theory is still blind faith. The best you can hope for is blind faith in something which is not necessarily contradicted by our science.

[Black Dog]

The issue of this thread is the claim that secularism is more rational than religion. The testing issue at stake is whether or not science goes on blind faith about origins. The science we know says that the universe we know had to have a beginning. It also says that mass/energy does not come from nothing. So, by the science we know, there must have been something before the primordial atom, but something that was not bound by the laws we know. We’ve never observed it. We can’t observe it. But there must be a source.

As I pointed out in the other thread, the question of whther the universe had a beginning point is still open to question on a scientific basis.

So your conclusion is false.

Christians and those of other religions believe that source is God. Secularists believe that source is something purely natural, no god. Secularists have no evidence at all to support their view. It is blind faith in something contrary to all that we know through our science. The religious view offers an explanation which is not contradicted by our known science. That’s more rational than an explanation that is contradicted by the science which it takes as its base.

Of course this is completely wrong. The religious views of the origin of the universe is completely contradictary to science. There's not one iota of evidence supprting a supernatural origin of the universe. In other words: you've got it completely backwards: it is the theistic view that is predicate don blind faith in an unprovable supernatural entity; science may not be able to offer a complete picture, but it is more consistent with rationalism.

But let's revisit the main point:

The issue of this thread is the claim that secularism is more rational than religion.

First, it helps to have some definitions; starting with "rational", which means "consistent with or based on reason."

Reason is a central tenant of secular humanist thought (which, incidentally, is closely linked to rationalism, which is stipulates that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching). This is wholly consistent with the scientific approach, which uses the best available information to reach the best explanation.

Religion, on the other hand, relies wholly on faith, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Furthermore, in instances wherein "proof" of God is offered, it is seldom direct evidence, but subjective experiences or arguments based on (as yours are) carefully selected failings of alternative explanations (failings which do not logically invalidate the explanations themselves, or act as conslusive evidence of God).

When operating from these tried-and-true definitions, it's pretty obvious that religion is inherently irrational.

[DAC]

Black Dong, I agree whole heartedly that it’s a good idea to start with definitions. But when the definitions you propose set up a nice straw man for you to kick around, they don’t take us very far.

The issue of this thread is the claim that secularism is more rational than religion.

When you define religion as depending entirely on blind faith, you are committing the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion.

I want to prove that elephants are grey. Definition: Elephants are large, grey mammals. Therefore I have proven my point.

Logical fallacy = irrational, not rational. That’s what you’ve done

Religion, on the other hand, relies wholly on faith, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Furthermore, in instances wherein "proof" of God is offered, it is seldom direct evidence, but subjective experiences or arguments based on (as yours are) carefully selected failings of alternative explanations (failings which do not logically invalidate the explanations themselves, or act as conslusive evidence of God).

I’m arguing that religion does not rely wholly on faith. So you present a definition which contradicts me and suits your purposes. That’s a failure of logic, a failure of reason.

Furthermore, you have not read carefully my previous comments. I have not once presented the failure of scientific explanations as a proof of God. What I have done is to say that my belief does have an explanation for those points in which secular science falls short, which then contradicts the claim that secularism is more rational.

As to your authoritative claim that proofs of God depend on subjective experiences or what have been called “God of the gaps” claims, I’d suggest you look at my responses to the Terrible Sweal in the alternate thread “Hey DAC”. You may choose to reject them, but the evidences presented there are fully objective, though given very much in brief.

You have referred several times to possible theoretical extensions of our present science which might offer an explanation of something before the big bang. I think you need to give some thought to scientific method.

You start with observation of a set of data. Then you develop a theory to explain the data you have observed. (It may be completely new or just a variation on an earlier theory.) Then you predict with that theory some result, and set up an experiment to test your prediction. If the experimental results conform to the theory, you use it as a base for going on. The theory is not proven, but is a working model. Newton’s theories were proven to be not completely accurate after 250 years of use.

The scientific method depends on testing and disproof. A theory which cannot be tested may fit fine with other theories, but it is not science. Extrapolating back to the big bang has its problems, but at least we can test at some levels by looking at the results. Going past it, we have to accept on blind faith whatever theory of the day may be presented. It may fit completely with what we know about our present universe. But we have no way of knowing that it has any reality before that. The best that can be said for it is that it is not irrational, with respect to the evidence that is considered. But from my point of view, a theory which tries to avoid belief in God wilfully does not look at some of the evidence. That is irrational.

[Black Dog]

When you define religion as depending entirely on blind faith, you are committing the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion.

Fallacy? Like the kind you've been using throughout this thread in assuming God exists?

I’m arguing that religion does not rely wholly on faith. So you present a definition which contradicts me and suits your purposes. That’s a failure of logic, a failure of reason.

What else does religion rely on, then? Faith is the cornerstone, the rock upon which religious belief is founded.

What I have done is to say that my belief does have an explanation for those points in which secular science falls short, which then contradicts the claim that secularism is more rational.

Just because your explanation is simple and easy to explain, does not make it rational when there's no facts to support it.

The scientific method depends on testing and disproof. A theory which cannot be tested may fit fine with other theories, but it is not science.

Yes it is. I've already addressed this.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

But from my point of view, a theory which tries to avoid belief in God wilfully does not look at some of the evidence. That is irrational.

Therr's a simple reason for that: science cannot rely on belef in the supernatural. Explanations must be consistent with what we know about how the universe works. On these grounds, supernatural explanations are out of bounds.

[DAC]

When you define religion as depending entirely on blind faith, you are committing the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion.

Fallacy? Like the kind you've been using throughout this thread in assuming God exists?

Black Dog, if you are going to argue for something being reasonable, or logical, you should learn some logic.

An assumption (whether true or not) is not a fallacy unless it assumes something that is being debated. In this case, the issue is a claim that religion is irrational, not a claim that God does not exist. Your assumption was a fallacy because you assumed what you are supposedly trying to prove.

My “assumption” ...

In the first place, I did not make an assumption; I have referred you to evidence for my views. You may not agree that it is sufficient evidence, but that does not make my belief an assumption.

In the second place, in talking about religion, the existence of God is necessarily part of the picture. To fail to include God’s existence would be like talking about science while refusing to consider experimental results.

  I’m arguing that religion does not rely wholly on faith. So you present a definition which contradicts me and suits your purposes. That’s a failure of logic, a failure of reason.

What else does religion rely on, then? Faith is the cornerstone, the rock upon which religious belief is founded.

This does not even make sense. Let me use synonyms for some of your words: “Faith is the cornerstone upon which faith is founded.”

It is true that faith lies at the heart of religion. It is even true that there are many religions, and even some Christians, who rest on blind faith, who even reject reason. But Christian faith is not founded on faith. It is founded on the historical reality of Jesus Christ, his claims and his deeds. It is founded on evidence that for those who are not heavily biassed against it is clear and compelling. In short it is reasonable.

You and others have been arguing vehemently that faith & reason are opposed. But you’re wrong. When I get in my car to go to the mall, I have faith that my car will get me there. It’s not irrational. I keep up the maintenance on the car, so I can expect it to keep running. I and many others have done such things many times before. There is good reason for my faith. Sometimes it proves wrong. There may be some mechanical problem that has not been detected which will stop me on the road. Or some lunatic may run a red light & smash me. But in general, that faith is justified. It is reasonable faith.

The faith which is at the heart of Christian life is not blind belief in some data or even that Jesus is God and the Saviour. It is trust in Jesus as God and Saviour. It is not irrational, even though some may hold it irrationally. It rests firmly on historical fact. In 1 Corinthians 15, the Bible specifies that if Christ is not raised from the dead, our faith is empty, foolishness. Faith indeed, but not irrational faith. The foundation is not faith but truth.

The scientific method depends on testing and disproof. A theory which cannot be tested may fit fine with other theories, but it is not science.

Yes it is. I've already addressed this.

I do not recall you addressing this. Please refresh my memory and explain what is scientific about something that cannot be tested. Especially since the scientific method involves testing hypotheses.

Please note - I have no problem with science which ignores the question of God’s existence. Doing that is like an accountant ignoring the success or failure of the Toronto Blue Jays. The realm of science is what is physical and repeatable, normal. The irrationality about which I am complaining is found when those who espouse science go beyond those bounds to deny the reality of God. In other words, the problem is not with science but with secularism, with militant atheism.