bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 ... On a cosmological evolutionary scale, we are the most complex and evolved things in the universe. No, this is a mathematical impossibility. I suspect that human development to date is mediocre at best. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 No, this is a mathematical impossibility. I suspect that human development to date is mediocre at best. Compared to what though? Everything else is just simple chemicals and forces. Compare it to the complexity of the DNA molecule. Compare it to non-mathematical aspects of human life, like culture, art, communication. Is there anything else even close to that? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Compared to what though? Everything else is just simple chemicals and forces. Compare it to the complexity of the DNA molecule. Compare it to non-mathematical aspects of human life, like culture, art, communication. Is there anything else even close to that? Simple chemicals and forces? Yet we have not figured them all out. And we probably never will. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Simple chemicals and forces? Yet we have not figured them all out. And we probably never will. Agreed, it is a boundless mystery. And so scientists like Dawkins, or anyone who claims that they have "the answer" are hard to agree with sometimes. Quote
Bonam Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 It depends on how you do the math, right? If you take the temperature of the sun (average temperature) and divide it by its mass, the number is lower than for a human. That's a useless number. Temperature is already effectively a measure of energy per amount of matter. Dividing it again by the amount of matter is fruitless. Quote
kimmy Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Sagan's contribution was one of scale....if we be so puny in the overall scheme of things, then so are our religions and gods. Yup...if you didn't feel like a speck lost in a sea of time and space after Cosmos, you weren't watching. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson: -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) That's a useless number. Temperature is already effectively a measure of energy per amount of matter. Dividing it again by the amount of matter is fruitless. It's useless, but it's just an observation. It implies that if you assembled enough humans together into one massive ball equal to the mass of the sun, the human "sun" would be hotter. Of course that's impossible for probably a number of reasons, gravity and fusion would come into play and we know what happens to stars when their composition reaches a certain high level of heavier metals. They eventually collapse and go "boom", and the supernova creates new elements that would otherwise not exist in the universe. Some of those elements make up our world and our bodies. So this relates back to what I said about cosmic evolution, from protons and electrons to hydrogen, to stars, to fusion into heavier elements up to iron, then, supernova. Then heavier elements again. Then, clumps of solid material, worlds, and finally planet Earth. Comets bombard and add water and complex molecules, also created from stars. What happens next is still a mystery but somehow through just the right combination we are created. And that's all part of one continuous evolutionary process, each step creating materials of higher organizational complexity, right up to life itself. And we humans stand at the very pinnacle of this process, as it is right now. One can almost conclude from this that the universe is a process, whose outcome is to create human beings. If you believe that, then this place certainly becomes more than an "insignificant speck"! Edited February 20, 2012 by Manny Quote
Bonam Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) It's useless, but it's just an observation. It implies that if you assembled enough humans together into one massive ball equal to the mass of the sun, the human "sun" would be hotter. No, that's precisely what it does not imply, because temperature is already a macroscopically averaged quantity. Take two humans together, and each is still as a temperature of 36 C, as is the combined two-human system. Any number of humans will still have a temperature of 36 C. Obviously once this ball of humans collapses under its own mass we're in a different situation, but I am just trying to explain the basic concept of temperature about which you seem to have some strange notions. One can almost conclude from this that the universe is a process, whose outcome is to create human beings. If you believe that, then this place certainly becomes more than an insignificant speck.Then, clumps of solid material, worlds, and finally planet Earth. Comets bombard and add water and complex molecules. What happens next is still a mystery but somehow we are created. And that's all part of one continuous evolutionary process, each step creating materials of higher organizational complexity, right up to life itself. And we humans stand at the very pinnacle of this process, as it is right now. Earth is only one of countless trillions of planets, however. The moment that experimental techniques came into our technological domain to allow us to detect other planets orbiting other stars, we began finding them. We find them on almost a daily basis now, and often in places where we did not think they could exist. It will be the same with life. As soon as we have the means to detect it across the light years, we will. Edited February 20, 2012 by Bonam Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Earth is only one of countless trillions of planets, however. The moment that experimental techniques came into our technological domain to allow us to detect other planets orbiting other stars, we began finding them. We find them on almost a daily basis now, and often in places where we did not think they could exist. It will be the same with life. As soon as we have the means to detect it across the light years, we will. Personally I don't doubt it, although it is speculation, for now. There's no evidence. And according to some statistical analysis, it should have been found already. Extraterrestrial life could be extremely rare But even if it is as you say, a plethora of life on other planets, I'd still feel that the universe is like a machine or a process that seems to be functioning to create life. Or rather that life is the most complex thing so far created. Quote
eyeball Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Neil deGrasse Tyson shares a cool thought I'm always struck by the idea that being aware is the universe' sense of appreciation for itself. It's so easy to get lost in this sort of thinking when I'm alone offshore at night drifting under a cloudless star filled sky. No religion on Earth could ever come close to evoking the sense of infinity that imparts. Then of course there's the odd night when the wind picks up and it feels like the universe is out to get you. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 One can almost conclude from this that the universe is a process, whose outcome is to create human beings. If you believe that, then this place certainly becomes more than an "insignificant speck"! Maybe we're the seeds. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
kimmy Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Conversely, religion is an idea that atheist people are simply not able to grasp... In a way, I agree. As a teenager I spent quite a bit of time looking into religions. It seemed so important to other people, that I started to wonder if I was missing out on something. So I set out to find out what I was missing. But I could never get into it. As I read, I kept coming back to the same question: why do people believe this stuff? I get that people have a need to believe in things, maybe to believe in a creator, and maybe greater meaning. But what I can't get is how people look at any particular religion and say "yeah, this is the truth. These guys have it all figured out. These guys have been granted information from a higher source, and everybody else is wrong. This is what it's really all about." -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
cybercoma Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Perhaps. Could it be that the dogmatists are really on the same side of the fence, after all? One should always keep an open mind. To be honest, the whole "Is God real" is is very silly, or even non-sequitor. It's like saying, "Are ideas real?". In another light, we all know Santa Claus is not real, yet we still celebrate and enjoy his symbolism at christmas. Why? Because the idea serves a purpose. Santa is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Once you grasp that, the argument fades away. Well sure. If you want to redefine God as nothing more than an abstract concept, rather than an actual living intercessory power. Personal definitions of God are not fruitful for these sorts of discussions, however. Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Well sure. If you want to redefine God as nothing more than an abstract concept, rather than an actual living intercessory power. Personal definitions of God are not fruitful for these sorts of discussions, however. Ok, but calling it an abstract concept trivializes it too. It's more than that, somehow, because it enables the person in ways that other mere philosophical ideas don't do. It's more than just a thought, its a force. For example, people can become brave as lions when they believe in god. Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) In a way, I agree. As a teenager I spent quite a bit of time looking into religions. It seemed so important to other people, that I started to wonder if I was missing out on something. So I set out to find out what I was missing. But I could never get into it. As I read, I kept coming back to the same question: why do people believe this stuff? I get that people have a need to believe in things, maybe to believe in a creator, and maybe greater meaning. But what I can't get is how people look at any particular religion and say "yeah, this is the truth. These guys have it all figured out. These guys have been granted information from a higher source, and everybody else is wrong. This is what it's really all about." -k It's hard to generalize the reasons why. I, like you did very similar "soul searching" in my youth, including study of all major human religions and philosophies. It did not end in my youth, it's a part of me. At different times in my life I've been a believer, an athiest, a philosopher, and a nihilist. I am all those things. I am Satan I am God, I am Lucifer I am Jesus, I am... all of the gods that man has ever created because, man has created the gods... j/k but WHY is still an important question. I notice for many people there is a kind of euphoria that takes over when they really BELIEVE, almost like the rush that a drug user must experience. Why do people need to take drugs? To escape from reality. Edited February 20, 2012 by Manny Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 What's your take on stellar metallicity? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
cybercoma Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Ok, but calling it an abstract concept trivializes it too. It's more than that, somehow, because it enables the person in ways that other mere philosophical ideas don't do. It's more than just a thought, its a force. For example, people can become brave as lions when they believe in god. I don't think I'm trivializing it. If God is comparable to ideas, then God is abstract by that definition. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 What's your take on stellar metallicity? It's a cult classic, although generally overrated. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Personally I don't doubt it, although it is speculation, for now. There's no evidence. And according to some statistical analysis, it should have been found already. Why should it have been found already? We havent even found 1/2 of the life right here on our own planet yet. We are a primitive race that is but a couple of hundred years beyond a completely agrarian existance. Picture a bunch of goldfish looking out through the glass on the front of your aquarium and wondering if other such glass containers full of goldfish exist in the universe. Thats us... Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest Manny Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity Yes I understand, "Metals" as described in astronomy or chemistry are not limited to things like copper or iron. Basically the elements created by fusion. Was there a particular point you wanted to make about that, re Dawkins or evolution? Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 I don't think I'm trivializing it. If God is comparable to ideas, then God is abstract by that definition. I know you weren't intending to trivialize it. I'm saying, even abstraction does not cover it completely, as other concepts relating to abstraction don't even come close to what's behind the human impulse towards religion. There's something else there. Something like our brains are hard wired to be attracted to the idea of a creator, attracted to feel a need for spiritual belief. Perhaps it's in the "other" hemisphere. And as such I think it can never be eradicated, by any book or logical argument. Maybe only by surgery... It has evolved with us. Maybe even part of the reason why we are superior to other living things. I'm sure we could debate this for years and never come to a conclusion. Like the tragically hip song, "It's so deep it's meaningless..." Quote
cybercoma Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 I know you weren't intending to trivialize it. I'm saying, even abstraction does not cover it completely, as other concepts relating to abstraction don't even come close to what's behind the human impulse towards religion. There's something else there. Something like our brains are hard wired to be attracted to the idea of a creator, attracted to feel a need for spiritual belief. Perhaps it's in the "other" hemisphere. And as such I think it can never be eradicated, by any book or logical argument. Maybe only by surgery... It has evolved with us. Maybe even part of the reason why we are superior to other living things. I'm sure we could debate this for years and never come to a conclusion. Like the tragically hip song, "It's so deep it's meaningless..." So it's a mental illness? jk Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 I prefer Hitchens. He's much less about name calling, and much more about explaining in detail, his beliefs and positions. Dawkins gets more pub though, because he's kind of the shock jock of athiesm. Much less substantive though, in my opinion. I think they're both insulting. Seen Hitchens on Bill Maher? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
DogOnPorch Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 Yes I understand, "Metals" as described in astronomy or chemistry are not limited to things like copper or iron. Basically the elements created by fusion. Was there a particular point you wanted to make about that, re Dawkins or evolution? Metallicity is a type of evolution. Our star is made from former stars, etc. I always wondered what those who believe in Creation thought about God waiting so long to 'get busy'. Plus, new stars are being born as we post; what's the deal with God hitting "New Game" after cranking-out Earth and us? Real die-hard Creationists no doubt have a work-around for this. Even with the strange order in which God Created things over 6 days. Not to mention clearly stating (in English, at least) that... In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. ...this aside from those silly enough to actually believe that the Universe is 6000 some odd years old. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.