BS: God's Dicey Cup

Subject: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:39 AM

I've been warned but fool that I am, I just can't resist! If you believe in mathematics and science then you have to believe in the laws of probablility. Dear Albert (of relativity fame) certainly had a life long disagreement with Heisenberg over the "Uncertainty Principal" and quantum mechanics. He (Albert) was on the shakey end of the subject and Heisenberg stood solidly on Uncertainty, of that we're certain. Catch the nearest probability wave and consider this:

Scientists, physicists. theoreticians and the like must all agree that, though they don't know, indeed at this point cannot know, how ANYTHING came into being in the first place, it did. The Universe (an interesting choice of words, in and of itself) is here. We are in it and we are part of it. Was there a chance that there would be no Universe? There is no way to tell for if there were no Universe there would be no aware creatures to KNOW that. But let's assume that probability was a factor in the Big Bang! It might not have happened at all.

Second point. Infinity is not a number. Scientist and mathematicians use infinity often in their calculations and it crops up all on its own when switching around in different base systems and the like e.g., 1/3 = .333..., with dot, dot, dot representing infinity in a base ten system. Then you have pi and the Golden Ratio, surds, irrational numbers and the like which tag to infinity in some form. The point here is that infinity's nature is such that no number can even approach it in the micro or the macro world. In fact, infinity is so vast that I submit that if the Universe just happened, it will happen again. If it did it once it can do it again. Maybe not in a couple of 100 billion googleplexes of years or a billion times more than that. But it will happen again. And not only that, it will continue to happen over and over again endlessly, if you believe in probablity. And more! It will happen in every variation possible in the extreem minutae of subatomic particle position and power or entrophy level and in every variation possible. Endlessly! Such is the nature of infinity and probablity. AND, in addition to that you can suppose the creation and destruction of other universes that are entirely unimaginable to us. Why not? This Universe could be inconceivable to exo-Universalites in some other dimension, couldn't it? I know that some of you who are verse in philosophy are starting to suspect a version of the ontological argument, but it's not, so I'll just confine my observations to the evidence at hand, if the scientists will do the same.

And I may begin to referring to Brian Green, author of the "The Elegant Universe" where he submits a pretty good summary of the current cosmological, physical and astrophysical discription of the Universe. This includes subatomic particles which are co-joined in as many as 11 different dimensions. Those invisible dimension are believed to exist because they do away with broken symmetries and purge the mathematics of those pesky little infinity mentioned above. This is the stuff of String Theory. Books have been written, libraies filled with this stuff. some of the most brilliant minds in the world have spent their entire lifes studying and defining this. I hate to give this short shrift here but, this is a blog, not a book. But in general I've given you a good sketch of the state of things.

It gets even weirder. Probability waves which can describe the field location of an electron about the nucleus show that the electron could be as far as 200 million light years away (Light Year approx. 36 trillion miles, American) or even to the edge of the observable Universe.

Consider the "black hole". If you don't know, look it up. There's a LOT of info on the subject. If all the matter that made up the collapsed stars has winked out of our Universe and not even light can escape its emense gravity, what is supporting the gravity? The matter is not there so why does the gravity persist? I've read a few explanation and none are really very satisfying. If the collapsed star has put a pemanent warp on the space it occupied why does it persist at the same intensity? Why is the mass measurable if the object is "not there"?

Why, if the second law of thermodynamics is correct, is the Universe moving from the chaos of the Big Bang to more complex matter and material interactions? Why is there LIFE? Living things are so comlex and so mysterious that the most brilliant self-organized minds that have ever been know to exist cannot duplicate what must have been a chance event of simple chemical interactions? Not one cell. not one virus. Nothing. We can't do it. We can play around with the genetics, the building blocks and reshape the living but we can't make life. But apparently random chance can.

There is Oh so much more which I have not even touched upon about our position and condition in the Universe but I'll hold my fire for a while. What about God? Consider the rise of Man and human intelligence. Did that coincide with the concept or the awareness of God? Where ever the archeological traces of Man are there is an indication that he worshipped something. Coincidence? I think not.

My aim is not to make an ironclad case for God. I don't believe that can be done. It will always be a faith proposition. But I don't want you to be too snug and secure in your disbelief either! If you think I believe in the absurd, just consider the alternative. Chances are you really haven't.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Mo the caller
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 06:49 AM

You're saying (I think) that a universe has popped up an infinite number of times.
And that the probability of random chance producing intelligent life is infinitely small.
That sounds about right, it only had to happen once (or maybe an infinte number of onces)

If you must bring a God into it you have an infinite number of possible Gods to choose from. Maybe there is a malicious God who cons us into thinking otherwise till he says "Yah, gotyer" Or maybe...

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: JennyO
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:16 AM

And that the probability of random chance producing intelligent life is infinitely small   

*sings*

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:28 AM

The main question in the top article is the relative size of different infinities. It's not the easiest concept going but you can have different sizes of Infinity, the smallest of which is the number of Integers ( 1,2,3...infinity)


My personal opinion is very simple. However unlikely life is to have arisen on it's own, invoking another sentient being, displaying supernatural powers, and with no apparent origin of their own to explain it is far more improbable...

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: jeffp
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:29 AM

Actually, there are different orders of infinity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
has a pretty reasonable treatment of the subject. It's a bit tough to wrap your mind around, but consider this. There are an infinite number of integers. Between each pair of integers, there are an infinite number of irrational numbers. Therefore, there are more irrational numbers than there are integers. But there are an infinite number of integers. But there are more irrational numbers. An so on, to infinity.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:40 AM

The smugness most often comes from those with strong beliefs on either side. I have absolutely no idea whether or not any god exists or does not exist. After years of thought including the ten cent BA in Philosophy, I just don't know and arguments like the above while "certainly" entertaining and even perhaps fun, are, in the end...............well....................

If there is any surety in agnosticism it comes from deep in the same place the atheists and theists have theirs. Both disbeliever and believer are no longer troubled as they have a belief they are confident in holding. Both are pretty sure they're right, seemingly happy with their choice, though many are anxious to explain why. The joy of the agnostic comes from not being troubled by the not knowingand the relaxed happiness in admitting, "I ain't got a clue."

Good post Slag.......I'm sure you'll draw a crowd!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: jacqui.c
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:45 AM

This was the sort of thing that, when I was about eight years old, used to scare me silly when I thought about it, which was usually last thing at night before going to sleep. Unfortunately there was no-one that I could really talk to about it at the time.

It is very difficult to wrap your mind around the concept of infinity. To me it is no surprise that people have a faith in God - that can make all those questions so easy to answer, or ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:55 AM

"1/3 = .333..., with dot, dot, dot representing infinity in a base ten system"

Stricly speaking that is not really correct -

after all 1/3 is a Rational Number... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 09:09 AM

I dunno. I figure I'll never know. Everyone except me will know all too soon.

Me, I don't plan on checking out. See, I've been told so often about where I'll end up when I die, well, it sounds so very unpleasant I don't think I'll make the trip.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: skipy
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 09:14 AM

On the subject of probability:- I'm probably going to rumage a skip before the day is out.
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 09:18 AM

Well, I'll probably go to work shortly.

(Einstein's problem was that he failed to recognize that what works in the quantum world doesn't always hold true in the world we see and live in. He simply couldn't accept that Heisenberg was right.)

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: JennyO
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 09:50 AM

Jacqui, my son used to go through the same thing when he was a child. Thinking about infinity literally freaked him out.

It's all so BIG, it really doesn't bear thinking about most of the time, and isn't much use in any practical sense. I'd rather just enjoy myself while I'm here. Anything that happens after that - well that's a bonus. I particularly liked what Spaw said.

Personally, I think this point of view is as good as any:

Hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied. (Slartibartfast in "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy")

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bagpuss
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 10:03 AM

"Why, if the second law of thermodynamics is correct, is the Universe moving from the chaos of the Big Bang to more complex matter and material interactions? Why is there LIFE?"

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply; it refers only to closed systems. The Earth isn't a closed system, as massive amounts of energy are coming into the system from the sun. For more information, try talk origins, particularly http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 10:10 AM

Given, just for the sake of discussion, that god/God created the universe, who/Who created god/God?

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bagpuss
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 10:24 AM

Yeah, if we follow the intelligent design argument that life is so complex it must have been designed, then surely the designer must be even more complex, and therefore must also have been designed....

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 10:35 AM

In man's beginnings there were many gods; god of the sun, the moon, the harvest, fertility, thunder, mischief, love, etc., etc. As man's knowledge increased there were better explanations for many of these natural occurances and the number of gods decreased. I believe that we will continue to find explanations for what is currently unexplanable. There will, however, always be things which cannot be disected and scrutinized and so some folks will always have a need to believe that an "all powerful" God is the cause.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 10:41 AM

The probability of life from complete nothing may be quite small, but the probability of life from the last stage of organized unlife (probably crystals) is actually much higher than that.

Any complex system looks impossible when it has evolved through enough transactions to bring about higher orderts of complexity. But it is an error to assume as a result that the simple rules governing those transactions are therefore (a) impossibly complex or (b) call for extreme and mysterious explanations.

Furthermore the notion that without a Universe there would be no life implies that life is formed within the universe. There is another possibility which should not be discarded: that the universe itself is formed within life. This requires the assumption of non-material fundamental nature of life (after Bergson, for example). It does not require a single hormongous personality, or even a single entity. I would hazard, in fact, that imputing personality to life (in this context) is a fatally confusing error.

A

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:27 AM

I think mother was God, for she fed me
father too, for he clothed me so well
and my teacher was God for he taught me
and my friends were God too, for they cared

but my need for food soon will be over
and new clothes I already resist
learning days are long gone for this rover
for the last time soon I will be kissed

so was God only there for my lifetime?
without me, could a God ever be?
or is God only there when we need him?
only present when he's being missed?

or perhaps I got the whole thing backwards;
then the truth is decidedly odd:
god is those we depend on and cherish
and if loved back - we too feel like god.


Just some loose thinking resulting from reading this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:36 AM

Can there be life without a Universe?

Actually, the whole "Intelligent Design" thing is the same as Aquinas's (or maybe it was Augustine of Hippo's) "Uncaused Cause" argument: since everything has a cause there obviously must be a final cause beyond which there is no cause.

Of course, the whole thing might be circular, but that idea is rejected out of hand by those who are wholly committed to linearity.

As for me, if there IS a Supreme Creator (other than myself, of course) I don't presume to read its mind. Heck, lots of times I can't read my own mind!

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:53 AM

"Consider the rise of Man and human intelligence. Did that coincide with the concept or the awareness of God? Where ever the archeological traces of Man are there is an indication that he worshipped something. Coincidence? I think not."

Oh, I agree! No coincidence at all! As soon as humans could use their developing brains to wonder & ask questions like "why?" and "how?", they applied anthropomorphic concepts to what they saw. THEY 'did things' to make, break, kill, change and otherwise affect their environment, so it seemed likely that something 'did something' to make...(and break and kill..etc.) THEM! Since they couldn't 'see' exactly what it was, imagination supplied all sorts of fascinating variations.
All this is encompassed in the old paraphrase "In the beginning, Man created God in his own image".

Now as to whether he was right or not....even in principle... we just can't say. Some say "the universe is so enormously complicated, I can't imagine it being created totally by random processes."....but, *shrug*, it is also easy to say "...the universe is so enormously complicated, I can't imagine it being created by concious plan, but ONLY by random, but defined and theoretically predictable, physical processes."

My point is...whichever you 'choose', it is probably because of premises you already hold BEFORE you confront the question. The actual answer may be in principle unknowable, and since *I* can't get a grasp on it, I 'choose' not to 'believe' what seems like anthropomorphic guessing....especially when I read history and dwell on the myriad forms this guessing has taken.

Now, I get warnings that I am taking a huge chance NOT believing in some specific manifestation of these guesses, but I have this bit or reasoning that I can't escape...IF some all-powerful Being wants me to behave in certain ways, 'it', being all-powerful, could certainly clarify the matter better than old stories in dubious translations of arbitrary collections of old documents. To those who tell me that the matter HAS been adequately clarified, I reply..."well, you have accepted the very premises that I see as just one of the guesses...so..."

Still....I do see why some form of belief IS so easy and comforting....and to some, not having an **ANSWER**--some answer -- is frustrating and unacceptable. For myself, I don't require all questions to BE answerable....just the process of asking and wondering and exploring is satisfaction enough......and who knows?, maybe the horse WILL sing! (old joke/parable)

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:54 AM

I'm with Rap- as the man said, Hey, I realize that no one has lived forever. But somebody's got to be first.

artbrooks (Given, just for the sake of discussion, that god/God created the universe, who/Who created god/God?), I have the same question about matter. If life formed from matter, where did matter come from? It just happened to be there? What created it?

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:58 AM

"Prime Mover Unmoved" thinking goes back long before Aquinas, I think to Aristotle.

As to your question, it depends on your meaning. "Life" has one meaning of form sof matter organized into motion and reproduction. By that sense, obviously, there has to be a space-time continuum (a universe) for it to occur.

A different philosophical bent altogether might define "life" as a spiritual capability from or by which all space may be postulated.

THis definition certainly allows for the existence of life without a material continuum. It might involve some other sort of universe, such as a universe of considerations.

In broad, people on Earth limit their discussions to the former definition because that's where they get most or all of their perceptions from, and therefore any other reality is a highly dubious proposition to them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:59 AM

Mo the caller said that Slag was saying the universe has popped up an infinite number of times and Slag hasn't said he didn't.

That being so,Slag seems to me to have said mutually exclusive things;
1)There have been an infinite number of universes,    and

2)The Universe has come into being.


   I would go more nearly with 1), and ask if there's any particular (scientific?philosophical?) reason why the Universe cannot have had an infinite past?

   if there's no reason, then the Universe has had no beginning,and I don't see a problem with that.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: skipy
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:02 PM

Oh no! Don't tell me we are going to have to go through again in a billion years or so!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: gnu
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:10 PM

Hmmm.... verrrry interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:10 PM

It occurs to me that all above thinking depends on our linear perception of time ("this has happened N times...", "if X made Y, who made X..." etc). In other words, it is bound by our own limitations. So, its value is also defined by the importance we attach to it - like art.

Don't worry Skipy, WE won't...

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:11 PM

oh no, skipy...don't worry! It will be at least 15 billion or so... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: skipy
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:22 PM

Well next time I'm going to born a little dutch boy!
(work it out)
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:42 PM

Why Skipy? So you can stick your finger in a dam(e) to stop the flood.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:51 PM

And it rolls on
The Great Mandela
As it moves through your brief moment of Time
Win or lose now
You must choose now....

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:12 PM

"And it rolls on
The Great Mandela"

I love it when he puts a rubber glove over his head and then blows it up. I laugh every time.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 02:42 PM

Amos said: There is another possibility which should not be discarded: that the universe itself is formed within life. This requires the assumption of non-material fundamental nature of life....

I would call that non-material fundamental nature of life "consciousness" and rephrase Amos' statement to "The universe itself is formed within consciousness." Then I would submit the possibility that "life" is merely a point at which the physical universe (matter) is in the act of meeting back up with that underlying consciousness: a point at which matter potentially becomes aware of its true nature. What to do with that awareness, whether to sing and dance or fight wars over whose perception of it is more accurate, is matter's decision.

I would further submit the possibility of an infinite variety of such matter/consciousness interface points, not merely "life as we know it".

And lastly, I would submit that, in such a universe, there's no need for a creator because everything is the creator. How can some "thing" have made "me" when "I" have been here all along?

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 02:43 PM

BWL, you have depths BEYOND depths. I always knew there was something spayshul going on down there in Floribama.

A

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 02:51 PM

Oh, and one other thing...

As to whether or not the expression of "1/3" as a decimal number is an expression of infinity, I sliced a piece of pie into three pieces, put one piece on a plate, and looked at the edges very closely with a stong magnifying glass. I'm happy to report that I did not see a bunch of little "3"s marching from the piece of pie onto the plate. Of course, I didn't have an electron microscope handy....

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: gnu
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 03:06 PM

Cool, BWL.

As for the mathematical definition of a circle, or infinity, some of us are mathematicians and some are engineers.... and some are artists. Thank goodness for each, especially for the artist, as the life of the others would be of want without the artist.

I cannot provide anything to the discussion, but, I know what I like.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 03:12 PM

...and the life of the artist would be of want without the engineer, and his without the scientist/mathematician.

Everyone knows you can't see "3"'s with a microscope, BWL -- they are platonic ideal forms, not material objects. You must have had a less-than-perfect pie.


A

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 03:56 PM

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169
39937510582097494459230781640628620899862
80348253421170679821480865132823066470938
44609550582231725359408128481117450284102
70193852110555964462294895493038196442881
09756659334461284756482337867831652712019
09145648566923460348610454326648213393607
26024914127372458700660631558817488152092
09628292540917153643678925903600113305305
48820466521384146951941511609433057270365
75959195309218611738193261179310511854807
44623799627495673518857527248912279381830
11949129833673362440656643086021394946395
22473719070217986094370277053921717629317
67523846748184676694051320005681271452635
60827785771342757789609173637178721468440
90122495343014654958537105079227968925892
35420199561121290219608640344181598136297
74771309960518707211349999998372978049951
05973173281609631859502445945534690830264
25223082533446850352619311881710100031378
38752886587533208381420617177669147303598
25349042875546873115956286388235378759375
19577818577805321712268066130019278766111
95909216420198938095257201065485863278865
93615338182796823030195203530185296899577
36225994138912497217752834791315155748572
42454150695950829533116861727855889075098
38175463746493931925506040092770167113900
98488240128583616035637076601047101819429
55596198946767837449448255379774726847104
04753464620804668425906949129331367702898
91521047521620569660240580381501935112533
82430035587640247496473263914199272604269
92279678235478163600934172164121992458631
50302861829745557067498385054945885869269
95690927210797509302955321165344987202755
96023648066549911988183479775356636980742
65425278625518184175746728909777727938000
81647060016145249192173217214772350141441
97356854816136115735255213347574184946843
85233239073941433345477624168625189835694
85562099219222184272550254256887671790494
60165346680498862723279178608578438382796
79766814541009538837863609506800642251252
05117392984896084128488626945604241965285
02221066118630674427862203919494504712371
37869609563643719172874677646575739624138
908658326459958133904780275901 is also a less than perfect pi.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 03:57 PM

a "less than perfect PI" is 3...a perfect pi is 3.141529......

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 04:00 PM

You're right, Amos, it was a less-than-perfect pie. It was only pie carried out to ten digits.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 04:02 PM

Damn! Gotta swing quickly around here when somebody tosses you a soft lob like that.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: jeffp
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 04:03 PM

Here's another fun one to chew on: 1/3 has a repeating decimal in base 10, but in base 3 it would be .1

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:03 PM

We of the MOAB may be base, but we are too many to be base 3.

Even without the pie.


A

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: jeffp
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:05 PM

Pie? I like pie.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: gnu
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:40 PM

So, the philosophy prof lines up an engineer and a mathematician, both males (sorry, ladies) at the start line. One hundred units away is a gorgeous female. The prof states that each time he blows the whistle, eash contestant may travel half the distance to the "finish line".

He blows the whistle and the engineer makes a mad dash to the 50 unit line while the mathematician laughs raucously.

The Prof asks the mathematician why he is laughing and not racing. He replies that if one travels half the distance to his destination at each whisltle, he will never reach the destination as the resultant separation is asymptotically infintely secure.

The prof explains this to the engineer and asks why he bothers to race so passionately. The engineer replies that he will eventually get close enough for all intents and purposes.

Like I said, I cannot provide anything to the discussion, but....

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: jeffp
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 06:06 PM

I was wondering if somebody would post that joke. I think it does add to the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: GUEST,Gluon
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 06:17 PM

Quark!

Quark!

Quark! 

Quark!

Quark!

Quark!

Quark!

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 06:43 PM

Well spoken, Gluon. Now stop humping Rapaire's leg.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: JennyO
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 10:39 PM

Me like PIE!!!

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 03:58 AM

Well, in Greek, or rather Hellenic, pi is pronounced just like the English "p". Pee. But you all probably knew that already. But that is another thread.

Pecan, Walnut, Mincemeat, the pi is full of nuts and is destined for the Elementary canal. That one value given above for pi would describe a circle of such perfect proportion that were it as large as the observable universe no flaw would be seen, and yet it is not the complete perfect value of pi. And that kind of brings it back to Heisenberg. At the quantum level we run out of things that are sufficient to measure with.

The strongest argument for science is that it works. There is that empirical and pragmatic aspect that proves the rightness of the theory. Albert came up with E=MC2 but until the Atomic Bomb most folks didn't understand the really tremendous amounts of energy which hold the atom's center together. The egg dropped on Hiroshima actually only converted 2 grams of matter into energy. The bulk of the atomic material was atomized and spread as fallout. If there are other dimension so tightly curved that for the conditions that exist in our universe they appear to be linear, just think of the tremendous energy they may conceal and the unknown laws which they obey. The energy levels required (theoretically) to separate quarks are far beyond any conceivable accelerator.

The human mind is part of this 4 dimensional world and as such it reflects (as well as reflects on) the same stuff as creation. It is limited by length, width, heighth and time. It is also subject to the four known forces, gravity, electro-mechanical, weak and strong atomic forces and what other dimensions may lie beneath. REASON'S ULTIMATE APPEAL IS TO REASON ITSELF. And because it works. The former may be an example of "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" or the circular argument of "it's true because it isn't false", i.e. a fallacy.

If God created this universe for Man it would seem reasonable that He would give Man a mind which would be part of the same creation so that Man could function in and understand the world.

Brains have been around for a long, long time, hundreds of millions of years in organisms of complexity of some worms and higher. They serve an essential role in the survival of their respective creatures and it is a puzzlement to many as to why wasn't there self awareness before Man? Other creatures have used brains much longer and have had more opprotunity to evolve toward higher intelligence via natural selection than humans. Why not bigger brains and bigger birth canals to accomodate them or bigger eggs. I mean if intelligence is such a vast leap forward on the stage of evolution, why don't we see more examples of it?

Bill D presents some of the best arguments concerning the creation of God in Man's image and the idea of "die obermann" looks to a further development when Man will see Himself for what he is, alone, autonomous and existent in an accident he once called the Universe. I can see every reason why someone without the knowledge of God would adopt this view. I mean, what else could there be?

But what about God? If there is a God is He knowable? Is he interested in that which He created? What if there was an original condition of Man wherein he had an uninhibited and direct relationship with the Almighty, that is he had an innate awareness of a spiritual being. And through the corruption of his disobedience that same awareness now devoid of its natural inhabitant (God), also became corrupt, wouldn't he seek to fill that void with his vain imaginings? Hence you would have a great plurality of god-concepts, musings, philosophy, agnosticism, antipathy, self-promotion, in short, everything you see today in the field of religion and theology.

In every religion I have ever examined it is always the case of Man seeking God. Some secret knowledge or ritual or posture or good deeds or enlightenment or some scam that makes large amounts of money for those who promote it ( I refer you back to my shameless new religion I began on the Grand Canyon thread). The Christian religion, or rather message, is that God is the one seeking us. It is unique in that while mankind was still lost and not knowing God, God provided a way out of our mess and made it available to all and free to all. He promised to restore the relationship, a PERSONAL relationship. I submit that He is knowable and known by those who come and accept His sacrifice for us. This can be approached by reason but it cannot be attained by reason. Reason and circumstance can bring you to the edge of spiritual attainment but only faith can carry you over. Man's reason is inferrior to God's mind. Pride is one of the main corrupting features of Man's mind and it is that self pride that prevents submission to God. The natural man wants to stand before God and sing "I did it MY waaaaay!" and spit on the offering of Jesus Christ. And therein lies the real dilemma. If your agnostic because you don't know, at least you're honest. You don't know. If you're agnostic and you don't care to know then you are willfully ignorant. I'll stop here for now and see what comments this latest generate. I have enjoyed the discussion thus far and the wit. I don't seek to convert anyone. Indeed I can't. Only God can do that. It's His job. All I can do is put it out there. I will iterate that my whole point is that science and human knowledge can tell us much about the universe we live in, a remarkable amount. We are very clever that way. But there is a limit to science and knowledge. There is an edge past which we cannot see but we know SOMETHING is there in the physical realm or at least in a realm which affects our physical world, but we can't know it. Might there not be a supernatural being, a creator God Whom our natural minds cannot comprehend and yet our souls suspect, surmise may be there? It's worth consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Grab
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 06:23 AM

I mean if intelligence is such a vast leap forward on the stage of evolution, why don't we see more examples of it?

Because it's incredibly expensive for the creature.

Brains use up an awful lot of energy (ask any survival expert what's the most important part of your body to keep covered to preserve heat). That means you need to eat more to keep yourself going.

Also, large brains equals large heads. The size of the birth canal for a creature which only walks on its hind legs is limited by its requirement to be able to run effectively. Too large a head, and the kid and mother both die in childbirth. Too large a birth canal, and you can't run properly so you can't get away from a predator.

Besides, who says there haven't been more examples of it? Even at our fairly advanced stage of science, we couldn't survive an extinction-level event like the various huge meteorite strikes in the past, and we have nothing which would survive a few million years of burial, so there could have been civilisations back in the dinosaur days which got blitzed. No evidence either way. And for modern intelligence, we have chimps, gorillas, bonobos, dolphins, elephants and crows, all of which have pretty high functioning intelligence, to the extent of using tools, having information stored at a tribal level and passed down through the generations, etc.. We just happen to be the best at the moment.

Living things are so comlex and so mysterious that the most brilliant self-organized minds that have ever been know to exist cannot duplicate what must have been a chance event of simple chemical interactions? Not one cell. not one virus. Nothing. We can't do it.

We can't do it right this minute. But it's being worked on very seriously, including people deliberately taking a non-DNA path to try and prove that it can be done. Given that people have only known the detail of how this stuff works for about 30 years, only had the technical ability (tools) to do anything about it for 20 years, and only had the ability to do it *cheaply* for 10 years, this isn't bad going.

Graham.