The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by ntubski I forgive you. Let me ask you a question though. What's the difference between God scanning through possible universes and deciding "okay this one, this one will make life", vs all the universes existing side by side. That is, what's the difference between a universe existing in the mind of God, vs just plain existing?

Alright, let's apply that logic to my post:
1) Hazel considers the possibility that an infinite number of universes could exist.
2) Therefore an infinite number of universes exist (or have at some point existed) in Hazel's mind.
3) Therefore an infinite number of universes can exist.

Here's another example:
1) I can imagine unicorns and dragons.
2) Therefore unicorns and dragons exist in my mind
3) Therefore unicorns and dragons can exist in the outside world.

I don't think that kind of logic actually works.

/Trying not to get flamed every time he opens his mouth.

I personally feel that if multiverses exist, I don't know about about them. I see them as a convenient retreat for long theoretical papers by physicists. The 'Book' says "In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the Earth." It doesn't say "In the Beginning God Created 127 Universes and 12,730,204 Earths." So I feel inclined towards one universe. As nearly all of Genesis 1 was written from the perspective of someone standing on planet earth, we are only instructed about this earth.

@ntubski: The dimensions are Length; width; height, & time. I know the word 'dimension' has been hijacked by sci-fi, but those dimensions are concrete measurements. I could accept the possibility of existences at other OFFSETS in this universe, but I would agree that we should stick with one Universe. The main object of multiple universes is positing ones more favourable to life, but I imagine you'll find the numbers have been fiddled here. I would specifically mention 4 numbers: Gravity; ElectroMagnetic Force; The Nuclear forces(Strong & Weak). To me, these constitute another reason for belief in the divine, but I'm not going to go there! I'm in enough trouble as I am . Maybe we'll go there later.

@hazel: I made a precise cut, Hazel, when I said 'origin of life.' I noticed you blurring that line in your last post but one. A single celled creature is a very complicated apparatus, as a chemist can inform themselves on. Life can't really have arisen in installments, unless you can illuminate us on what functions it can do without. Food digestion? Self replication? The sac? DNA? etc. Maybe that's one to think over, as it doesn't deserve a one liner reply. So I was thinking of the origin - assembling the first self replicating cell with all necessary features.

Originally Posted by business_kid Life can't really have arisen in installments, unless you can illuminate us on what functions it can do without. Food digestion? Self replication? The sac? DNA? etc. Maybe that's one to think over, as it doesn't deserve a one liner reply. So I was thinking of the origin - assembling the first self replicating cell with all necessary features.

There are tentative answers to some of these. The external sac or cell membrane is certainly a latecomer because bacteria and archaea have quite different ones. The Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) clearly didn't have a cell membrane and must have occupied pores in rocks. You don't need to digest food if you have a source of raw energy, such as a permanent pH difference. And DNA probably arose as a backup tape for RNA, since it is a less error-prone type of storage. Unlike DNA (but like proteins), RNA has catalytic powers, so there may have been at some point a sequence that could catalyse its own formation ad infinitum.

You might be interested in looking at some of these: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=alkaline+v...tb=v1-1&ia=web. I find them very convincing.

Originally Posted by business_kid @all: I don't think I said "God created Life," as an absolute statement of faith. I did go as far as saying science has no alternative, which certainly implies I believe God must have. But that's a logical conclusion, and a basis for belief in the best available evidence, not a statement of blind faith.

First of all Science never claims and certainly doesn't pretend to have all the answers, and even what answers it provides are expected in almost all cases to be refined, some largely replaced. This is nearly diametrically opposed to the stance of Religion, that claims to know it all and any dissent is heresy or blasphemy.

Science IMHO has a very good beginning to grasping how life began on Earth. It appears to be something chemistry over enough time does. The biggest remaining questions have to do with whether or not it has or will occur anywhere else since the required chemistry appears to be nearly everywhere. However the base question is not yet answered conclusively by anyone, at any time, by any time and certainly including Science but also Religion. The evolution of Life is quite well understood and given nearly 4,000,000,000 years it most definitely is by degrees. I truly don't understand how you can go from Science can't answer a question, so Religion.... actually MY Religion! must have the answer. That is not Reason nor a Logical Conclusion. That is a Leap of Faith. Of course this also begs the question as to why you denigrate Logic on one hand, and seek to "raise it's flag" on the other???

Originally Posted by business_kid @enorbet: Retreating again into Logic, I see? The favourite retreat of someone who can't answer what he was asked. Who ever said 'Faith & Religion' had to be logical?' I expressed confidence that God certainly exists as an aside, which everybody has jumped on. I'm not going to waste time with you on this subject.

I didn't and still don't see a question. Would you kindly restate it? I'd be happy to try to answer as best I can. I didn't say Faith had to be logical in fact I made the case that it isn't and that people have every right to be illogical. It's not a choice I make but my way is by no means the only way. However Logic is the only way of which I know to achieve an objective conclusion that can be communicated, understood, and tested to be found having some validity or none.

I ask you again upon what evidence do you describe your specific Creator's existence as certain? You may well believe it is certain but that does not make it so any more than a person believing in vampires, demons, or the tooth fairy makes it so. If you actually do find this discussion a waste of time, I have to wonder why you bothered to post in this thread, but I will respect your decision and not press for an answer again. The above repeated question you then may simply answer for yourself if you so choose.

Originally Posted by business_kid but I imagine you'll find the numbers have been fiddled here. I would specifically mention 4 numbers: Gravity; ElectroMagnetic Force; The Nuclear forces(Strong & Weak). To me, these constitute another reason for belief in the divine

You mean the idea that all the possible universes are just the ones that are different combinations of those 4 parameters? I can see how that makes sense to consider from a scientific perspective, because that's all we know about. But if you're going to speculate on things as wild as different universe with different physical laws, it seems kind of limited.

To me, these constitute another reason for belief in the divine, but I'm not going to go there! I'm in enough trouble as I am . Maybe we'll go there later.

Looking forward to it

Originally Posted by hazel Alright, let's apply that logic to my post: 1) Hazel considers the possibility that an infinite number of universes could exist.

Hold on, how are you going to seriously consider whether a universe can exist (and support life) or not? A universe is pretty complicated, I don't think you could finish considering even one universe in your lifetime. Maybe you could simulate it on a really powerful (to the point of being hypothetical) computer. If the universe being simulated developed life, would you consider the beings inside to "really" exist/be alive? Would the power and/or accuracy of the simulation make a difference there? Would it make a difference if we replace the really powerful computer with God's mind?

Here's another example: 1) I can imagine unicorns and dragons.

I question whether you can actually imagine a whole unicorn in your mind. I'm sure you can summon an image of one, but it's not like you could be individually aware of the trillions of cells it comprises. You can't even understand what it's like to be a bat, so you certainly can't accurately imagine the inner mind of a unicorn. You're at best imagining some pale shadow of a unicorn.

(of course, replace you in all of the above with any human)

@ntubski: OK, we'll have to go there. /groan.

The relationship between the 4 fundamental forces is actually very finely adjusted to make things turn out at all. We live in a Universe where small stars burn, but don't burn out. Large stars burn, but don't burn out. Molecules form. Certain things happen (Controlled by Weak Nuclear Force) in Supernovas that (AFAIK)allow heavier elements to form. If you had a different balance of the 4 fundamental forces, some or all of these advantages of this universe previously mentioned in this paragraph wouldn't be there. Molecules is a big one. Fred Hoyle's quote about 'a superintellect monkeying with the physics…' is bandied about, bit I prefer the bit that comes before it, which everyone cuts.

Originally Posted by Fred Hoyle “From 1953 onward, Fowler and I have been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12C (=Carbon) to the 7.12 MeV level in 16O(=Oxygen). If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are just the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are actually found to be.

I've labelled Carbon & Oxygen because the numbers lost their superscript status. He's talking numbers in ElectroMagnetic Force, AFAICT. This, in his estimation, is why there's so much carbon & oxygen earth.

The fixing of the 4 physical forces (I've detailed EMF, but trust me, they're all fixed!) indicates that before the universe was formed, there was a purpose to it - to allow life. It isn't proof, but it is strong supporting evidence. Who had the purpose?

Atheists & scientists always seem to run into a wall at the beginning. How do you give a material explanation before there was any material?

Originally Posted by enorbet First of all Science never claims and certainly doesn't pretend to have all the answers,

Tell that to the likes of Richard Dawkins! . I'm sure he's an embarrassment at times.

and even what answers it provides are expected in almost all cases to be refined, some largely replaced. This is nearly diametrically opposed to the stance of Religion, that claims to know it all and any dissent is heresy or blasphemy.

Agreed about religions, heresy & Blasphemy. I like to think we are different from Religion. I lump them together as false worship, while we hold to true worship. Other folks see us as a religion; to me, religion stinks. Our faith is continually being refined. We never water down matters of principle. But in early June we got a fresh understanding of when in history (and against whom) the attack prophesied in Joel 2:7-9 was fulfilled. Prophecy can be future, and we don't have crystal balls, miracle cures or any of that <expletive>.

To answer your other points:

Science doesn't actually have a clue how life formed. By life I mean the first self-replicating cell capable of evolving into better things. There isn't even a credible postulation. Search Google Scholar and you won't find a meaningful paper in the few on the 'origin of life' since Francis Crick's Nobel prize. Saying 'over time' is a cop-out and a fudge, trying to dodge the question. Over time, things die. Not only that but there's several good scientific (biological & physical)reasons why life cells can never form, & many catch-22 cases, making a long string of impossible hurdles. This was stuff I investigated (to the limits of my ability at the time) BEFORE I joined My Religion, as you call it. We have a black & white view - True worship & false. I thought Scientific estimates on the age of the earth were closer to 4.5 billion years, and have no dispute with either figure as an estimate.

You don't see a question, and I can't restate it, because there wasn't one. I did say, in my defence

Originally Posted by business_kid Since Francis Crick's Nobel Prize (in 1961?), there hasn't been a scientific theory, even a credible postulation about how life came about. So atheism can't answer one of the basic questions all humans ask. I don't think I'm the one who can be criticized for having a blind faith when I conclude that "Unless there was something that had no beginning, nothing could ever begin."

I expressed my faith in God as an aside, and a number of lurkers/posters took exception to it. I've been defending myself since, including in that quote.

I think my faith is fairly Logical. Others may examine it and find it's logic lacking but it doesn't hugely matter to me. Faith, as described in 'the book' at Hebrews 11:1, is belief on the basis of the best available evidence. Now, when you want answers and conclude

• False Religion can be dismissed en masse, because they misdirect people.
• Science doesn't have any real clue about how things began. It is therefore not the answer.
• Science forbids any attribution to God and is therefore atheistic, whereas I believe in Him.
• The Bible seems the most credible source of guidance.

It seems a reasonable course to study the Bible. Where I ended up we can take up by PM, if anyone is interested.

The universe started out as mostly hydrogen, and over a long period of time (13.8 billion years) that hydrogen became sentient and conspired to make the universe as we know it (along with other elements of the periodic table; but mostly hydrogen). So what's the line of consciousness and non-consciousness between hydrogen and us?

I think this coincides with an interesting documentary I came across talking about how water has memory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMrQme-DEas), and who's structure seem to change based on your intentions (maybe why religions bless food and water). And like how DNA seems to miraculously spring out of nothing but water. If you ever heard of a wireless internet between humans, I think it could be hydrogen/water.

I'll admit I'm just making abstract connections, but there may be something to it. It's also interesting that the universe may be encapsulated in a hypersphere which is essentially a tesseract (a higher dimensional containment vessel). And if we are in a simulation I wonder what role the stars play as astrology seem to get people's personalities to a T.

I have been actively trying to keep my posts shorter so I'm going to break this down into a couple shorter ones, most of which is in response to business-kid since he seems most active recently and has demonstrated some level of scientific understanding as well as a determined Faith.

The first issue is this from post #9182

Originally Posted by business_kid /Trying not to get flamed every time he opens his mouth.

While I detect possibly some humour in there, underneath it is likely some truth or it wouldn't even be perceived let alone written out. I don't see anyone attacking business-kid personally but I will only speak from my POV and I can state categorically that I don't feel any need to flame you, business_kid, and I don't see anything I've written as any manner of personal attack. This is about ideas and attacking ideas is not congruent with attacking a person that holds those ideas. It is precisely a major factor in how we "fact check" and learn in order to grow. I know it can feel personal but it is not and I sincerely hope you are able to differentiate in the future.

Originally Posted by business_kid @ntubski: OK, we'll have to go there. /groan. The relationship between the 4 fundamental forces is actually very finely adjusted to make things turn out at all.

I take issue with the term "adjusted" since it is almost always a precursor to "adjuster". That things adjust to each other is a matter of course in chemistry, engineering, mathematics and basically everywhere in the Universe based on conditions often described as "tipping points", "butterfly effect", etc. At it's simplest for example Sodium is poisonous to humans as is Chlorine. In the presence of each other they are still poisonous... until the conditions of temperature and pressure cause combination into Sodium Chloride, common table salt, which is arguably not poisonous. Heavy elements emit radiation which ultimately results in them breaking down in a process referred to as Half Life (not the Valve game ) and becoming lower elements on their way to Lead. These processes are both a continual progression, gradual, but at certain tipping points, quantized. No adjustment is needed because that's how things evolved given the most basic facts of the early Universe.

If there are other Universes and we may never actually know if there are since they are only predicted in advanced mathematics (which is a whole thread at least unto itself) which does carry considerable weight but lacks any evidence to go any further, at the very least, at this point, it seems likely that some will not harbor life (at least as our limited experience defines it) while others may well harbor life. That this one displays coherence that makes what we view as life possible does not require A Designer. It just requires Physics, Chemistry and an unimaginable span of Time while it all "settles out". The interplay of Locality, Order and Entropy influences how that plays out but it begins with Quantum Fields like The Higgs Field, which gave Hydrogen, and everything else, Mass. Everything resulting is nearly a foregone conclusion only dependent on tipping points in Locality.

Originally Posted by business_kid The fixing of the 4 physical forces (I've detailed EMF, but trust me, they're all fixed!) indicates that before the universe was formed, there was a purpose to it - to allow life. It isn't proof, but it is strong supporting evidence. Who had the purpose?

And here it is, exactly why "adjusted" was chosen in the first place, whether subconsciously or by design, to result in "Adjuster". Hopefully, the above will serve to demonstrate again at the very least that there is a simpler, observed, phenomenon to allow for such evolution that does not require a Designer who comes with His/Her/Its own set of "turtles all the way down" lineage such as "Who designed the designer?"

Originally Posted by business_kid Atheists & scientists always seem to run into a wall at the beginning. How do you give a material explanation before there was any material?

Higgs Fields explain how "something can come from nothing" or more accurately that at the Quantum level, there is no such thing as "nothing", at least in THIS Universe. Before and After that is anybody's guess, if there even is such a thing as Before and After. We are parts trying to discover The Whole. That job alone is quite big enough already. The only reason I think anyone skips past that in these ares not immediately of local concern is Death. I don't comprehend that concern for what happens after we die. Until we were born, grew and learned History, we had no knowledge of the Time before in which we didn't exist. Only recently have we learned just how incredibly long that was. Why should we care much what will happen in the nearly immeasurable time After? when our focus should probably be far more concerned with what constitutes a Good Life, Here and Now?

For an excellent perspective on all of this, in fact on all of Everything, take a short amount of time, less than 9 minutes out of the 1440 minutes in each day, to view this video that is still 99+% true and unfalsified after more than a half-century. You won't be disappointed regardless of your Beliefs as long as you can even consider real evidence. Incidentally while little has been falsified in 50+ years, a LOT has been expanded and refined, and only serves to bolster what is in the view in this video.

--- The Cosmic Calendar ---

I accept that 'adjusted' presupposes an adjuster, and therefore, a lot more.

When you ponder the implications of the fine balances in the 4 physical forces, and decide what is the most likely, chance recedes as a possibility. Out of all the possible positive or negative settings of each physical force, you are left with possibilities of 1 to (-infinity to +infinity). Statistically that is the chance of each force being where it is. The odds against the four of them being where they are are (in betting terms) a 4-way accumulator, one for each of the 4 forces.

If you want a reference, experts in the field grapple with the implications of each force being set exactly where it is. Some of Fred Hoyle's comments near the end of this meandering article http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/527/2/Hoyle.pdf highlight his reflections on the topic.

Concerning the beginning, I feel it is impossible to apply logic. To apply logic, you need 'bits,' or 'facts' to move around. But in the beginning, you have no bits, no facts, Déscartes famously tried that, and has egg on his face (or skeleton) to this day.

Looking for the best available evidence, I feel entitled to reject chance, when there is a more likely candidate in Intelligent design. That presupposes preexisting Being(s) outside of this Universe. We don't even know that they need a Material Universe to exist in. We only know what they tell us in a language we understand, if anything. Atheists may reject such a notion, but that's because they are often forced to contemplate their own insignificance or contemplate the Unknown.

Despite mankind's best attempts the quantum field only applies to quantum sized objects. I somehow feel bigger than that. The Higgs field (now that you mention it) has the unwelcome effect (to atheists) of imploding the Big Bang. A couple of papers were written 5-10 years back that have not been refuted. I frankly don't see how either benefits your case. I think we should stick to one subject until we can come to a resolution on it rather than producing red herrings. I have been dragged from how life began to the 4 physical forces, and the implications of their being set so incredibly finely. Let's stick there.

Originally Posted by business_kid The relationship between the 4 fundamental forces is actually very finely adjusted to make things turn out at all.

The assumption here is that there are these 4 parameters that can be changed, and no others. A pretty big assumption. What if we adjust stuff like the value of pi? Impossible? Are mathematical constants especially non-adjustable? Why? Or maybe nothing is "adjustable".

The fixing of the 4 physical forces (I've detailed EMF, but trust me, they're all fixed!) indicates that before the universe was formed, there was a purpose to it - to allow life.

I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' puddle story:

Originally Posted by Douglas Adams “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Originally Posted by business_kid Atheists & scientists always seem to run into a wall at the beginning. How do you give a material explanation before there was any material?

How do believers give an explanation for God coming into being before there was God? By declaring that there's no such thing as "before there was God", right? Or declaring that God is "self-causing", although that seems to amount to the same thing.

Originally Posted by business_kid I expressed my faith in God as an aside, and a number of lurkers/posters took exception to it.

Not sure if you're including me in that, but let me just say that I don't "take exception" to your faith. I don't share it, but it's not any kind of a problem for me.

Science forbids any attribution to God and is therefore atheistic,

This bit seems off. Obviously you can't put "God did it" in a scientific theory, but I don't see how that makes science "atheistic".

Originally Posted by enorbet I have been actively trying to keep my posts shorter so I'm going to break this down into a couple shorter ones, most of which is in response to business-kid since he seems most active recently and has demonstrated some level of scientific understanding as well as a determined Faith. The first issue is this from post #9182 /Trying not to get flamed every time he opens his mouth. While I detect possibly some humour in there, underneath it is likely some truth or it wouldn't even be perceived let alone written out. I don't see anyone attacking business-kid personally but I will only speak from my POV and I can state categorically that I don't feel any need to flame you, business_kid, and I don't see anything I've written as any manner of personal attack. This is about ideas and attacking ideas is not congruent with attacking a person that holds those ideas. It is precisely a major factor in how we "fact check" and learn in order to grow. I know it can feel personal but it is not and I sincerely hope you are able to differentiate in the future.

I'll follow your example in splitting things down. Posts grow exponentially and certain of us (myself included) are congenitally incapable of being brief & to the point. When you post as a theist and get 4 or 5 back from atheists/agnostics, one is inclined to get a persecution complex With the quote above, I was simply trying to follow the Irish wisdom: "When you're in a hole, stop digging." Agree that we need to fact check in order to grow. Most Theists you meet, who believe in God and let it stop there. I believed in God, and started to learn how and why He did it, and draw lessons from that. As an Organization, we are extremely well informed in Scientific proofs against Atheism. We had a Theistic Scientist, for instance, attend a 1969 Conference held in Uppsala, Sweden. The Conference proceedings were published in 1971 and there was a Magazine article apparently by someone with a full understanding of the subject in 1972, which I can reference today on my PC. That blows away what most religions do for their adherents. I have more of a capacity than most to understand the Scientific Gobbledygook, and so have made it an area of interest which I follow. But those with poor on nearly no education simply develop different parts of their brain - memory, they meditate more, see deeper into ordinary things, the artistic side, etc. I don't have Qualifications in Science or physics. I'm an Electronic Engineer. I did not imagine personal attacks. Fact checkinng is fine - I'm not sensitive, I hope.

I do not think Science has profited by making atheism an absolute requirement. That's my opinion. Scientists are left with questions they can't answer, like the origin of life that I mentioned previously. They refuse to grow. Some also, like Fred Hoyle, & Michael Behe, are censored & excluded. I don't personally agree with all the positions that either of those men took, but to remove them from the discussion did not advance Scientific insight.

There is an old saying in Statistics. The odds may only be 1% that a specific event will happen to you but if it does occur, the odds becomes 100% for you. I think religious people see such improbable odds because before they even begin the tally, they accept that "God built this Universe specifically for Us". I say we are latecomers of the extreme so of course it all fits in and worked out this way or we wouldn't exist to ponder the question. We evolved from It... not the other way around. The Universe, in our case, had 10,000,000,000 years to "pave the way" to us. I choose to not put the Effect in front of the Cause.

I don't know anything about Michael Behe (I soon will) but I know that Fred Hoyle is a mixed case. He is lauded as a breakthrough scientist in the field of Nucleosytnthesis. He is also, and I think deservedly, denounced not because he initially fought "The Cosmic Egg" for which he coined what he considered a derogatory term, "The Big Bang", but decades later, in fact literally to his deathbed, denied all of the ever mounting evidence that his favorite "horse", "Steady State Universe", was deeply flawed and an obvious loser. Even scientists can be boneheaded, just like everyone else.

Incidentally, it's a bit odd that you find Hoyle important to you, since his virulent objection to Cosmic Egg was that he perceived it implied a Creator. He hated that possibility. The Pope made the same mistake but loved it. Then Georges LeMaitre put him in his place stating in effect "You should stick to scripture and leave Science to scientists" since Georges was apparently not one to leap to unwarranted conclusions not in evidence. Einstein, OTOH, was also a Steady State guy but after meeting with LeMaitre became convinced by his evidence and that of Percival Lowell he had been mistaken and that LeMaitre was right and Expanding Universe is Reality.

Edit: Oh right, Behe. I hadn't remembered his name. So does this mean you think Evolution is in error? I hesitate to ask but I think we do need the clarity so I will, does this also mean you think the Earth is ~6000 years old and not ~4.000,000,000 years old?