Doing God's work??

[Pendragon 1]

Quote

what about the decay constant?

or am I mixing up my science? (a distinct possibility)

Atomic decay follows a logarithmic curve, because the rate of decay (e.g. you're measuring the rate at which alpha particles are emitted) is proportional to the amount of material (left).

As the atom decays, it changes into something else (won't get too bogged down here). This gives rise to the concept of a half life: the constant time it takes for half of the material (at any given point) to decay...

Edit: The random bit comes in because it is impossible to tell which of the particles will decay, only that half of them will in this given time.

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[billvon 2,400]

>but that does make it less than random... if it were completely
> random, then *poof* the entire sample could be gone in an instant,
> or it could stay forever, and that isn't what happens...

That's an important observation, because that _can_ happen. However, the larger the number of particles involved, the less chance of it actually happening. There are similar processes going on all around us. Take air. Air molecules (mainly nitrogen) are in constant random motion; their random bouncing off us is what we interpret as air pressure. There is a small but measurable chance that all the nitrogen molecules on your left side could hit you just as all the molecules on your right side were leaving, and you'd be knocked off your feet pretty violently. But the law of averages says that that essentially never happens.

Or take a casino. Could everyone win at once and wipe the casino out? Sure. But the law of averages says that if your games give players a 95% return, over a long enough time, your return will be 5%. This return is so reliable that businessmen make lots of money off casinos; it's a very reliable source of money, even if it is based on random processes.

Same thing with isotopes. Sure, they could all decay at exactly the same time. But 99.999% of the time they don't.

[pajarito 0]

Something had to make it exist in the first place.

[The111 0]

Quote

Air molecules (mainly nitrogen) are in constant random motion; their random bouncing off us is what we interpret as air pressure.

Back to my little heads/tails coin example.

By the same logic, couldn't you say the motion of air molecules is not random either? Sure, it's incredibly more complex than a flipping coin, but look at one molecule - it is being caused to move along its "random" path by all of the other molecules running into it. What set them into motion? Something. What set that something into motion? Something else. Etc.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[vonSanta 0]

Quote

an example:

Pick anything scientific. Anything at all.

Start asking why it works.

Take, for example, a rube-goldberg machine... you know, one of those wacky ones that one action causes a million different things.

you can ask, starting from the end and working your way back...

why does the marble fall into the bucket?
because the boot kicked the marble.
why did the boot kick the marble?
because the roller skate hit the boot.
why did the rollerskate hit the boot?
because the dominos hit the roller skate.
why did the dominos hit the roller skate?
because the person who created the rube-goldberg machine hit the domino.

no matter where you start, you get back to a point where SOMEONE had to do SOMETHING to put a series of events into motion.

Alright, I find this disussion interesting and thought provoking. I I am being too blunt or say something in an offensive manner, it's not my intent. It's just the way I discuss, so let me know if that's the case and I'll try to be more diplomatic.

There's a leap of logic, or of faith here. You go from showing causality to a statement of faith - "therefore, Goddidit". There is an assumption that the root cause, if there *is* such a thing (we do not know), *must* be a supernatural being or entity. This is a possibility, but only one amongst several.

Occams Razor says "go with the simplest explanation".

The simplest explanation is not "someone did something". First of all, that puts you into the problem of infinite regression - who or what created that someone? You may argue "it created itself", but that would be a copout - you would not apply the same principles and thinking on this entity as used in the rest of your argument - or on your critique of mine.

Furthermore, *if* you choose to use the "it created itself" argument, I can argue "but why can the universe not have created itself, if this thing can?"

You'll have a hard time claiming that my assertion is absurd, considering you'd just have made a very similar one yourself - with the added absurdity that you've involved something supernatural.

And this is where we use Occam's razor. My assertion fits the "facts" (which there basically are none, other than our very limited understanding of things so far). Furthermore, it's simpler than the supernatural deity one. The latter gets cut away.

We'll either have to admit that causality isn't all encasing (and perhaps quantum theory has something to offer here, it is possible) *or* that we have a case of everlasting, ever-having-existed infinite regression. A sort of recursive call without a stop case. There might be other possibilities I haven't thought of as I write this.

At any rate, any honest debater would have to admit that "Godidit" is not the only alternative out there - it is one many choose to have faith in, but faith does not add credence to a claim - not for those who are faithless, at least.

This is a fun discussion.

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[vonSanta 0]

Quote

Dude, did I imply anywhere that I believe "goddidit"? I did state that to some (myself included), there are signs that seem to point to intelligent design in the world around me. But there are also signs that point to other possibilities.


Hm, sorry for placing words in your mouth. I read it like that and made an extrapolation, which proved to be erroneous. My apologies.

***
Your statement about the honesty of an "I don't know approach"... you have no idea how many times I have said those EXACT WORDS! I thought I already put it in this thread but I guess I didn't, though I did PM it to someone today. I've never heard anyone else say it the same way, but you used literally almost the exact same words I always use. The whole thing started years ago when one of those "street preachers" on my college campus was yelling at everyone, as I walked by he shouted at me and told me I needed to be more humble. I asked him if he realized the irony of his statement. He's sitting here claiming to know the answers to all the philosophical questions that have plagued man since the beginning of time. Wouldn't it be more humble and *honest* to admit that you can't know? Since then that's the stance I've taken. I think it is possible and maybe even probable there is a "god", and it might be nice, but the most honest thing I can say is "I don't know".

Great reply. We're basically in the same boat then.
To many this isn't a big thing, they shrug and go "oh well". For me though, I cannot shake these ideas and concepts, and it really annoys me that all I can say is "dunno". Of course thousands of great minds have tried to answer the same question before me, and come up short, so I don't expect I'll have the one revelation that'll mean we all get free rides to alt for the rest of our (everlasting) lives

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Something had to make it exist in the first place.

Cool, find out what it was.

Hmmm, wonder where it came from.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

*if* you choose to use the "it created itself" argument, I can argue "but why can the universe not have created itself, if this thing can?"

If the universe somehow just created itself, how do account for the apparent intelligent design theory?

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

If the universe somehow just created itself, how do account for the apparent intelligent design theory?

This is the Prime Mover theory. You are in a room (your life experience) and there is a row of dominos leading in one door and out the other. Suddenly, the dominos start falling. Two explanations - one, an entity pushed the first one. Two, the line of dominos is infinitely long and has always been falling.

Peoples brains can't comprehend infinity, so they pick a starting point.

If you see a computer on the ground, you say "It's didn't just appear." Everyone agrees "It is too complex, it must have been created." Peoples brains created it. Who created peoples brains? "Brains are too complex, God must have created them." God is infinitely complex. "Who created God?"

That's the point. You can't complexity to prove the existence of a prime mover because someone had to create that.

Infinity is a tough concept.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

Infinity is a tough concept.

...And an expensive car.

[pajarito 0]

[bold]Argument from Design:[/bold]

- All designs imply a designer.
- There is great design in the universe.
- Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.

* Anytime we see a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer. Watches imply watchmakers; buildings imply architects; paintings imply artists, etc.

* Also, the greater the design, the greater the designer.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.

But then you still have to step up another level, the design of the entity powerful enough to concieve and execute the design of the universe requires another designer OF the designer, any way you cut it you end up with a list of designs stretching to infinity, which brings us back to the original, most perplexing question, where the F*** did everything come from?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quoted again from "When Skeptics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks.
I like their explanations.


If everything needs a cause, then what caused God?

Everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didn't have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, we would begin an infinite regress of causes that would never answer the question. As it is, we can't ask, "Who caused God?" because God is the first cause. You can't go back any farther than the first.


If God created all things, then how did he create himself?

Again, only finite, contingent beings need causes. Necessary beings don't. We never said that God is a self-caused being. That would be impossible. There are only three possible kinds of being: self-caused, caused by another, and uncaused. Which are we? Self-caused is impossible with respect to existence; we can't bring ourselves into existence. Uncaused would mean that we are necessary, eternal, infinite beings, which we are not; so we must be caused by another. If we are caused by another, what kind of being is He? Again, self-caused is impossible; if He were caused by another, that leads to an infinite regress; so He must be uncaused.


No statements about existence are necessary.

Some critics have attempted an ontological disproof of God by saying that we just can't talk about God in terms of necessary truths. However, the statement itself appears to be a necessary statement about God saying that such statements can't be made. Now either it is a necessarily true statement or it is not. If it is, then the act of asserting it proves it to be false, for it says that such statements are impossible. If it is not necessarily true, then some necessary statements are possible and the objection vanishes. Let's just be fair: if they can make negative statements about existence (God does not exist), then why can't we make positive ones?

[vonSanta 0]

I'll offer some non-canned responses.

Quote

Everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didn't have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary.

Circular Argument, also known as Begging The Question. One of the things we're trying to ascertain is whether there is a God and what properties this entity would have. There have been no proof towards his being or necessity so far. Occam's Razor has cut 'im off.

Quote

God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, we would begin an infinite regress of causes that would never answer the question. As it is, we can't ask, "Who caused God?" because God is the first cause. You can't go back any farther than the first.

Doesn't answer the question. I mentioned the problem of infinite regression. THe author acknowledges this and, predictably, says god created itself or is uncaused. If God can cause itself/is not caused, why can't the universe have the same properties? Gimme an answer on that one if possible.

After all, we know next to nothing about the workings of the universe. We know a little of what takes place on some rock out there, but to claim what's possible and impossible on the grander scale would be to extrapolate a bit too much. Occam's razor applies again.


If God created all things, then how did he create himself?

Quote

Again, only finite, contingent beings need causes. Necessary beings don't. We never said that God is a self-caused being. That would be impossible. There are only three possible kinds of being: self-caused, caused by another, and uncaused. Which are we? Self-caused is impossible with respect to existence; we can't bring ourselves into existence. Uncaused would mean that we are necessary, eternal, infinite beings, which we are not; so we must be caused by another. If we are caused by another, what kind of being is He? Again, self-caused is impossible; if He were caused by another, that leads to an infinite regress; so He must be uncaused.

Ah, this is better. Uncaused, though, is just a change in semantics - an attempts to use the meaning of words to get away from the problem of infinite regression. My counterclaim, which is less complex (and thus Occam's Razor favour is) is that the universe is uncaused - it simply is.

There's no need for a god so far. In fact, the no-god answer is just as believable and supported as the god one, with the added bonus of less complexity, and higher likelihood.


No statements about existence are necessary.

***
Some critics have attempted an ontological disproof of God by saying that we just can't talk about God in terms of necessary truths. However, the statement itself appears to be a necessary statement about God saying that such statements can't be made. Now either it is a necessarily true statement or it is not. If it is, then the act of asserting it proves it to be false, for it says that such statements are impossible. If it is not necessarily true, then some necessary statements are possible and the objection vanishes. Let's just be fair: if they can make negative statements about existence (God does not exist), then why can't we make positive ones?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I'll offer some non-canned responses.

I’m sorry you don’t like my “canned” responses. I’ll be the first to admit that there are more learned people than I and who know much more in reference to this topic. I’m just putting forth some examples from others. Just because it came from a book and was written by someone else doesn’t make it invalid. I cited my post and made it quite clear that I didn’t author it.

Quote

Circular Argument, also known as Begging The Question. One of the things we're trying to ascertain is whether there is a God and what properties this entity would have. There have been no proof towards his being or necessity so far. Occam's Razor has cut 'im off.

I personally believe that the proof for the existence of God is all around us and THAT, at least, has been made known to everyone (whether they chose to acknowledge it or not) but there is also the Bible. I know that you would have to first believe that it is accurate and all that before you would accept it as proof. However, if you did, you’d know that Jesus claimed the existence of God, claimed that the Bible is the written word of God, and validated his statements by his sinless life, teachings, prophesies, miracles, death and resurrection. Therefore, there is, AT LEAST, a basis for the belief in a God.

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites; ‘I am’ has sent me to you. Exodus 3:14

God “just is.” You don’t have to understand it. You just need to know it.

Quote

Doesn't answer the question. I mentioned the problem of infinite regression. THe author acknowledges this and, predictably, says god created itself or is uncaused. If God can cause itself/is not caused, why can't the universe have the same properties? Gimme an answer on that one if possible.

After all, we know next to nothing about the workings of the universe. We know a little of what takes place on some rock out there, but to claim what's possible and impossible on the grander scale would be to extrapolate a bit too much. Occam's razor applies again.

I would say the universe couldn’t have the same properties of God (Just be in existence) because of intelligent design. I just can’t accept the fact that something without a thought process of some kind could have made the things in the universe develop like they have. The complexities are just too great for me to rationally think that it “just happened.”

Quote

Ah, this is better. Uncaused, though, is just a change in semantics - an attempts to use the meaning of words to get away from the problem of infinite regression. My counterclaim, which is less complex (and thus Occam's Razor favour is) is that the universe is uncaused - it simply is.

There's no need for a god so far. In fact, the no-god answer is just as believable and supported as the god one, with the added bonus of less complexity, and higher likelihood.

I like your choice of words when you add “less complexity.” I think God as a theory wins over the universe “just is” theory exactly because of its complexity and the chances that it would “just happen” the way it did.

Quote

Saying "we do not know" is not making astatement of belief either way. Arguing that lack of faith is belief is like arguing bald is a hair colour.

So, we're back at square one.

I completely disagree. If you say “we do not know” you “believe” that you don’t know. Sort of like, if you chose not to decide, you’ve still made a choice (in your belief). Believing that something is not so is also very much a belief. You’re taking a stand either way.

I'd say that to believe that this all just happened by chance is a HUGE leap of faith.

[vonSanta 0]

Quote

I’m sorry you don’t like my “canned” responses. I’ll be the first to admit that there are more learned people than I and who know much more in reference to this topic. I’m just putting forth some examples from others. Just because it came from a book and was written by someone else doesn’t make it invalid. I cited my post and made it quite clear that I didn’t author it.

Ah, it was more of a tongue in cheek comment than anythign else. Should have added one of these: .

Books are good. The title of your choice suggested a rather one sided source though, which in my mind warranted a cheeky response .

Quote

I personally believe that the proof for the existence of God is all around us and THAT, at least, has been made known to everyone (whether they chose to acknowledge it or not) but there is also the Bible. I know that you would have to first believe that it is accurate and all that before you would accept it as proof. However, if you did, you’d know that Jesus claimed the existence of God, claimed that the Bible is the written word of God, and validated his statements by his sinless life, teachings, prophesies, miracles, death and resurrection. Therefore, there is, AT LEAST, a basis for the belief in a God.

The basis being personal faith. Wish I had yours, but I don't. I'm an odd combination of curiosity and skepticism, coming from a secular science oriented family (father, sis docs, brothers 1 mathematician, 1 computer scientist), so my faith abilities aren't that great and I tend to see everything in likelihoods, grounded in current scientific theories (which may very well be wrong).

Where you see the presence of God, I see mother nature. It's truly mindboggling and fascinating, but there's no need for a god for complexity or "order" to arise. Pepples on a beach are ordered, with the lightest ones being on top, and they're ordered by simple wave action. How this apply to the "first cause" or the "uncaused cause" I don't know. Hope *you* are right though, but none of us know what's true.

Quote

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites; ‘I am’ has sent me to you. Exodus 3:14

Hm yes, but this is circular in nature, this argument. God says the Bible is His words. The Bible says God exists.Therefore he does, because the Bible is His words. QED.

Quote

God “just is.” You don’t have to understand it. You just need to know it.

I need to know it on a non faith basis. There are manygods to choose between, and I ain't making my choice based on cultural bias (i.e what religion I was born into). Sometimes it sucks to be me. Heh.

Quote

I would say the universe couldn’t have the same properties of God (Just be in existence) because of intelligent design. I just can’t accept the fact that something without a thought process of some kind could have made the things in the universe develop like they have. The complexities are just too great for me to rationally think that it “just happened.”

Math and nuclear physics is beyond my grasp of understanding. It works though.

How does adding a God decrease the complexity of the situation? One adds an infinite being that's impossible to exlain or understand, and then one claims this entity is uncaused. The complexity of this alone is greater than the complexity of a self caused eternal universe. Or just a universe for that matter. Add a god -> things get more complicated, not less

Quote

I like your choice of words when you add “less complexity.” I think God as a theory wins over the universe “just is” theory exactly because of its complexity and the chances that it would “just happen” the way it did.

Again, I'm sorry but I have to disagree (at least on a logical level, not so much on an emotional one). See above. .

Quote

I completely disagree. If you say “we do not know” you “believe” that you don’t know. Sort of like, if you chose not to decide, you’ve still made a choice (in your belief). Believing that something is not so is also very much a belief. You’re taking a stand either way.

My comment is not grounded in faith based belief. It's evidence based, or at least rationally based. The facts: we do not know what caused the universe. Some assert it was a god - and use faith as "proof". The 'believe' this is how it is. Others believe it is Mother Nature, and we just don't understand the mechanisms yet. This is also a statement of faith.

I settle for "we don't know", which is what the evidence suggests. We have a pretty good picture of how life evolved on earth (a whole other debate), and there's lots of evidence there. What do we have for the cause of the universe? Some theories supported by math and scant empirical evidence, and the God did it one. The facts we *do* have is that the universe exists (and let's not go into solipsism, I *really* hate solipsism). Has it always existed? Did it come into existence? If the latter, how?

Facts are it exists, and we don't have much of a clue as to why or how it happened. You have faith that it was a divine entity, and I envy you in that regard. I can only go as far as current understanding leads me and an unable to make that last leap of faith.

Quote

I'd say that to believe that this all just happened by chance is a HUGE leap of faith.

It's a possibility, just as the god one is. I just dunno which is correct. Possibilities, choices. Theories, facts, faith, all intermixed. The philosophical aspects of life are so daunting and overwhelming that it ain't odd I skydive

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[Zenister 0]

Quote

and here, you get into philosophy.

is the organization of particles in the manner described a random occurrence, did it just happen that way because that's the way it happens,

or

was the organization of particles masterminded by a being with order on its agenda?

and next assuming that it was ordered by a higher consciousness why does that immediately imply (to many) that consciousness calls itself Yahweh? There are an infinite number of other choices as well. Including those who have no interest in humanity or its worship whatsoever.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.