Huge!

[ada]

sorry Al, just couldn't help takin the piss 

[asyncopated]

Alistair Humphrey, not Humpfrey -- I finally get it! Yeh!

Prometheus -- I presume you are talking about this -- there were a number of lasts points

Why wouldn't we. Why wouldn't we dare? Why do you use the word 'dare' anyway? This was just my question and the one I expected you to address.

You think that we can't assume god does not exist based on lack of evidence pro and con and based on our lack of understanding and because god is such a mighty figure? Are you afraid to offend god? Should I be?

Why would one need 'dare' to assume god doesn't exist while everyone uses the same logic in the exact same situation all the time without anyone ever having a doubt?

So one should not apply the usual logic and make an exception because we are talking about the creator of all? Or because God is such a sensitive issue? Because god is such a dominant idea?

These arguments have no valid in truth finding.

I use the word 'dare' because of the the scale of things we know and we don't. To make an analogy, lets take physics or science to be a Bach Fugue.   It sets things up for a comical bushism, like "Science is a fugue" and "Bach is God" (possibly true).  And we can discuss things in a language that we both can relate to.

We as little inhabitants the world can hear this fugue, constantly playing, we hear the four voices, and it affects everything, when we get up, the way we feel etc. etc.

We can even measure the fugue, and tell want's going on. For example, a C can go with a G or an E or an A but seldom with an F#.  So in our little world, we can make rules for the fugue, what can and what can't be done. 

One day, some clever guy comes along and says.  hey look, what you've been listening to for the last three bars is acctually the same sort of thing repeated in the four different voices!  And the whole world has a look and sees that this is true, and they go , wow... that is interesting.  He goes on to say, that the next note that we should hear in the third voice is an F.  And true enough, that's the next note they hear.  So, the inhabitants of our little universe have found out small things about what is happening around them.  Pretty important things as well.

The thing about this world, is that each inhabitant just lives for about half a bar (although they could understand the history, by looking at records).   So my question is that if you were an inhabitant on this world, what would you say? 

Would you go, we don't know everything, but we know LOTS.  We know, largely how it is constructed, and have a pretty fundametal theorem, and we can predict how it is going to play out. 

or

Would your reaction be, some higher being must have created this -- the we only see bits of the work, but it is impressive, and there must be a grand design.

I use the word dare because in my view, in all of human history, we have only progressed about 1 bar in a 10 minute Fugue.  It's slightly presumptious to make the claim -- There is no God (Bach) -- based on hearing half a bar.

I don't think we should make exceptions for God per se, but that's just my opinion.  Many important people think that we should.  Again, i think that the reasons for this are mainly social, historical and political, but hardly scientific.  So i give you this point.

Also, seems that this kind of reasoning can only argue for a Spinozian/Einsteinian god-view. That's not really a god in the conventional sense, is it?

Fortunately or unfortunately, that is correct because we are arguing in the context of science.  I am just trying to show that there is room in science for god.  Science certainly has not disproved god.  On the contrary, I have also tried to show that science may never be able to prove/disprove the existence of god.  We can start a discussion on the other aspects of god, which religion does cover, like social, moral and political aspects, but I would very much appreciate some kind of distancing from science because it is not the (primary?) domain of the subject (by definition).  So yes, you are right.  I need to argue by putting an abstract face on god, not a human one.  No JC abilites and compassion and the like.

Some comments to the utility of a belief in god, that is from a untiliatrian perspective, rather than a believer's.  There have been many great works of art and science done in his name.  In my opinion, this should be left up to the individual.  If you looking into the scientific mysteries of the universe in god's name, that's as good a reason for me as looking at the same puzzles in the hope of becoming famous.  Whatever that case,  most of the religious scientist I know are able to separate, in a satisfactory way, their conduct and lives under god, and they way they approach their science.  From my experience, a religious scientist no better or worse than a non-religious scientist.

I'm not sure if I'm really answering your questions anymore or sounding more like a politician.  .  But it is an interesting debate and has helped me to understand certain things and points of view better.  Believeing is a different thing altogether, and for a scientist, too strong a word to use in general.

Need to do some work.  See you all this evening...

[ahinton]

sorry Al, just couldn't help takin the piss 

No problem - as long as you put it back afterwards...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

The "...how dare we presume that god doesn't exist?"-thing. Why an exception is made for god because it is god.

[ahinton]

"adfa"
 

Dear ADA(!),

So sorry! Sorabji used to say (with increasing frequency as he got older) that he was the "world's worst typist". As you and others can see here, he was quite wrong about this. I've now endeavoured to edit my erroneously typed post into something better resembling comprehensibly typed English...

Best,

Alistair

[ada]

Dear pianoforumers

I admit, I have had an epiphany. Pianistimo is right. Science can't hold all the answers! It can't possibly! And I have been so pigheaded, so wrong.

I would like to announce now that I have seen the light and found my religion. Yes, I have decided to change my sinful ways and become a pastafarian. I have joined the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I entreat all sensible minded members of PF to join up too! For more information, ask Mr google or have a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[prometheus]

You insolent heretic! Surely the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the true god.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_unicorn

It must be true, otherwise, how do you explain the disappearance of so many socks?


Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves! Amen.

[pianistimo]

i can't be gone for a second around here without things falling completely apart.  be that  as it may - you all may think that relative peace and quiet happens when i am gone. 

i've been researching a few things from dna (of which i watched an entire video thanks to you guys and am really tired today) of all the things i should have remembered from highschool science textbooks - despite the new stuff that has come out...and of course, gone to my favorite 'creation/science' forum - to glean how other atheists bash christians and how they react.  one thing i noticed is that the christians wore sunglasses.  i'm not sure the purpose exactly. 

anyways - i learned a few more arguments and was going to use them - but then i thought 'no, that's plagarizm.'  i didn't come up with anything myself.  you know, the colordo delta not being big enough - just doesn't wrap around my brain in the first place.  it sort of does now, after the fact.  but, then, mountains being this way or that way - and rocks being the cause - or if it was the erosion.   

to my way of thinking - and i admit it is simple.  to be, or not to be - that is the question.  if we are here...how come we are here?  if we be - we are.  if God made us with brains to study things - then obviously he would want us to come up with a few conclusions that were correct.  thus, science is good for that.  but, what if a lot of theories are simply that.  theories.  until proven right or wrong.  for instance - climate change was once thought to happen over millenia.  now, it is a known fact (starting with 80's-90's) that climate change can happen very rapidly.  and, also, way back when - comets and ice packed material could very well add a significant amount of rainfall - not to mention 'pockets' in the oceans floor (which i think i read about in national geographic) allowing water from the core of the earth into the oceans. 

[prometheus]

So you are repeating arguments you don't understand, that explains a lot. Then when someone point out how they are wrong it will have no effect because you don't know what is the point behind all of it. You can't debate that way.

[pianowolfi]

Dear pianoforumers

I admit, I have had an epiphany. Pianistimo is right. Science can't hold all the answers! It can't possibly! And I have been so pigheaded, so wrong.

I would like to announce now that I have seen the light and found my religion. Yes, I have decided to change my sinful ways and become a pastafarian. I have joined the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I entreat all sensible minded members of PF to join up too! For more information, ask Mr google or have a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Praise the pasta!!!! Finally ! Ada is saved! Pizza frutti di mare, that was hard work.

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

i did think of global warming as it seems to be happening right here in november -which kind of reminded me.  it's going to be 70 degrees tommorrow.  explain that one!  in novemeber in pennsylvania.  usually we have snow by thanksgiving - which still could happen - but might be unlikely.  probably rain this year?  who knows.  i certainly don't claim to know everything. 

on a separate note - but sorta similar- the wildfires in california.  a sad result, also of rapid climate change.

dear ada,

just how long this 'conversion' will stick is probably dependent upon how much vegemite and australian wine you drink lasts.  i think people are inclined to be happiest when the fridge is full.  if, as pianolist says, the entire population of china came knocking on the door for water - it might be an interesting challenge to common belief that tibet will hold the key to the problem.  although, i kinda want to take that train ride now.

[prometheus]

You know I have been arguing for more awareness concerning climate change. What's your point?

[pianistimo]

what's yours? 

[prometheus]

That you are clearly addressing me without having a point while ignoring the points I make.

For example, about your 'Noahian evolution' doing things that Darwinistic evolution claims cannot be done.

[ahinton]

I admit, I have had an epiphany.

At home, or did you have to go into hospital to have that done? I hope it didn't hurt too much.

Pianistimo is right. Science can't hold all the answers! It can't possibly!

No, it can't - but it does try to get more of them as time passes.

And I have been so pigheaded, so wrong.

I didn't say so - nor, for that matter, did "pianistimo", as far as I can recall...

I would like to announce now that I have seen the light

Ws it an environmentally-friendly low-energy one?

and found my religion.

I'm pretty broadminded, but there are some things I just can't believe!

Yes, I have decided to change my sinful ways

Tomorrow is another day.

and become a pastafarian.

Is it possible to be one of those AND be an Australian?

The Lord is mighty (which is OK for those that believe, as long He's not vege-mighty, I guess...)

Best,

Alistair

[debussy symbolism]

This was a good debate, and as usual, the contradictors ignoring the general consensus.

[pianowelsh]

No it wasnt. It was irreligious and pointless. Noones views were truely valued, noones points were properly addressed and the topic was scarcely dipped into. I'd fail you all in debating class!!

[donjuan]

No it wasnt. It was irreligious and pointless. Noones views were truely valued, noones points were properly addressed and the topic was scarcely dipped into. I'd fail you all in debating class!!

so you're a real masterdebater huh?

[debussy symbolism]

I don't agree with the though of this debate being bad, simply because it wasn't. Pianistimo got genuinly disproven, even though she hasn't realized that and kept on putting forward her point despite the counterarguments. That is a good debate.

[pianistimo]

where did i get genuinely disproven.  noone can see beyond the stars.  we can see glimpses of what we believe to be the end of space - but if we haven't travelled there - there is probably more of it.  how huge is that?!  can science tell us everything?  i'm not against science.  i don't know why the controversy because i certainly never started science vs. religion.  i don't think they are at odds.

[debussy symbolism]

You are technically correct, we cannot argue religion and science "per se," but we can argue the points religion presents as being incorrect, given the reasons of science. I think that that is a genuine debate.

[pianistimo]

ok.  let's start with the THEORY of evolution.

and, possibly also, the idea that if there was no bible - what we'd have here.  if there was no bible and no God - we'd not have the faintest idea what in the world we are doing here.    and, what the 'rules' of the game are.

[prometheus]

Creationism and a god of intervention are very much at odds with reality and thus the glimpse science gives of it.

The glibberish of Pianistimo when she dares to enter the arena of science is even more at odds with it.

[pianistimo]

are you saying that only scientists can look at the stars.  what do they see - in truth - more than i do?  i think they are just as much in awe.  did you know that some scientists are christian.  explain that!  i've never claimed to have scientific depth - as i am a pianist.  why do you want to demean my contributions simply because i'm not scientific enough.  i don't argue your facts when you get them right.  if i did - then, i would not be thinking rationally.  but, when i speak of things that you do not know about - it is said to be unreal.  can you prove God is unreal?  no.  so we're even.  btw, i'm sure people who study astronomy and physics have huge contributions to make each day (as our knowledge is increasing at such a fast rate).  and, i'm fairly in awe of what people do find out about space.  i've never been one to say 'no space exploration' - but rather - let's spend enough to keep the planet fed - as well.

it used to be that some religions wanted complete power over 'knowledge.'  now, science does.  science is made into a religion by some who use it as a 'proof' against God.  and yet, from the other side - there are very FEW christians nowdays who do not believe what science has proven.  but, science is only discovering what God created.  it is not making anything 'come to life.'  only God is a life giver.

[prometheus]

When I look at the stars I am more in awe than you are. When an leading astrologist looks at the stars she or he is even more in awe than me.

Why scientists can be christians? Well, because they were brainwashed by their parents, probably. How they can conbine it with scientific work? It takes a lot of segmenting and double think.

You don't think rationally and you do challenge facts. You even challenged the meaning of darwinistic evolution.

Proving god is 'unreal' is meaningless. Just like proving fairies are 'unreal' are meaningless.

There is nothing even about it. You need to abandon reason to be a theist.

[Derek]

By making such a statement (assuming God doesn't exist...hey where did that post go...?) you are denying that millions of individuals do in fact experience the supernatural. You are essentially dismissing these people as having a big imagination, or something like that. At least have the humility to admit that your perception of reality might not be the be all and end all of perception of reality. So basically I am saying, God IS a part of our reality, just not all people experience it or are open to it.

[pianistimo]

if God is supreme in knowledge, why would i abandon reason to be a theist.  it doesn't make sense.  btw, i just read derek's comments and believe that it does boil down to experiencing God.  sometimes you have to wait and be patient for God to show Himself in your life - if you do not see Him in creation. 

but, i defer to anyone else on the forum who wants to talk science with you - and i concur that you probably DO see more in the stars than i do.  what i meant - is that we can both appreciate the viewing and even if we see something different (and my view is more elementary) it is like artwork.  everyone gets something from it.

btw, did you mean astronomer or astrologer on that last part?  it is curious, because the 'wise men' of Jesus time were babylonian astronomers that saw a 'sign' in the sky that signified something unusual and they combined their scientific knowledge with a mystery knowledge to locate Jesus.  perhaps it was showing that all the sciences (including an understanding of the stars and constellations -which do not appear random at all - were put there for a purpose for telling times, seasons, and signs!) are under God.

on the other hand, if God required everyone who was saved to be a scientist - i'd be really feeling bad.  but, the fact that Christ died for me while i am a sinner is a bigger miracle to me than finding out the most interesting fact in science.  sin and evil are something that science cannot resolve.  take darfur - with all the money spent on science - why can we not  stop this kind of genocide?  and, of course, iraq - in which people on both sides have sufferred without a really good reason.  i wish we could just take out the really evil people and leave innocent civilians alone.

imo, from reading the bible, the reason 'religion' is such a hot button in the middle east - is that there is so much biblical history there (issac/jews and christians and ishmael/arabs) and it is all following the plan in the bible for armageddon.  it says 'when jerusalem is surrounded by armies.'  and many places say 'the nations' - so we know a lot of nations will be gathering right where God prophecied they would.  if you don't believe in God for any other reason than His prophecies always come true- that would be a good enough reason.

i believe that God does not play favorites - even though his chosen son and israel have been used to be a sort of 'role model.'  they certainly would still have to follow his lead in that 'those that wish to be first will be last...'  and, his example of coming to serve us.  and, in many places telling the disciples to be patient and longsufferring and let the children (those who do not understand God) to eat first.  it's never a selfish way.

[prometheus]

By making such a statement (assuming God doesn't exist...hey where did that post go...?) you are denying that millions of individuals do in fact experience the supernatural.

Of course. Because one can only say that they experience something. If the supernatural really exists why is there no proof? If these people really experience more than having a big imagination, which we know humans have and which may be considered a compliment, why don't they collect their Nobel prize?

At least have the humility to admit that your perception of reality might not be the be all and end all of perception of reality.

My perception is irrelevant. I must conclude that everything those people claim is outside reality.

Also, I have seen many many christians claim you can only be a creation as long as you accept that religion isn't reasonable. If you limit yourself to reason you can't be a theist.

So basically I am saying, God IS a part of our reality,

But no one has ever been able to provide any evidence to support this. Are you saying you have?

just not all people experience it or are open to it.

When it comes to facts, evidence and science it doesn't matter if you are open to it or not.

Thing about it. Should I just imagine facts so I am able not to realise there are a lot of people that have delusions about the nature of reality because they want to see reality the way they have been thaught instead of the way reality presents itself to us?

[pianistimo]

if everything was up to 'chance,' there would be no life on earth.  it is too precise.

[prometheus]

Yes, exactly right.

[thalbergmad]

it is curious, because the 'wise men' of Jesus time were babylonian astronomers that saw a 'sign' in the sky that signified something unusual and they combined their scientific knowledge with a mystery knowledge to locate Jesus. 

It is thought they saw a rare alignment of the planets.

I once saw Haleys Comet, but it was not accompanied by the birth of the Messiah.

Thal

[pianistimo]

now look what you've gone and done.  you don't suddenly agree in the middle of a debate.  did i just win or something? 

awfully hard to follow a comet.  you'd have to be travelling pretty fast.  i think by the time the wise men reached Jesus, he was around 2 years old.  i saw an article on this somewheres.  not sure if anyone's interested. 

[prometheus]

No, you stated something obvious.

What it seems to show is that you think that there are some people that believe all life on earth occured because of chance. I wonder, which kind of people did you have in mind?

[thalbergmad]

Phew, thank God for that.

If you two start agreeing with each other, i would need therapy.

Thal

[pianistimo]

square one again ,ehh.  ok.  we have a big bang.  suddenly everything was in working order.  (i call that creation - the Word said it.  it was).

ok.  regarding matt. 2: 7-11 - it is referred to as 'the star.'  what i think is interesting is that the magi went to Herod and asked (vs. 2) 'where is He who has been born king of the jews?  for we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.' 

they were called magi (prefix of magician) - and yet - they knew that this phenomenon was God's.  they all paid homeage to him.  this article makes some explaination:

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/star-of-bethlehem

[thalbergmad]

ok.  regarding matt. 2: 7-11 - it is referred to as 'the star.'  what i think is interesting is that the magi went to Herod and asked (vs. 2) 'where is He who has been born king of the jews?  for we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.' 

Sorry, I forgot that if it is the bible then it must be true and of course God creates planetary alignments.

Anway, there was a rare planetary alignment and a huge supernova that both happened around the time of the birth of Jesus. Cannot remember all the details as it was a long time ago i read about it. One happened in 7BC and the other 4BC.

But, if the Bible says it was a star, then it must be a star.

How dare i think otherwise.

Thal

[pianistimo]

something else to add to the mix - i believe our current sun and moon are YOUNG.  i'd like to see proof that they are older than 6,000 (plus or minus a few years).  if the bible is true - they would be exactly the age that the bible claims current man has been in existence.  i do not doubt the earth is older (although covered by water by a previous ice-age/flood).  God's spirit was said to be 'hovering over the waters' in genesis.  if the 'heavens and the earth' were created before 6,000 years - i have no problem - but our current galaxy with it's stars and sun and moon is YOUNG.  the sun would have burned up by now if it was older than the prescribed time for this type of object to be in existence.  also, the moon has survived numerous asteroid contact.  if it were millions of years - it would have been smitherined.  that is my comman man/woman analysis.

[pianistimo]

dear thalbergmad,

that is very interesting...and i don't think that i have the last word on the subject.  a star that moved to where Christ was located - couldn't have been following a 'normal' course of stars though - and for all these to line up and then move to another location and hover would indeed be a miraculous sight.  it's too much for me to speculate - not being an astronomer - but i believe the article i quoted makes a point for it being a 'supernatural' star and not a regular occurance every 1000 years or whatever.

'...they went on their way; and lo, the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them, until it came and stood over where the Child was....'

[thalbergmad]

something else to add to the mix - i believe our current sun and moon are YOUNG.  i'd like to see proof that they are older than 6,000 (plus or minus a few years).  if the bible is true - they would be exactly the age that the bible claims current man has been in existence.  i do not doubt the earth is older (although covered by water by a previous ice-age/flood).  God's spirit was said to be 'hovering over the waters' in genesis.  if the 'heavens and the earth' were created before 6,000 years - i have no problem - but our current galaxy with it's stars and sun and moon is YOUNG.  the sun would have burned up by now if it was older than the prescribed time for this type of object to be in existence.  also, the moon has survived numerous asteroid contact.  if it were millions of years - it would have been smitherined.  that is my comman man/woman analysis.

You have finally lost it, I just can't even bring myself to answer this rubbish.

Prometheus will do a much better job.

Thal

[pianistimo]

why do scientists say it is fairly miraculous that the EARTH has survived this long without a major asteroid hitting it?

[thalbergmad]

I have changed my mind.

Proof to you would be nothing and you would not accept it if it was not included in your little 2,000 year old book of fables.

Thal

[pianistimo]

you are opting out because you cannot answer anyways.  you don't know.  why don't you just say it?  of course, that is what you want me to say.  but, i know - because i have experienced a connection with God through prayer and baptism and reading His word - and also in my personal life (experiences).  God IS truth.  So what He says must be true.  He authored it.

[thalbergmad]

why do scientists say it is fairly miraculous that the EARTH has survived this long without a major asteroid hitting it?

The Earth has been hit by many asteroids and has survived. The inhabitants of Earth have not always faired better.

The Earth has probably been hit by as many asteroids as the moon, but due to erosion, they are not immediately visible. Asteroid  hits are very infrequent (thankfully) and the reason you can see so many on the Moon is that it is MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.

Why are you interested in what Scientists say??

Thal

[pianistimo]

major (biggie) asteroid.  one that would knock it out of orbit and split it in half. 

btw - i bring you peace (the kind that bart simpson saw last night - that turned out to be radioactivity around mr. burns)    did you know i live near a nuclear power plant now?  just thought you might want to know.  in case it is affecting me.

[prometheus]

I can't prove that God didn't create the universe like it is 6000 years ago.

Just as you can't prove God created the universe just a few seconds ago.


But if you look at the universe and try to understand its mechanisms then saying god created if 6000 years ago makes no sense.

For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation, it was used to give us the most accurate estimaes of the age of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe
Also, the elements in our universe. You can only get heavy elements through fusion of hydrogen. And you can only get elements heavier than iron through supernovae. And for them to happen and then a new solar system to form you need a lot of million years.

We now think the universe is aged 13.7 billion years with an error margin of ±200 million years.

Saying the universe was created looking 13.7 billion years old 600 years ago is the same as saying it was created looking 13.7 billion years a few seconds ago.

[pianistimo]

why, then, do scientist say that the sun has a definate 'life' just like the elements - and when they study the possible temperature at the core of the sun - it would prove that it was much younger.  forget why?  yes.  i am bad to argue with about these things.  ok.  i'm going to eat something.  you're all stressing me out.

as i see it...science is like this.  you're doing laundry.  you pick up a pair of dirty pants and check the pockets  - you find some loose change.  now, all along you've been collecting this change in a jar - but occasionally people dip into the jar.  usually there is no more than .75 cents - occasionally .90 - but rarely more than .15 in your son's pants.  ok.  hypothetically we could come up with about a zillion renditions of how many loads of pants one has done from the change jar.  would you agree with me on exactly one?  but, in effect - i am the only one who is willing to base my answer on minutia seconds  instead of millions of years (hours).  why?  because i am positive that the bible tells us more about the beginning of time than any other historical document and any scientific research.  now, i must go to 'googling' to find out why the sun and moon are so young (again).  i saw this article once - and i forgot the reasons.

[thalbergmad]

you're all stressing me out.

Have you any idea what you are doing to us.

Our Sun is young compared to some others and yes it will eventually use up its hydrogen fuel and die. But young in astronomical terms is different to how we would normally use the word young.

To propose that the sun is 6,000 years old is by far the most moronic thing i have ever read on the internet.

Thal

[pianistimo]

why?  sun's are burning out right and left in the universe.

[thalbergmad]

why?  sun's are burning out right and left in the universe.

They are, but after a long and happy life.

[thalbergmad]

i am positive that the bible tells us more about the beginning of time than any other historical document and any scientific research. 

And what historical documents have you studied and what scientific research have you studied??

Please answer.

Thal