Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
).Is Mully a bot? Where's the 'En1a4gz yer Dck' links?Flip wrote:Haha, Mully makes the best typical forum style posts ever. Lets describe the person above you in one word and lets talk about the universe are classsssic.
Sorry, I get bored. I wanted to use my brain instead of crying about my PS3 being broke or about Kristen Dunst dancing in Japan or how slow In N Out is (Sorry about the very typical "Post about above person"...that was a slow day at work). But in all seriousness, wanted to pick your brains. The video I mention was discussion about Christian Creationism with no other views whatsoever; very one sided. I wanted to know your side. Yes, you Flip, and everyone else too. We may not get anywhere, but at least we will be thinking.Flip wrote:Haha, Mully makes the best typical forum style posts ever. Lets describe the person above you in one word and lets talk about the universe are classsssic.
Yes, I meant that... I meant anything you thought about the epoch of life as we know it.Kupek wrote:Although, did you assume Mully meant evolution when he said creation? 'Cause yours is the first actual mention of evolution.
Me neither, it's too much of an odd that it just happened.Seraphina wrote:I don't necessarily believe that a one in a gazillion chance we evolved from microbes
C.S.Lewis wrote:Ever since men were able to think, they have been wondering what this universe really is and how it came to be there. And, very roughly, three views have been held. First, there is what is called the materialist view. People who take that view think that matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us. Another view is called Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet 'evolved' from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the 'striving' or 'purposiveness' of a Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then 'a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection' is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not. then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind 'strives' or has 'purposes'? This seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children. The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you. All the thrills of religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen? The last view is the religious view. According to it, what is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know. That is to say, it is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like itself--I mean, like itself to the extent of having minds. Please do not think that one of these views was held a long time ago and that the other has gradually taken its place. Wherever there have been thinking men all views turn up. And note this too. You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such -and such a temperature and it did so-and-so.' Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science--and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes--something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind,' then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, 'Why is there a universe?' 'Why does it go on as it does?' 'Has it any meaning?' would remain just as they were?
Stream of thought, but they are all related indeed and are sensical. Here's how:There is nothing (What was there before the universe), something created life (How did the universe begin?), we are now here.Kupek wrote:"How did the Universe begin?", "What was there before the Universe began? (And is that even a sensical question?)", "How did life as we know it begin?", and "How does life change over time?" are all different questions.
I have a friend who is an astrophysicist. She is a scientist, not a philosopher. You have fundamental misapprehensions about what the big bang theory is, and what constitutes a scientific theory.Julius Seeker wrote:You have the philosophical big bang theory which implies an event of creation. The big bang theory is of kin to belief in God, it is based on assumptions about observations, and hypothesized dark energy; dark energy can never be observed in the same way God can never be observed. It is philosophy, not science.
What were you expecting? I've been arguing on the Internet for 13+ years. I know when and when not to rave like an idiot, and I'd done enough of that with these specific type of topics several years ago (and not going anywhere with it).Kupek wrote:Huh. That's a well reasoned post, Sine. I agree with pretty much all of it.
We mistake the temporal context of the facts when we read them in a book, or hear them in a conversation, to be in some short span of time because we are not interested in the gaps in-between, nor do we talk about them. However, the time scale is expansive. We are talking about BILLIONS of years. They estimate close to 2,100,000,000 years ago when the first complex cell-like organisms were formed. If humans lived in that era, they would have 70,000,000 generations between now and then. There would be 745,209 Egyptian empires (like the ENTIRE 3000 year history of Egypt) during that time. In the timeline of a solar system forming, billions of years is how they measure it.Mully wrote:Me neither, it's too much of an odd that it just happened.Seraphina wrote:I don't necessarily believe that a one in a gazillion chance we evolved from microbes
These are the gaps in our knowledge where the science ends and the philosophy and religion begin. Our scope of science is ever expanding in both space and time as our knowledge of the universe increases. Sometimes, it is met with resistance with the religious who insist that it was written or foretold that a certain piece of knowledge is right, and the new evidence of science is wrong. Eventually, the ever mounting evidence wins out, and the boundaries between science and religion expands.Mully wrote:If you talk about evolution as Sine does, you have to talk about the Big Bang, which in their theories go Hand-in-hand. Here's what I don't believe, these questions don't have to be answered, and it's not saying anyone is stupid for believing this by the way they are questioned, it's just stream of consciousness: What happened before the Big Bang? Primordial ooze? What cause the spark that cause an explosion? The Big Bang theory relies on the idea that everything is moving away from some point with the universe continually expanding from some point (the middle of the explosion) in the universe...where did "space" come from? What's beyond the current reach of the universe, something is if we are expanding? Is nothing there?
It's not how you said it, but what you said that surprised me. I thought your general world-view was more mystical.SineSwiper wrote:What were you expecting? I've been arguing on the Internet for 13+ years. I know when and when not to rave like an idiot, and I'd done enough of that with these specific type of topics several years ago (and not going anywhere with it).
Is that supposed to make you an expert in the field of astrophysics? =\Kupek wrote:I have a friend who is an astrophysicist.
In short, you're wrong.Kupek wrote:She is a scientist, not a philosopher. You have fundamental misapprehensions about what the big bang theory is, and what constitutes a scientific theory.
Likewise the folly of those who say, "Every scientific paradigm imposes some of its assumptions on how it interprets experiments," and then act like they'd proven science to occupy the same level with witchdoctoring. Every worldview imposes some of its structure on its observations, but the point is that there are worldviews which try to minimize that imposition, and worldviews which glory in it. There is no white, but there are shades of gray that are far lighter than others, and it is folly to treat them as if they were all on the same level.
If the moon has orbited the Earth these past few billion years, if you have seen it in the sky these last years, and you expect to see it in its appointed place and phase tomorrow, then that is not a certainty. And if you expect an invisible dragon to heal your daughter of cancer, that too is not a certainty. But they are rather different degrees of uncertainty - this business of expecting things to happen yet again in the same way you have previously predicted to twelve decimal places, versus expecting something to happen that violates the order previously observed. Calling them both "faith" seems a little too un-narrow.
Well, what I know and what I believe are two different things. I can separate the difference between scientific fact (or highly supported theory) and things that are conjecture or poorly supported theories. To segway to your previous point, I know the levels of uncertainties and am aware of them. (I am also a member of the Tautology Club.)Kupek wrote:It's not how you said it, but what you said that surprised me. I thought your general world-view was more mystical.
