mæŋksmən Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 So basically your come back is , everything that exists is just a happy accident of atoms just randomly coming together. i will dig up the links to the work thats been done on dark matter, the work needs peer reviewed, but its a slam dunk. http://www.universetoday.com/73516/disturbance-in-the-force-a-spatially-varying-fine-structure-constant/ They conclude the results may, “suggest a violation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle, and could infer a very large or in finite universe, within which our `local’ Hubble volume represents a tiny fraction, with correspondingly small variations in the physical constants.” This would mean that, outside of our portion of the universe, the physical laws may not be suitable for life making our little corner of the universe a sort of oasis. This could help solve the supposed “fine-tuning” problem without relying on explanations such as multiple universes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 22, 2010 Author Share Posted September 22, 2010 My 'come-back' is that there appears to be no reason to assume that an intelligence created the universe on the basis of what is observed and known. This would mean that, outside of our portion of the universe, the physical laws may not be suitable for life making our little corner of the universe a sort of oasis. This could help solve the supposed “fine-tuning” problem without relying on explanations such as multiple universes. But what does this have to do with the issue of you thinking there is a point to the universe and our universe being 'strange' in beginning its existence as it did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mæŋksmən Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Because unlike you i dont think the atoms formed what they formed without some form of creation. I think our self awareness as individuals is no accident either. And the point of the link, just shows the more they learn, the more questions need answered, and the greater the possibilies, multi-dimensional space for instance, being what dark matter consists of, a bigbang every second, filling the dark matter and expanding our dimension out into the void, the possibilities are endless, you do re-alise atoms vibrating outside of our constant open up all kinds of possibilities, the results open up a distinct possibility of m/dimensions. in a nutshell, it means that apart from our own little corner of space, our universe could not exist any where else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Irrational to whome you, yet you offer no more of an alternative than it is all here, cos it just is. Maybe its just our chrysalis stage or equivalent, maybe just another incarnation to experience, the possibilities are endless, one thing is for sure, our awareness makes us unique in all of creation so far, there will be a reason for that. You cannot see or touch what makes you YOU, we are all individuals, how does chemistry or randomness account for that. LDV is being agnostic - he's questioning what basis you have for filling the gaps in our knowledge with made up "maybe" stories - and questinoing whether that is rational. If you have total ignorance you can fill the gap with anything you like - primal chaos, meddling sprites, the arch angel Gabriel and the choir Emanuelle, Thor, etc etc. All you are really left with is a gut feel guess - you seem to be saying you think there is some intelligent purpose for the world or else why would we be intelligent. Daniel Dennett goes to the core of this with his talk on . Intelligence is not needed to create intelligence - natural selection unites purposeless causation with the world of meaning. This gets back to the Thread on Hawkings' latest book and Laplace - mundane processes may be a complete hypothesis - fully explaining the univerese - it may be intellectually and theologically dissatisfying, but maybe all the universe is is mundanity. At the moment we have no evidence for any other theory - so adding in intelligences, or angels, or sprites, or Gods is simply being Baroque for no good reason - why do we add in those flourishes? Sure humanity loves it, but that is putting our psychological biases into the ignorance before us. Science tries to force people into abandoning their biases and only following the evidence. Spook goes on about man's arrogance - that is what I see him doing. He is squeezing the deep unknown universe into his limited theology. We just don't know - and should only make claims on the universe as are sustainable, not with our psychology, but with the evidence that we have discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mæŋksmən Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Well if i am right both you and LDV are in for a nice surprise, and if i am wrong, and you are right, that we live we die, end off, then no-ines gonna be able to say i told you so, i guess its a win win situation for an agnostic. re-claims. i agree, thats why i said they are my thoughts. And until you or anyone else can give me a logical reason everything just popped into existence, in the blink of an eye, and the atoms forming what they formed, i will continue to think of it as intelligent design, even tho i/we have no idea of the purpose for it all, why didnt the atoms released by the big bang just free float, what made them take the forms they took, randomness, i dont think so. reverting only as far back as evolution is pointless when discussing the source of everything that exists. And when i say intelligence at work, i mean a greater intelligence than ours. theres equal chance that the big bang was an accident as it was random or created with purpose, evolution is just a small part of that purpose imo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mæŋksmən Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Back on topic directly, i think most atrocities carried out under religious banners are no more than ethnic cleansing, tribal affairs. Maybe some people just need to belong to a group mentality, americans a particularly vunerable to peer grouping/belonging from an early age, thats why the misfits shoot up their schools, there aint no place for misfits in american society, you belong to some like minded group, from gangs to academics or your a loner, in most cases there, its the church that serves that purpose. In britain its the pub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY--_tfeIrk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 One thing I have noticed though, even more so after the Solway Harvester went down and all hands perished; How much do I listen to the words. I'm not even slightly religeousnesness(ness) just incase I missed one out)), like. At all! But blimey this hymn hits home! I'm fairly sure it will to all Manxies, god bothering or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 23, 2010 Author Share Posted September 23, 2010 Well if i am right both you and LDV are in for a nice surprise...Why do you say this Manksman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Ok so answer this, if there is a creator or if it was just the big bang theory then who made the stuff to form the big bang or who made the creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Shall we just simply sum all this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I realize the slavery thing has been done to death, and I realize Spook says he doesn't want to contribute anymore to this thread, but I came across Exodus 21:20-21 today and ... well ... what to say: Exodus 21:20-21 (New International Version) 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. This is biblical law - supposedly given down by an all loving God - which says as long as the slave/bondsman/servant doesn't get beaten so badly they die within two days of the beating - anything goes - the owner is not to be punished since the slave is his property. What to make of this - it is heinous. I am sure it has been used as justification of all sorts of crimes ... and the fundamentalists will say it was trully given by God as his law. An all loving God? Is it really the influence of the evil one that makes a person question this. Spook thinks so. I profoundly disagree - it is only people who are so under the influence of their religion that they confuse good with evil who would say this is the law of an all loving god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the alleged creator of human intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I had intended to drop out, but I will comment on Exodus 20:21. To begin with, unlike the case with the Q’uran, it is wrong to take a verse from the bible and always treat it in isolation. Next the version quoted from is a modern and very politicised version, the KJV is MUCH closer to the correct translation of the words and the meaning of the Bible especially as it avoids so much political correctness and use of words that have a different context today such as slave in place of servant. Exodus 21 relates to the judgements that The Lord instructed should be handed out for transgression of The Law and other misdeeds or consequential actions to what a man had done. In the case of :18 through :27 what is set out is fair and just. Specifically :20 and :21 :- “ And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. ” Note that in the KJV the word used is servant, NOT slave because in Biblical times both servants and bonded servants were paid a wage. The non-bonded servant was free to go at any time and the employer was free to dismiss him at any time with of course no form of redundancy payment. A Bondsman could buy himself out of the bond using money that he earned if he so wished. Being a Bondsman to a jew in biblical times was no bad thing. The Bondsman was assured of food, clothing, housing, and just treatment with the protection of the law. It is why the option for a Bondsman not to be freed if that was his choice exists and appears as :6 in which a bondsman may apply for what amounts to a job for life with all the security he could want. As I have written before, Bondage in Biblical terms was not immoral nor a bad deal. Where it goes wrong is when the Biblical laws are not obeyed in the creation of a Bondsman, and where the Biblical laws regarding the treatment of a Bondsman are not followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 As I have written before, Bondage in Biblical terms was not immoral nor a bad deal. There's nothing wrong with bondage in modern times, in fact it can be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.