woolley Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I don't exclude any possibility. Leprechauns ? Fairies ? Why not? As much validity as some of the nonsense that is put forward as serious such as (just an example) the creation took place as recently as 10,000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Why not? As much validity as some of the nonsense that is put forward as serious such as (just an example) the creation took place as recently as 10,000 years ago. Actually, the creation was at 9.00am on 23 October 4004 BC (so, taking into account the missing year 0 in the calendar, it was 6,015 years ago). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Why not? As much validity as some of the nonsense that is put forward as serious such as (just an example) the creation took place as recently as 10,000 years ago. Comparing one bit of nonsense to another is not a good way of measuring validity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Well at the risk of repeating myself yet again, we just don't know enough to judge. Why get hung up on things that we are never going to know the answer to? Scientific investigation is brilliant but it will only take us so far. There is much that I believe we will never understand. Why is the possibility of intelligent design "oh dear" time? It is just a possibility. I would not presume to present it as a fact. I don't know anymore than anyone else does. I don't exclude any possibility. We do know many answers though, and you seem to be ignoring all of them. China asked some important questions about the limits of your beliefs. You seem to be dismissing the origins of our race as mysterious and unknown, when much of it's history is well known. There's a large disconnect between what we know and the bollocks that most religions teach. It'd be good if you could focus on this point. I don't believe that I am ignoring any "answers". Could you give some examples of these answers? We know the cultural history of our race and that of many other civilisations of the past, but these do not impinge on the mysteries of the origins of life which stretch much further back into the mists of time and for which we have no explanation whatsoever. We have theories and whilst some of those are compelling they are still just theories. I think I have already said that I hold no brief for much of the weird teachings of established religions. As for the limits of my beliefs, well, I don't know how many different ways I can write it, but I cannot make a decision on a subject for which there is no evidence. Am I so unusual in refusing to believe what a religion, any religion, tells me to believe, and also refusing to side with the total denial of the atheists? I would have thought this is a fairly widespread view. All I have tried to do is to rationalise that position by describing just how infinitesimal is our understanding of the nature of existence. For me to take a position on it one way or the other would be as difficult for me as voting to invest £24 million in a company without having seen the accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Why not? As much validity as some of the nonsense that is put forward as serious such as (just an example) the creation took place as recently as 10,000 years ago. Comparing one bit of nonsense to another is not a good way of measuring validity. I didn't propose leprechauns and fairies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I don't believe that I am ignoring any "answers". Could you give some examples of these answers? Yes: evolution We know the cultural history of our race and that of many other civilisations of the past, but these do not impinge on the mysteries of the origins of life which stretch much further back into the mists of time and for which we have no explanation whatsoever. We have theories and whilst some of those are compelling they are still just theories. Cultural? Civilisations? Who gives a crap about that when it comes to biological origins? We have explanations, we have a historical record embedded in our DNA, we know what we were, where our species came from. These aren't mysteries at all. So when you say you're open minded to religion because you don't have the answers: you do. Genesis is bollocks, because it contradicts evolution for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I don't believe that I am ignoring any "answers". Could you give some examples of these answers? Yes: evolution Evolution is a theory. And a very good one too. It explains how life has progressed through natural selection. It does not explain the origins of life, let alone the universe. We know the cultural history of our race and that of many other civilisations of the past, but these do not impinge on the mysteries of the origins of life which stretch much further back into the mists of time and for which we have no explanation whatsoever. We have theories and whilst some of those are compelling they are still just theories. Cultural? Civilisations? Who gives a crap about that when it comes to biological origins? We have explanations, we have a historical record embedded in our DNA, we know what we were, where our species came from. These aren't mysteries at all. Yes. correct. There's nothing there that contradicts anything I said in the sentence above. So when you say you're open minded to religion because you don't have the answers: you do. Genesis is bollocks, because it contradicts evolution for example. Not totally it doesn't. Evolution does not explain the original creation of the universe or big bang or whatever you call the beginning of everything. Incidentally, I am not a cheer leader for Genesis or anything else in the scriptures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Not totally it doesn't. Evolution does not explain the original creation of the universe or big bang or whatever you call the beginning of everything. Incidentally, I am not a cheer leader for Genesis or anything else in the scriptures. Which is why Chinahand and I are trying to find where the goalposts are regarding your 'we don't know anything' type responses. We know life on earth originated from very simple single cell organisms and it did so without apparent tampering from a supreme being. Is it those single cells that you're referring to as having possible intelligent design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Possibly. We don't know. The goalposts, if there are any, could well be in a different dimension of time space that we cannot yet, or may never, perceive. We know the chemistry of all living things. The make up. The percentage of the various elements in an organism. This much we have discovered through centuries of research and learning handed down through generations. It is a monumental achievement that we have mapped the human genome. I do not diminish human acomplishment in the least but for all our knowledge and ingenuity we cannot replicate even the simplest form of life in the laboratory. We have absolutely no clue as to what the spark of being is. We can bring all of the constituents together but we can't make them live. We do not understand the nature of existence and it follows therefore that we do not know what force or intelligence kicked everything off or if indeed there was one. And that only addresses life on our own planet. We understand even less about the origin of the whole universe. These are profound matters and I believe that it belittles their magnitude to seek convenient answers and instant gratification on their meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I will happily declare that I am certainly not an apologist for religion in any form. The very idea that this planet was created by some kind of superior being purely for the convenience of the kind of humanity that was 'designed'to evolve after millions of years is not only nonsense - it is the most arrogant and self-absorbed arrogance imaginable. Having said that, I also deplore the smugness of those who - with little or no evidence to support their view - declare that the entire universe cannot possibly have been developed or started by some superior force that our tiny intellects are unable to comprehend. Accepting that many mysteries of the universe have been solved or revealed, there is still a huge amount that remains undiscovered and unexplained and I'd suggest that we are, at very least, many centuries away from, not simply finding the answers, but finding the right questions to ask. Therefore, to give absolute and positive denial to any possible existence of some superior power or intelligence having been responsible for the 'big picture' of our universe, is as myopic and arrogant as the people who believe that Genesis provides all the necessary answers to our origins. And that is, ultimately, why I prefer to use the term 'agnostic' rather than 'atheist.' Why, thank you for a sober assessment. I think the biggest mystery about this is that so many people are just not prepared to accept "we don't know" for an answer. It's as if nature abhors that vacuum in their knowledge. Maybe it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Why, thank you for a sober assessment. I think the biggest mystery about this is that so many people are just not prepared to accept "we don't know" for an answer. It's as if nature abhors that vacuum in their knowledge. Maybe it does. Likewise, I don't understand the difficulty in 'we don't know, but it's probably...'. To not commit to a conclusion based on what we do know seems like a cop out. We should seek to explain the nature of our universe, why ignore it? I know there's things science can't explain, big things. Inventing fairies to fill those spaces is what I object too. You're also being very cagey about how much you're prepared to believe on faith, I'm sure you're doing this on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Of course I'm doing it on purpose. It's the only sensible thing to do. What is the point in making a scientific wild arsed guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Hee hee. I'm going to switch sides for a bit. Slim what do you make of this paper by John Wilkins? Summarized rather poorly in this slide presentation. It's hard work but the long and the short of it is that it is impossible to know if there is or isn't a God by looking at the evidence in the Universe. I ... deplore the smugness of those who - with little or no evidence to support their view - declare that the entire universe cannot possibly have been developed or started by some superior force that our tiny intellects are unable to comprehend. Lonan3 - is anyone really saying that - ok maybe Quilip, but I'm not and neither is Richard Dawkins etc, and I am pretty certain Slim isn't either. It's a straw man. The issue is currently looking at the world is there a reason, other than a partisan religious faith, for believing in any God. I don't believe there is. Could that change - yes. And then, just like Keynes, if the facts change, I'll change my mind. But I don't see any reason to expect to change my mind at the moment. And it is perfectly possible, as Wilkins' paper shows that there never will be any evidence - and their still be a God! So, if God is totally invisible - as the one in Wilkins' paper could be - then we are all lost and have no way of knowing if one faith is any better than any others. Though, of course, any believer will say they have faith in their faith and not another's. This is the close to post modern nonsense you have to deal with to find a reason to have faith given the evidence in the world. Some people of faith say they have their fatih for rational reasons - that is what Christain apologetics is all about. I am afraid I just can't see it. It could be that God is totally hidden yet has choosen the stochastic, random universe we observe to be the way he manefests his providence. You cannot argue against that possibility. Maybe we should be worshiping sleep shaped clouds or fairies - how can we know this isn't just as likely as finding Allah or Yahweh. Quite simply non of this is going to keep me awake at night. No more than worrying about the Evil Aliens Larry Moran postulated. Woolley - you say you don't believe at the moment. What do you think would make you change your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Of course I'm doing it on purpose. It's the only sensible thing to do. What is the point in making a scientific wild arsed guess? Stop being woolly, woolley, a wild arsed guess about what? There's every point in guessing. The higgs boson was a guess which through decades of research is now proving to be a correct one. Without the theory where do you start on getting proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoelover26 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 i rememeber only too well in Colorado ('bouit 7 years back) being told that the Rockie mts were only 6000 years old!!!! But here's the twist ....the dude was otherwise quite smart.....i'm still traumatised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.