Religious broadcaster builds $4M home despite layoffs at his ministry

[Alleya]

This counterargument ignores the fact that anyone who creates a complex mechanism has to be more complex than what they've created. You essentially create complexity with complexity, ignoring the observable and verifiable phenomena that all things start out as simple as possible and then build up. The reason ID is a flawed argument is because it is infinitely recursive, and that is not scientifically acceptable.

As it pertains to evolution, you are thinking of abiogenesis. Evolution is separate from that.

[Seraph]

This counterargument ignores the fact that anyone who creates a complex mechanism has to be more complex than what they've created. You essentially create complexity with complexity, ignoring the observable and verifiable phenomena that all things start out as simple as possible and then build up. The reason ID is a flawed argument is because it is infinitely recursive, and that is not scientifically acceptable.

As it pertains to evolution, you are thinking of abiogenesis. Evolution is separate from that.

Dunno if you caught it, but Ill just re ask my initial edited question (since I think it deals with a more tangible concept):


I guess the real question is "Is the Universe just an always existing cycle of repeating expansion and compression, or was it initialized somehow?"

[Alleya]

Dunno if you caught it, but Ill just re ask my initial edited question (since I think it deals with a more tangible concept):


I guess the real question is "Is the Universe just an always existing cycle of repeating expansion and compression, or was it initialized somehow?"

You've definitely hit on the fundamental question. We don't know yet. We haven't found a way, if there is one, to determine if there were life cycles of the universe before this one, and the idea of multiple universes is still just a hypothesis. It could be that the big bang happened several times in several different ways that eventually lead to a Big Crunch, only to bang again. Last I heard, the evidence points towards a scenario in which the universe will now keep expanding until gravitation is overwhelmed and everything in the universe becomes diffuse.

The problem with ID is that it assumes it does know, but really it just sets up an illogical, infinitely recursive system that doesn't actually provide any answers.

[Stiker]

You've definitely hit on the fundamental question. We don't know yet. We haven't found a way, if there is one, to determine if there were life cycles of the universe before this one, and the idea of multiple universes is still just a hypothesis. It could be that the big bang happened several times in several different ways that eventually lead to a Big Crunch, only to bang again. Last I heard, the evidence points towards a scenario in which the universe will now keep expanding until gravitation is overwhelmed and everything in the universe becomes diffuse.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, as it has been a while since I heard the lecture on this subject. I seem to remember a theory in which the sun going through it's life cycle (I can't think of the scientific term for this right now) and that would be the catalyst for the "Big Crunch" you refer to. After that point, I seem to remember the next step in the theory being a waiting period until another Big Bang.

Again I could be totally off here, it's been about 6 years since I sat in on this lecture.

[Seraph]

You've definitely hit on the fundamental question. We don't know yet. We haven't found a way, if there is one, to determine if there were life cycles of the universe before this one, and the idea of multiple universes is still just a hypothesis. It could be that the big bang happened several times in several different ways that eventually lead to a Big Crunch, only to bang again. Last I heard, the evidence points towards a scenario in which the universe will now keep expanding until gravitation is overwhelmed and everything in the universe becomes diffuse.

The problem with ID is that it assumes it does know, but really it just sets up an illogical, infinitely recursive system that doesn't actually provide any answers.

Right, but then you start wondering why the Universe wasn't just scattered and diffuse to begin with, instead of the Big whatever that set it off. Something just seems off about the entire thing, and I can easily see how people assume there might be some sort of outside force at work.

It seems plausible. Whether it's correct, or just a product of our misunderstanding is unknown.

[Neosutra]

'Watchmaker' doesn't imply that complexity existed initially

Alleya already addressed this, but it most certainly does. As the creator must have been more complex than what he was creating.

"I cant conceive of a universe this complex and with this much energy and power just existing naturally, so I will place this even more complex being in the equation that creates the universe and then say the god cant be questioned or understood"

"I cant conceive of infinite time, so I will place a creator that created time, and not question that he lived infinitely before that".

etc etc.

And to your last post:

Right, but then you start wondering why the Universe wasn't just scattered and diffuse to begin with

How do you know it didnt? Perhaps the vacuum of nothingness has a near infinately small chance of forming a particle and anti-particle for periods of time, and over an infinite time line these little formations of particles and anti-particles formed a large universe of gas and junk, then a gazillion years later the matter all collasped in on itself and created a super singularity that eventually exploded and created the current universe?

I dont really buy into that theory, but hey, it is an idea based on current observation and chance. I would say the real answer is alot more complex and will reveal alot more about space and time and what it really means to be "matter", but we will see.

Either way, none of the theories suggest divine cause or direction. None.

[Seraph]

Alleya already addressed this, but it most certainly does. As the creator must have been more complex than what he was creating.

"I cant conceive of a universe this complex and with this much energy and power just existing naturally, so I will place this even more complex being in the equation that creates the universe and then say the god cant be questioned or understood"

"I cant conceive of infinite time, so I will place a creator that created time, and not question that he lived infinitely before that".

etc etc.

I see, 'external complexity' as opposed to the system being complex itself. That makes more sense than what I initially understood it. It's possible, assuming the 'watchmaker' doesn't want to create something eventually more complex than itself. That starts drifting off into completely goofy speculation though. I don't think anyone is arrogant enough to claim to understand 'divine motive' as opposed to 'divine action'.

[Alleya]

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, as it has been a while since I heard the lecture on this subject. I seem to remember a theory in which the sun going through it's life cycle (I can't think of the scientific term for this right now) and that would be the catalyst for the "Big Crunch" you refer to. After that point, I seem to remember the next step in the theory being a waiting period until another Big Bang.

Again I could be totally off here, it's been about 6 years since I sat in on this lecture.

Our sun is a very average star, there are much, much, much bigger ones out there and they explode all the time. The big crunch was the idea that eventually the universe would stop expanding (run out of inertia, basically) and then gravity would pull it back down to its pre-bang size. Now we see signs that seem to suggest that the universe's expansion is either infinite or at the least it will eventually overcome the force of gravity/nuclear forces and make all matter diffuse.

[Neosutra]

Current theories suggest we will just keep going and eventually fizzle out into nothingness, rather than come back into a big crunch.

[Seraph]

Our sun is a very average star, there are much, much, much bigger ones out there and they explode all the time. The big crunch was the idea that eventually the universe would stop expanding (run out of inertia, basically) and then gravity would pull it back down to its pre-bang size.

Right, but where it gets murky is where we should in theory be moving back towards a 'Big Crunch' situation again (a decrease in Universal expansion rate over time) but instead look like we are going to eventually just putter out.

Why the initial Big Crunch --> Big Bang then?

[Neosutra]

As stated, the big crunch was never really a well supported theory and isnt really looked upon as anything more than "thats something we use to postulate" nowadays.

There are alot more plausible and interesting theories that may open the door to some of these answers that many of the top scientists are working on.

Kind of incredible to think it may be possible for scientists to nail down the origins of this universe before we die.

If it is even possible.

[Alleya]

Right, but where it gets murky is where we should in theory be moving back towards a 'Big Crunch' situation again (a decrease in Universal expansion rate over time) but instead look like we are going to eventually just putter out.

Why the initial Big Crunch --> Big Bang then?

Exactly. I agree with you. We don't know. But proposing outside influence is useless unless there is evidence.

[quannum]

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, as it has been a while since I heard the lecture on this subject. I seem to remember a theory in which the sun going through it's life cycle (I can't think of the scientific term for this right now) and that would be the catalyst for the "Big Crunch" you refer to. After that point, I seem to remember the next step in the theory being a waiting period until another Big Bang.

Again I could be totally off here, it's been about 6 years since I sat in on this lecture.

as far as the sun goes, you're thinking of white dwarf or neutron star.
http://www.seasky.org/celestial-obje...s/starlife.jpg

big crunch was already explained, but people (forgot dudes name, Steinhardt?) are trying bring it back as brane clash by adding interactions between multiple universes to the mix. i'm not sure if the hypothesis was testable or not.

[Neosutra]

A testable hypothesis in string theory? lol.

[Stiker]

as far as the sun goes, you're thinking of white dwarf or neutron star.
http://www.seasky.org/celestial-obje...s/starlife.jpg

Ah yes, that is it. IIRC, the guy in our lecture said the sun would take the bottom path. Once it goes to a Blue Star, there would be a freezing period or something along those lines. Then the Red Supergiant stage would engulf the earth and other planets. Supernova would destroy the rest of the solar system or something along those lines. And I think the guy had some theory of why the sun would go Black Hole on us, but it escapes me.

My guess it I got the Black Hole thing mixed up with the "Big Crunch". Either way, now that I think about it, that would only explain what would happen to our solar system and not so much the rest of the universe.

[Neosutra]

Our sun will not become a red supergiant. But it doesnt need to in order to destroy our solar system, as a normal red giant is quite enough.

[quannum]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a/Sun_Life.png

our sun doesn't have enough mass to be a bad dude.

[Plow]

oh wow, these last few pages are truly epic

Not really, many influential scientists accurately and correctly pointed out that the social philosophy behind eugenics was not being experimentally tested in accordance with the principles we call "science". Just because one thinks they are doing an experiment, that does not mean they are doing science. A specific criticism of eugenics was that it specifically ignores the fact that genetic diversity is required for the healthy survival of a population. This was known well before eugenics was "mainstream". Ask the Hapsburgs how well inbreeding worked out for them.

lolol, were you not the one that literally accused me of presenting a "no true Scotsman" argument?

oh lawd, I get accused of it despite not doing it, the anti-religion crowd gets called out on something... and immediately resorts to it (for a couple pages even)

but wait it gets better--

If that's all that they use them for is the morals and do not subscribe to the mythological aspects of a diety, then they aren't followers of that religion.

They literally try to use the no true Scotsman argument about religion in order to argue that people cannot be reasonable and still be religious.


This is truly delicious.

now for some seriousness

I'm aware of that. The problem is that saying something like that accomplishes absolutely nothing. If we accept that postulate, we learn nothing, and nothing changes. The question is not answered. Science is concerned with finding answers that have a point. So yes it describes faith, but it also describes how faith is useless and irrational in this context.

I think faith in the scenario you're referring to can be the driving factor. There is certainly endless scientific progress fueled by "I wonder what happens when..."

But I would make the argument that there is no less scientific progress fueled by "I believe..." In fact, one of, if not the most important characteristics of the modern scientific method is the declaration of a claim to test. Does this mean you have to have faith that the result you're proposing is correct, or faith that it is incorrect, in order to proceed with the experiment? Absolutely not. However, it is one of a multitude of reasons that drive people to do so.

Again, "faith" does not have to be ascribed to the strawman spaghetti monster.

This counterargument ignores the fact that anyone who creates a complex mechanism has to be more complex than what they've created. You essentially create complexity with complexity, ignoring the observable and verifiable phenomena that all things start out as simple as possible and then build up. The reason ID is a flawed argument is because it is infinitely recursive, and that is not scientifically acceptable.

As it pertains to evolution, you are thinking of abiogenesis. Evolution is separate from that.

I hate the modern abuse of the terms intelligent and design together.

I think as a whole, existence seems to be a rather intelligent... uh... thing. It has creativity, adaptability, self-correction, etc. It doesn't have to be believing in God for it to occur to a person that nature's ability to survive and progress is every bit as evolutionary as our minimal concepts of living evolution. It seems intelligent to me that the things that don't work are tested, and upon failing, cease to exist. This can range from a shitty car not selling, to living on land failing and taking to the air, to subatomic particles that don't travel within something like billionths of millimeter in a literally infinite space continuing to travel infinitely, while those that are forced into range by pressure or raw speed will bond together and form functional matter and therefore our perceivable existence.

Intelligence doesn't have to mean a guy in the sky, it's disappointing to see it abused so. And it skews a very important consideration into an easy straw man to build against anyone with any kind of "belief in origins."


also wow @ like a full page and a half while I was writing this and messing around with zeni

[Neosutra]

But I would make the argument that there is no less scientific progress fueled by "I believe..."

I posed this question to striker, but do you sincerly believe that people that think they know the answer to universal origins and life's great mysteries (i.e god did it) are equally as interested or willing to devote their life to figuring those answers out?

Thats like saying "I know x+2 =4, thus x = 2, but I will keep trying to solve this problem for the rest of my life!".

You fundamentally undermine the entire system of curiosity and exploration when you give token answers to the big questions.

[Plow]

I posed this question to striker, but do you sincerly believe that people that think they know the answer to universal origins and life's great mysteries (i.e god did it) are equally as interested or willing to devote their life to figuring those answers out?

Thats like saying "I know x+2 =4, thus x = 2, but I will keep trying to solve this problem for the rest of my life!".

You fundamentally undermine the entire system of curiosity and exploration when you give token answers to the big questions.

You're undermining the entire system of curiosity and exploration by arguing that we should *not* review the idea that x+2=4 means x=2.


Do you honestly believe that nobody does research because they believe they can prove or disprove something?

Did it not occur to you that the raw "I wonder what happens when" you value so highly leads to the hypothesis which is then tested by both those that believe and those that disbelieve the initial results?