Faith vs Science - a rant on why is the Universe so big?

[g__day]

Slow day at work today! So...

I saw an interesting documentary (Putting God on trial - a 3 part series) that charted the uneasy relationship between scientists and christians evolved over the last millennia. It started by explaining that to scientists God was the Gap between the known and the unknown, with the unknown shrinking at an incredible rate. So God was minimised by science almost to oblivion over the last 500 years.

Episode 1 examined the perceived decreasing role of God in a modern society once scientists discovered the Big Bang (viewing it as the opposite of a black hole being formed). So on one hand you have scientists saying we don't want mysteries - we want to understand creation right back to the big bang and now we can, its just a black hole being formed in reverse. You don't need a God to throw the switch or even guide creation once you understand how quantum physics or membrane theory allows for creation events from nothing.

But then just when science has it neatly boxed a bigger, more powerful and challenging question is poised; why does intelligent life exists, why does our Universe permit intelligent life?

This is a hard one - because for all the fundamental laws of physics there are a few constants (about 17) that are exquisitely fine tuned to allow for life. If the mass of a proton was double or if an electron weighed 5% less, if the speed of light was slightly faster, if planck constant was 2% lower etc... intelligent life couldn't exist. So scientists and theoretical physicsts must ask why is our Universe so well tuned to allow for life. Well there are 3 main possibilities:

1. The fundamental constants of physics are what they are because of some equisite interdependence amongst all the laws of physics that we don't yet know that only allows these constants to have these particular values. The trouble with that is the fine tuning involved requires accuracy of the cosmological constant to a 10 ^ -120 a tuning - simply far beyond rational belief. There seems no credible reason or theory on the horizon on why this incredible accuracy is built into that one factor and nothing else.

2. There are an infinite multitude of Universes we can't observe and ours is just a permutation that can support intelligent life - so life has briefly developed. The hugh odds against this, about 10 ^ -120, don't matter when you have infinite possiblities to shop amongst. But scientists don't like infinities. Why are there infinite Universes and why can't we find a way to detect them? We have no theories to explore this yet.

3. The mind of God actually does exist and God actually did select our Specific Universe with its variables so well tuned to allow for our existence and henceforth God used science - not magic - to direct our existence and development.

It goes on to say science shows us how things operate but not why. It gives us understanding but no purpose. It was brilliant that some of the people at the fore-front of astronomy, quantum physics and theoretical physics were involved. Including some ordained bishops who had held Physics chairs for over 20 years.

The show worked so well because it wasn't inflammatory to anyone's views and treated all with respect. Here are top physicists who don't believe in God and want to see reality through science. But when they almost complete their goal they are left with a deeper more challenging puzzle which points to the existence of a far more powerful and subtle god than ever contained in the scriptures.

Finally a paradox. A few centuries ago christians believed the Earth was special. Creation orbited around it and everything was placed here for us. Then science showed we are a minute, unimportant dot in a vast ocean of space - totally inconsequential in location, size, position and any other descriptor you care to name. But comming full circle scientists themselves have realized a hidden truth that the faithful have always believed. The Universe only has meaning because we are here, created within it and able to comprehend it. In a way we define the Universe like nothing else and we elevate its importance as it provides for us in a virtuous circle. That is an amazing revelation for a scientist to say. We define the importance of the Universe. Without us it would have no meaning!

But for Christians an equally large, complex and significant question was left unasked. Why is the Universe so Big? With around 10 ^ 100 planets and suns - why has God made such a large place for us - what does he want us to eventually do in such a large playground?

Intriguing...

[mick pinner]

Quote, we define the importance of the universe, Unquote, to believe that we understand anything of any importance as it relates to the universe is so naive, sure we may know how some of the universe works and what makes it up but what it's purpose is if any is far beyond our imagining.
The more we learn about the cosmos only goes to reinforce in my opinion how little we do know and how unimportant we really are, sorry to the divine creationists amongst us, but we are here by chance, in my opinion.

[sheeny]

I don't want to offend anyone so it's with some trepidation I buy into this discussion. If I believe anything, it is that I believe each individual is entitled to his/her own beliefs!

As an atheist I think I'm on the same page as Mick. The fantastic odds used in the show to describe how special our universe is can be constructed in many ways. The universe existed first, life came later. That doesn't make the universe special at all to me.

Life is what is special! Absolutely precious! Make the most of it and enjoy it! It's also too short!:thumbsup: Take pleasure in learning to understand the universe - we have the tools to do that: scientific method. As for "why?"... who says there has to be a reason?

Al.

[Starkler]

I'm on the same page here.
To me it seems quite egocentric to suggest that the universe somehow exists for us and designed for our benefit. We know nothing of what forms of life may exist in environments mankind may never get to visit or study.

[mickoking]

Faith v Science, gutsy thread ;) For me it is Faith and science, As a Buddhist and a fan of Science. My view is the same as the Dalai Lama's that if science dissproves something in Buddhism we must accept the scientific reality. Buddhist's don't believe in a creator God anyway. As for the reality of the Universe, nobody knows, we can only speculate using the best scientific evidence. I do find it compelling, however that if the parameters for the charge of an electron were off by only a tiny amount life (even vaguely as we know it) would be impossable.

[Doug]

Here is one creationist who is not offended by comments made here, and hopefully will not offend either.


I see science hasn't made a great deal of progress over the milenia.
Man has from the eartliest times been trying to create God after his own image. Now science has finally caught up with 'primative' man: deigner god no less.:rofl: :rofl: :screwy: errr ahhh, I don't suggest He used magic BTW.

I think it requires as much faith for the atheist to believe as he does, as it takes for a theist to believe as he does. Science will never either prove or disprove the existance of God, but true science will allways depend heavily on order and repeatability, not chaos, not random selection, and not chance events.
cheers,
Doug

[circumpolar]

Ah... The big Q.

If there is a reason, we probably woudn't like the answer anyway!. The easy way out is to return with another question like "Why Not?".
Whether our existence is a chance occurance or not, or the work of ID, it seems to me that life is an open ended book!
"Why Not?, Let's give life a go and see what happens. And that might as well apply for the rest of the universe as well".
"Why make the universe so big?". "Because it can be done" said one Atom to another. :D

Or consider...
We are able to observe so much of our surroundings and it's ever changing processes. We find this both fascinating and amusing. If you belive in ID, this could all be part of the greatest reallity show ever! Better then the Trueman Show. Top marks to the producer!:thumbsup:


If this is a giant open ended book, then there is still plenty of time to pose new questions.
We always under estimate Time.

[g__day]

Personally I thought the show was excellent, as it showed the progression of how the faith versus science creationist debate has progressed over 200 years.

I'll go on record saying personally I hate intelligent design, and call it a psuedo-science of the worst ilk and see if it has to be taught, teach it as one of humankinds 5,000 active faith systems, not as a science!

My own personal beliefs include:

1. Faith is an area where scientific proof can't go
2. Faith may be behaviour that is genetically encoded
3. Science can't give a purpose to the Universe, faith attempts this
4. Faith that dismisses scientific process and evidence is risky
5. Any faith system that tries to reduce a transcedent being into mortal framework is borrowing trouble
6. Creation has an infinite buried in it somewhere, the candidates more fully include:

i) Infinite size - the universe is open, disconnected and varied enough for intelligent life to exist somewhere.

Trouble - Hubble shift and expansion of space shows circumstance that within our Hubble sphere points to a creation event 13.8 billion years ago, which makes creating a infinite Universe in a finite time exotically hard to justify.

2. Infinite time - say a bouncing universe endlessly cycling through big bang then big crunch, possibly with different univseral constants each cycles until intelligent life evolves.

Trouble - All our physics (presuming a finite universe) points to an increasingly rapidly expanding universe, making the likihood of a big fade, rather than a big crunch, far more credible unless once again you go all exotic on your theories of what is the fundamental fabric of reality.

3. Infinite Luck - The mix was simply right first time by chance.

Trouble - Imaging walking out your door and finding the winning lottery tick on your doorstep, every day, for a million years. Imagine a tornado hitting an airplane junkyard full or parts and by chance when it passes leaving behind a full assembled and fulled and serviced Boeing 747. Well the odds for what we have today are alot longer than that.

4. Infinite God - well yeah, uber scientist God existing within the planes of M-theory space cooks up a new universe on a new plane of existence - ours.

Trouble - Why? This is about as exotic as you can get. Did god create man or man create god to fulfil some need to avoid calling it unknowable or random luck?

* * * * *

By the way I do see our existence defining the Universe. The chances of intelligent life spotanteously forming so as to be able to ponder the amazing system that is the Universe and our species itself is perhaps the defining event and achievement of the Universe itself!

PS

I'll try and dig up the stats on the chances for intelligent life existing anywhere with the Universe and the factors that must be present for it to happen. It reasons what must be available and its chances. The odds are around 10 ^ 42 to 1 against there being any intelligent life in a Universe with only 10 ^ 26 stars that have existed for 14 billion years.

Growing up I thought there would be intelligent life out there somewhere (go SETI) but a look at the factors that have to be present in a system for higher and intelligent life to exist is incredibly revealling.

http://www.konkyo.org/english/seti.html

Astronomical Parameters Related to Life Supportability on a Planet

[Volans]

This is an intriguing thread indeed g__day!

The above quote appears to be mixing science with philosophy. As astronomers delve deeper into celestial objects with better equipment, we learn more. We know the evolutionary process which stars undergo and why they undergo such changes (as an example). So we know what happens and why it happens.

Does this then constitute a meaning? Just because we have an HR diagram in our hot little hands, does that automatically require stellar evolution to have a meaning? To my mind at least, it simply means it happens.

You can go back to the old "Does a falling tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it?" Does the very presence of our being in the forest "create" the sound, or give it meaning? Would not forest dwellers run from the sound of a timber giant creaking and crashing through the forest without our presence? Or would they simply stand around munching on a juicy leaf waiting to be splattered all over the forest floor because we were not there to give the sound of a crashing tree meaning?

The other query that comes to mind concerns the lack of a control or at the least, another view point. On our planet, there is no other life form with which we can communicate sufficiently to discuss scientific or philosophic conundra. Because of this one eyed outlook, we then query vast natural forces at work and put an anthropocentric spin to our observations.

If there was another race with whom we could compare notes, then we might stop to consider the point of view "there is no meaning".

This thread brings to mind my thread concerning the letter I got from a couple of Grade 7 students. One of their questions was "What is the purpose of having stars?". Now that is a very anthropocentric question if ever there was one!

The Universe is simply there. Put a meaning to it if you wish, but if you do are you not raising our species to ultra lofty heights? To ascribe a meaning to all the wonders of the Universe (regardless of them being known or unknown) and then to give that meaning relevance to human kind....wow..that beggars belief.

Peter.

[Lester]

What is obvious to me, is not obvious to you chaps and vise versa.

[g__day]

Years ago after 9 / 11 I raised this question on www.able2know.com (http://www.able2know.com) and it went for 26 pages. The best thing that came out of it was this award winning recipe from Frank Apasia, which I share with you:

A recipe for G:


Pasta Fagioli


1/3 lb. Salt pork finely diced (if the salt pork has a skin attached, cut it off first)
1 Medium Onion, thinly sliced
2 -3 cloves of garlic, finely chopped
Two celery stalks diced (split each stalk in half lengthwise -- and then dice into half inch pieces)
1 16 oz. can white or red kidney beans
1 35 oz. can whole Italian Plum tomatoes -- squashed as you would for a pasta sauce.
3 8oz. cans tomato sauce (not paste)
1/3 pound ground beef
1/3 pound Italian sausage crumbled (casing removed)
(In a frying pan, fry the sausage until almost brown -- add the ground beef and fry until both are browned, reserve)
1/3 stick of pepperoni diced (slice the pepperoni stick in half lengthwise and then cut into 1/2 inch pieces.)
Tbsp of Oregano (actually, to taste)
Dash of red pepper or hot sauce (optional)

1 lb. Medium Shell macaroni.


In a soup pot or Dutch oven (I prefer the Dutch oven), render the diced salt pork over slow heat until its oils are released. (Adding a couple tbsps. of olive oil helps this process) (If the salt pork had skin attached—put the whole detached skin into the pot – and leave in there until the cooking is over. Remove and eat separately if you like skin. It is delicious!)

Saute the onions in the olive oil/rendered salt pork (do not remove the pieces of fried salt pork.)

You want to saute the onions until they start to brown at the edges. As you see the onions get their first hint of brown -- add the garlic and continue the saute for another two minutes.

Add the diced celery and beans (do not drain) --- continue to cook over medium low heat for three minutes - stirring occasionally.

Add tomatoes, tomato sauce, oregano -- continue to cook for three more minutes - stirring occasionally..

Add ground beef, sausage mixture, diced pepperoni, and hot stuff (if you desire) – bring to a simmer - lower heat 'til just simmering and simmer for 15 minutes -stirring occasionally.

(All cooking to be done without a cover.)

In a separate operation -- best done during that last few minutes of cooking -- cook the shells in slightly salted, boiling water -- leaving them al dente. Do not overcook—they will continue to cook after integration with the tomato mixture.

When the shells are cooked and drained, put half of them into a large, deep bowl and ladle several scoops of the tomato mixture over them. Put in plenty of sauce -- it should look almost like a thick soup. Let it sit for five minutes to integrate. (You'll do the same for the other half of the shells -- as the first serving gets used up.)

On the table, you should have crusty Italian or French bread. Another bread option is to take some sliced Italian round loaf and toast several pieces. A bowl of grated Romano cheese is a must.

Some people don't like the mixture too thick -- so a bit of water added to thin it down is fine. I prefer to use a bit of the water the shells were cooked in – and always reserve a cup or two of it. (Be sure the water was only slightly salted!) A thinning done with a bit of red wine ain't bad either.


Halved black olives added as you add the tomatoes works fine. Anchovies added as you add the tomatoes are great also. A bit of diced green bell pepper works. Using a can of chick peas (garbanzos) in place of the kidney beans is a nice touch. And some people like pasta other than shells -- give any pasta a try.

* * * *

Peter

Back on subject. We, with higher intelligence, give meaning to things, its part of what we do. This scales all the way up to the Universe itself. The Universe would still be magnificent beyond words were we to never have existed. But our being here, sentient and capable of pondering our precious existence makes it oh so special.

Whether you have a faith or not, whether it concides with science or not, the Universe and us in it is a pretty amazing thing. From the science perspective alone its insanely incredibile that we exist at all. I've studied this for quite some time, and quite some angles. I think it is actually justified, and not horribly conceited to consider potentially we are a key, not incidential part of the Universe, and somewhere buried deep is a purpose or sense of mission for this vehicle of existence and us in it. I just ponder (from my personal faith and science standpoint) what all this is about!

[xelasnave]

If we are special we had better do something to make sure we are not involved in a "world extinction event". If there is any meaning to our species we had better address that issue. If there be a God hten we can thank him for giving us the insite to realise such events occur. Noaks Ark but this time for the planet. The prophesy that we go to heaven means that we are to leave this planet for another .... yes there is meaning in it all but I think the meaning is personal we each see a different outcome based on our belief. It is wonderful that we are of a species that enjoys such power.
alex

[netwolf]

Methinks that to much cloud cover is geting to everyone. This topic seems to crop up all the time. We dont know it all and we never will. However this gap should not be claimed as the reason for faith. Faith is not about filling a gap for human understanding.

[Doug]

What would you say faith is about then?


you're right there is tooo much cloud cover.

[xelasnave]

"However this gap should not be claimed as the reason for faith. Faith is not about filling a gap for human understanding."
I spent sometime thinking about what you have said here as it never struck me that such was not the case, and I am not disagreeing but accepting the meaning of your words.
One could be forgiven to think this way if you dont have faith. If one lives without faith or belief you will find yourself asking why when I dont have this or need this in my life others find it so necessary. From that point one of the possible reasons that comes to my mind certainly is this faith is the result of a search for understanding or meaning of life. It seems to me on a matter so important (as accepting you are here as the result of a decision made by God to create all for us) one would have had to think long and hard about the meaning of life its purpose , our purpose ...otherwise how could you make an informed decision that a faith in God is the way to go. Yes it is cloudy but I think it is wonderful to be able to consider such grand thoughts and have a place to air them and discover others views. So for someone not familar with how faith works I find it interesting that you feel it is not related to filling a gap in human understanding. I suppose you have faith or not it arrives with out explanation..I simply dont know and dont understand its concept clearly sometimes.
Does faith mean a belief that it is all as it should be and that there is a reason for your very being, that provides an assurance that all of this is there for us but with out us knowing what our purpose is at all?
As to knowing it all you are so right ..I have been actively engaged in finding out everything I can about certain subjects for over two years and its like I am going backwards I know five fold the information I started with but the more I learn, the more I read, the more I realise that I can never get near taking in the Human bank of accumulated knowledge and yet even all that is a small fraction of all that there is to know and understand.
In that situation I can see why one could give up and say it is all in the hands of a creator because that is the quick and easy answer.
I hope I have not offended anyone by suggesting we are not the only ones as I expect that would be not in line with most religious interpretation. It is an opinion , my opinion, and that does not make it right so please do not take offence. I respect all people and their opinions.
alex

[xelasnave]

sorry Doug I didnot realise you were there.
alex

[Doug]

I don't have a problem either way.
As a creationist, my thinking runs somewhat like this: If life is found on planet 'X' it is there because it was put there. If life is not found on planet 'X' it is because it was not put there, but that can not be used as proof that life is unique to planet Earth, just as any life found on Planet 'X' could not be used as proof that God is not. Other problems such as might there have been a naughty Adam and Eve on planet 'X', the end of the age etc. are just not my problem.

Cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

I like to extend the observable Universe to the concept, that, as we are each an observer we are each the very centre of one particular observable Universe...each of us therefore enjoy our own personal Universe. As such we can each place in it what we wish so long we dont upset a neighbouring Universe.
To me I dont see any conflict if one suggests there is life elsewhere but I expect that it may not amuse all.
The lastest "dimention" I noticed for the Universe (and I though there was no limit on size) was 200,000,000,000 light years, another was 160,000,000,000 light years.. we can not comprehend the size, we can not comprehend the number of gallaxies, the number of stars, the number of planets... if we are it and one could be certain no other form of life exsists, or has or will, I dont know what I would do.. I mean if that were the case the impact of that as being an absolute fact would be more than I could bear... I think I would probably toddle off to church and think it thru.
AND if you think about it, well if I was God, I would have a few "pets" and "proto types" I mean I am only a human and I have 3 dogs. It would make sence to have many life forms all over one would think.
But if we are it we should be colonizing other planets as a duty and all human resources should be directed so.
Not only is it cloudy here but I am at the end of my daughters birthday (8 yesterday) party, my mind is hungry for stimulation so if you think I have gone over board (more than usual ) thats it. Living alone the last week with no radio it was all a bit of a day.
alex

[avandonk]

I believe I was created three minutes ago by an all knowing creature for his amusement. Thats Faith. This is as valid as any other Religion!

I think I will methodically and logically work out how everything works in such a way that it is all testable. Thats Science.

Don't stop asking questions. But don't confuse blind ignorance and fruitless hope for any real answers.

If I have offended anybody I really meant to.

Bert

[Doug]

3 minutes ago? That must be the religeon of time dilation.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Doug]

Alex, I think that is why faith is so hard to define. To others such as me, it makes no difference one way or the other. But that is a difference in type I think rather than a difference in quality or quantity.

cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

I have the answers Bert I have just forgoten the questions.
I have often thought the problem is for many there are no real answers for them. It would be only a small percentage of the human race that is educated well enough to consider matters in a logical rational sequence armed with a reasonable amount of scientific knowledge to even consider the alternatives to the culture they live within. AND sadly the proposition of raising the level of education world wide means the percentage will always remain low I would think. There are people who will and their decendants will always live in ingnorance..there are 200,000,000,000 people who cant not read on the planet.. that is a worry when you consider the implications.
I hate it when there is cloud at the dark end of the month.
alex

[xelasnave]

sorry Doug missed your post. Thanks for your qualification.
alex

[asimov]

I'll pray for clear skies for you lot I reckon! :P

[xelasnave]

Only one kiddy left, have eaten more lollies than I should, and looking at cocktail frankfurts for dinner, I will be able to watch the news shortly that should be relaxing and put my mind at ease.
alex

[mickoking]

Everything is faith :P we all percieve the Universe differently, Who is correct?

[xelasnave]

Now that is deep as correct is a difficult thing to define, but whatever gives a species the greatest chance of survival would be the most correct and whatever gives the species less chance of survival is less correct. And is being correct important if it confuses others.
Other than cloud cover it is probably best explained by reference to that unfortunate observation by a well know figure at a less known venue which goes "when the Sun sets in the saucer of milk the cat will sing to the cuckoo clock" that sums it up really.
alex

[RB]

Has everyone had enough now?
I've been following this thread and it's getting a little :rolleyes:

I'm on the verge of locking it.
I don't want it to turn into personal attacks and/or full of spam.

[xelasnave]

Hi Andrew I think there is always opportunity for the things you suggest but I did not see them coming if they can be found in this thread. I think Bert was only having a dig at me not anyone else in an offensive way if you refer to that. And maybe my cat thing could cause someone to call me something, but could I blame them, no I invited it.
You move the clouds we will become less bored.
alex

[RB]

I understand alex, I'm just as bored as everyone else, with the weather the way it is.
But as a moderator I have to read all this stuff (I can't ignore it) and make sure it doesn't lead to things that we've already seen here before.
I think you can understand my position.

[mickoking]

Everything seems fairly good natured to me :shrug:

[avandonk]

I think the point I was trying to make was that we as humans have survived by having some sort of value system that means you put others before yourself. That means not a free for all, or winner takes the lot. This inherent altruism has generally been ignored by the powerful sociopathic dare I say phsycopathic people in the past and will happen in the future as it is happening now.
Organised Religion has served us well and badly in the past. We all live in the paradigm of our current age. It is up to us to separate superstition from science. Science is like any belief system it can be used for good and for evil. The worst part is defining good and evil depends on which side you are on and who is doing what and to whom.

My biggest fear is just as we humans are starting to really understand how the Universe works, powerful forces are trying to cloud these new understandings with fundamentalist assertions with no real testable evidence.

My last word on this topic. It is in the interests of the rich and powerful to keep the majority of the rest of us ignorant. They then can dismiss any highly educated individual or group with some derogatory label such as latte sippers.
I prefer to to point the finger at the billionaire classes, and if you do it is 'envy'. The wealth they have has been plundered from all of us by abusing the system that they control.
Our only defense as ordinary people is knowledge and eternal vigilance and dealing with your fellow humanity as you would like to be treated.

Bert

[RB]

That was a point I was trying to make.
None of us like to be provoked.
We have a wide mix of belief systems on this forum and we've seen this sort of discussion end up you know where.
That's why the TOS (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=7856)expressly says we should avoid this sort of provocation.
We've lost other members who were quite harshly attacked verbally in the past for their beliefs (and it is their right to hold those beliefs).
I did not want to see a repeat of this.

If we do stick to the motto of:

"Treat others as you would like to be treated yourselves" then there's no problem.

But I don't like seeing people make certain statements that are sure to provok. It will only serve to inflame and hurt everyone involved.

As you know I have the utmost respect for all of you.

[asimov]

Lock the damn thing down IMO.

[Lester]

Its nice to be nice and Awful to be awful.

[xelasnave]

I do not wish to "provoke" anyone, I do not wish to offend anyone. For there to be a crime there must be a guilty act and, more importantly a guilty mind.. without the guilty mind the act is nuetral. So if you are offended by me, I say that it is not my intention. If any of my statements of the facts as I see them (number of gallaxies, planets and chances of life probability based) cause provocation maybe I should avoid relating scientific information that comes my way. But sooner or later one must accept the fact that we live in a place bigger than humans can comprehend. I accept as a fact I do not know everything and that things may be far different to my beliefs of only a year ago. Further if I attack there will be no doubt that I am in that mode..but you will never see me in that mode.
Personally I enjoyed this thread because it is wonderful to gain insite into areas of faith... considered faith by inteligent people..I find that very interesting,particularly if you do not live that way.. I am genuinely curious not seeking victims for destruction.
Burt is so on the money it would surprise me if anyone could be offended with his thoughts. He recognises the reality of our society and the ways of the world, and I have no doubt that if all met life with such meaningful consideration we would all progress to a higher level of humanity.
Fundamentalism is my enemy and should be the enemy of all humans if we are to move into a more enlightened future.
AND Andrew I can understand your position if you have had the problems which you refer to...I hope it was not the intelligent design thing... but even there my view was let it be in the schools just not as a science class.. that surely is respecting anothers belief and making room for it where others would not.
alex
alex

[avandonk]

I am truly humbled xelasnave if you think I have some insight. I feel a bit like the Bishop who was proud of his book on Humility.

Here is a brief history of the Universe as best we know it now according to out 'best' scientific endeavours.

Before time zero : we don't know. there was nowhere and nowhen
A few nanoseconds after
:pure energy and the four fundamental forces were
equivalent?

: inflation who needs the speed of light as a restriction

: after 300k years after expansion particles form mainly
Hydrogen and Helium and a bit of Lithium.
: Early massive stars and early galaxies
:this leads to some heavier Elements
: this cycle is repeated many times
: Eons pass 13.7 GY
: We are here!

In 1920 there was just the Milky Way
In the thirties Edwin Hubble saw far further and then there were more Galaxies and the putative expansion of the Universe.
In 1948 Fred Hoyle published his paper on Nucleosynthesis of Heavier Elements in Stars. It was then recognized that any Element with an atomic wieght higher than Iron 53 could only be produced in a Supernova!
The last bits all happened in my lifetime. We are just starting to know and partially inderstand.

That is why the Universe is as big as it seems to be. OK is most probably more enigmatic than we can even comprehend.
Hope this is clear

Bert

[g__day]

This is not an argument you can win, it's simply a point of view. The thread traces the interesting dance around each other that science and faith do when it comes to pondering why are we here and is their a purpose to our existence as an intelligent species. The thread also focuses on some interesting perspectives that arise when pondering astronomy or cosmology.

With faith and $2.50 you can buy a meat pie so the saying goes. Purpose is a function of higher intelligence, so saying our provident existence gives the universe a purpose, imples to us! Its our purpose and alah Descartes it exists because we do. The Universe is still wonderous with or without us, or any higher intelligence life forms. But it is from a science outlook incredibly improbably we exist at all, so its either a fluke or there is a purpose that has relevance to us!

I wonder which it is and what it is if its not a fluke!

[Lester]

The answer is out there if you want to see it. But if you have any doubt in your mind then you will not see it even if it touched you. That is how faith works. Prity simple really.

[g__day]

Ouch! That's a hard definition of faith when you follow the reasoning trail it supports; if you need to believe in something badly enough whatever comes along when you most need it and feel like accepting it shapes your world view, whether its rational or not?

Somehow I don't think the statement you were trying to express should be that open ended. Mind you accepting it helps explain why we have over 5,000 active faith systems in the world today; all pretty convinced their world view is the only right one. Doesn't that leave everyone feeling all the more comforted to know that!

I think faith has to operate in the areas science can't go. Faith and science don't play well in each others domain. Science can't give you a motivation behind god and god's actions; science only answers what where the mechanics of god's actions. Give you an example of faith colliding badly with science. Noah and the rain. Most folk picking on the Bible ponder where'd all the water come from and go. Simple observation, instead ask what it weighed, how far it was displaced in 40 days and how much energy that would have expended. Anwser to the energy question: same force as the Nagaski bomb, for every square kilometer of the Earth's surface, every 14 seconds for 40 days!

That's a more then a smidgeon of energy to move that much water in that time period. An energy signature like that should leave some lasting evidence somewhere. And the tribes that were living 300 miles to the South with an unbroken history didn't record any major storms at all around the decade when the global flood occured.

So you have to take it that the scribes did their best, regardless if you take the mainstream bible or one with the extra prophets that some major religions like and some prune, but folks were faliable and limited, now and then!

[Lester]

Hi,

I like the way you are thinking, and agree that people are falible. Dare I say it; unfortunately faith gets mixed up with religion, and where I come from they are lightyears apart and do not mix.

[Lester]

Hi again,

On your second to last paragraph. Of course there would not be any record else where by any tribe, the flood was not just in one area. It was Global.

[cahullian]

Organised religion has nothing to do with faith, just as the law has nothing to do with justice. One of two thing will happen when you die.1. You will experience nothing. 2. All things will be revealed.

Old Irish proverb
"May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows your dead."
Gazz

[xelasnave]

Did China flood?
alex

[Doug]

Can't speak from personal experience..........I only feel that old!;)
I read somewhere that all Chinese boats were/are named with something like 'Nu Wah'(not sure of the spelling) incorporated into the name but I must confess I have never checked the accuracy of it.

Then mention was made of the energy requirements etc for a global flood .
The Biblical account of the flood also suggests geological upheaval.
(cf Gen 7:11.)
It might well mean that the Earth that was flooded did not have the mountains that now are, or the valleys that now are. What I am driving at is that it would take less water to cover a squash ball than a golf ball.
And then there are those perplexing shellfish fossels found thousands of feet above sea level pushed up no doubt by geologic upheavals of considerable effect.
cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

Thanks Doug I missed the naming of the boat point.
I gather there is a suggestion there as to there being an indicator of a flood in their history?
alex

[xelasnave]

And I have no view one way or the other I never thought about it until now. (How curious) It is an event that is in the past with little record of the facts (from an observers point of view other than those on the boat) so I could not say one way or the other but it would be interesting to pull together other evidence if it exsists as one would think there must be some basis for the story. There is little doubt that sea beds now lie where mountains once did and visaversa. It would be interesting to date the shells to see if the times link up.. sortta
alex
alex

[Doug]

Yes Alex, that was the point as I read it. Also there is supposed to be records in Babylonian writings and the epic of Gilgamesh, sanskrit (is that the same thing?) and others. The trouble is I can't verify the ancient Babylonian records the Chinese, the... ,the... I just allocate a 'hmmm' factor to these claims by others, I'm not skeptical nor carried away by them..
Unfortunately several people have 'clutched at straws' to prove the existance of Noah's Ark; only contributing to doubter's resolve to remain doubters.
Personally, if I were Noah, I would have trashed the arK for housing timber and maybe firewood; afterall the local timber yard and hardware store would have gone into liquidation:rofl:
cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

Well I have had a couple of timber boats as recently as 12 years ago. They are gone now without trace and that was thru rot so I doubt if there is much chance even if the timber was not recycled that a vessell would survive..unless at the bottom of a peat bog, and there would have been a lot of peat formed from the flood so for the believers they should continue to seek,.. for the none believers perhaps they can reserve their verdict until the search is complete..if ever.
alex

[Orion]

For a believer he has no need to seek he has already found.

[netwolf]

Knowledge is about observerving a system repeatedly and postulating a theory on how it works. But knowledge is ever changing we should never accept absolutes in the quest for knowledge, knowledge must alwasy be challenged and changed as need be. For example 'Light' from particle to wave to duality bothe particle and wave. Why would faith enter into this equation it has no place. Faith is not some method or theory to deal with the unknown it simply is our belif in something intangible that provides us with a purpose and way to that purpose. The way and purpose are diffrent depending on who you are and what you belive.

Regards

[Lester]

Hi Netwolf,

I can relate to what you are saying.

[netwolf]

To add just take the ongoing debate about Evolution and Creation, why do some defend one over the other as if it were some religion. We must assess both via the Scientific method and evaluate that contunually as we gather more information. Scientist defending Evolution who have not investigated creation our equaly guilty as those creationist who will not inverstigate evolution. Closing our minds to the posibilities narrows our oppertunity to understand. Setting an agenda for what should be taught in science is a forumla for disaster. Instead lets teach the Scientific method a constantly changing sytem for understanding the unvierse arround us. Where we accept nothing is certain and there are no absolutes. Let us not stand atop one giant as they did Sir Isac Newton (particle theory of light) and Ignore another Giant like they did Christiaan Huygens (wave theory of light) and lose 100 years of new possibilities. Let us accept a world where there can be no absolutes. Why because we are human and not infallable. Lets not be close minded as they were when they ignored Tesla's Alternating Current in favour of Eddisions Direct Current simply because of popularity contests.

Regards
Regards.

[g__day]

No, no evidence of a global flood anywhere. And the arguments that maybe mounts where on 1/10th the size back then kinda makes a mockery of plate tectonics. In fact the testament talks of a mountain "high enough to survey all creation" alah flat Earth, so if anything maybe mountains where larger 4,000 years ago then they were today! Too a global flood would leave a clear signature at the approriate depth of ice in the polar cap. You'd have a lot of changed chemistry if you flooded the Earth for a year; for one you'd have a massive swamp and alot of dying and decaying vegetable matter releasing gases that you'd easily spot trapped in the ice at that depth. Sorry but its all normal during those periods. And China had no major distruption too its dynasties back then either.

Folk back then simply substituting 'global' for 'large regional' back then is a more likely assumption and explanation.

All these considerations and analysis do is redefine the boundaries of where does the known and unknown lie. The final answer is still up for grabs!

[Doug]

You seem to have researched this subject very thoughourly. Which testament are you referrencing? :shrug: The book of Genesis in the 'Old' Testament makes no such claim.
It makes no difference to me what another chooses to believe, however surely what we beleive should be based on reliable facts or witness or testimony.


Flat Earth? can't say for sure, but I think that idea crept in around the Dark ages. There is some evidence of a round/global Earth world view dating way way back if one chooses to look at the evidence with an open mind.

g__day, would you please provide the reference material to the above quoted statement. I don't want to see this topic go astray and incur the wrath of the moderators, however I am keen to have the truth on the table of honest scientific enquiry.
cheers,
Doug

[RB]

Yes Doug.
If this thread remains on topic and does not stray into a "mud slinging" match then it will remain open.
What we don't want to see here is a deterioration into a "cheap shots" match which these types of discussions usually end up becoming.
I would like to see respect shown for all members viewpoints, including those that differ to the main stream view of the origin of our universe.

[Doug]

No probs. I could see a potential for, but that is not the path I want to follow .........just info.
cheers,
Doug

[netwolf]

Oh dear i knew i should not have used that example. What i ment was that Scientist should not stick to what we know as an absolute. Everything changes. And the Creationist who follow it more as a faith rather than a science should also realise that you can also never prove it. That is faith it does not require proof. I to am often conflicted my own inate desire to prove it, but in cool reflection i realise that is not what is meant to be. It is by design/evolution that we do not know everything. If we did than we would neither evolve nor need faith.

It is an inner conflict for all who belive in something passionetly, that they wish others to also see. But it can not be forced.

Regards

[Doug]

Very insightfull netwolf. The truth is probably too vast for man to grasp. While I'm an admitted creationist, I don't subscribe to the young Earth ideas, nor disallow them; just think there is more to the truth than we can get a good handle on. So I guess it would be fair to say that for me I have a platform of faith,that I wish to build on with scientific fact, but I am cautious of scientific conjecture that can lead to a false position.

It is probably true of all of us in the long run that we have a basis of faith of some sort and seek to build on it with (real) knowledge.
Where our journey leads depends on our starting point, so I don't think Faith is really in conflict with Science or visaversa, it just directs or influences how we interpret science and fit it into our world view.
The challenge is to understand some of the complex theory being offered when, as you say there are no absolutes in scientific knowledge.
Yesterday it was relativity, + quantum mechanics today they are being tied up in knots with string theory, tomorrow, who knows?

cheers,
Doug

[g__day]

Matthew 4:8, the Devil takes Jesus up to the highest mountain, from which he can see "all the world's kingdoms"

Lads there are about 480 well analysed scientific impossibilities in the Bible (just google biblical scientific inconsistencies) - not just the mountain, nor the worldwide flood, but how about God stopping space and time - God held the moon and stars fixed in the sky whilst..... Joshua 10:12, the Sun and Moon "stood still" in the sky at God's command for an entire day, so that the Israelites could complete their bloody vengeance upon the Amorites."

So don't go pulling out teeth becuase ancient texts got colourful.

Realise the way faith and science reconcile and interact is evolving and continues on an interesting path forward is all I say. Be tolerant, but questioning. My main question was its still an interesting ask - why do we need nore than 1, or 10 or 1 million stars if we were divinely created? Why do we instead need 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 do make it all work?

[Don Pensack]

I do have hope that intelligent life may exist somewhere in the galaxy or Universe, but I'm waiting for it to develop here. At the moment, the jury's still out.
Seriously, self-awareness is a sliding scale among animals (anyone who has spent time with animals knows this), peaking with, perhaps (well, it COULD be argued) Man. However, looking at this "sliding scale", it is equally possible to envision a species much higher up the ramp, so to speak.
But, the Universe is so vast, so the likelihood of our ever knowing that species exists is near zero. Our Sun's heat will end all life on Earth some time in the next billion or billion and a half years. Even if we've managed to seed the stars with Ark-like ships carrying thousands of us, the species that will develop from us (assuming we don't kill ourselves off) will look back at us in pity and wonder (similar to how we look at Homo erectus) as they flee the Earth before its end.
It is the height of anthropocentrism and egotism to believe there is something special in our existences. A large asteroid could hit us in a hundred years and put an end to all of us and the Universe would go on.
Indeed, we are capable of killing our own species off, but we will not end life on Earth.
WE care if there is purpose. WE care if there is life elsewhere. WE care about the nature of the Universe. IT does not know whether we exist....or care. It is simply up to us to define our own purpose. When you grow up, you realize that you are responsible for your own lives. Man is refusing to grow up and take responsibility for his own existence by deciding it has meaning and that the meaning is................

[netwolf]

Just as we still dont know many things, we dont know why there are so many stars. Why would you expect any human being to know the answer this question? The scientific method used by human beings can not unlock all the knowledge of the universe. And who said that life only exists on this planet. Again i think your allowing the biblical account of creation to cloud you view of creation and the creator. Perhaps if mankind paused and wondered more often abotu the natural wonder of the universe and its ordered behavious, they might realise that this order comes from some core system of rules that they are following. Perhaps human being would study and try to understand these rules. But will the understand what is plain in front of them. That universe is in harmony by following those rules. And perhaps we can have similar harmony by following similar rules for human beings. To some degree the legal instutions that have come to be are formed on the philosphies derived from such reflection of the universe. Perhaps that is there purpose to show us how to achive harmony and to inspire us to do so.

Don if there is nothing special in our existance then why should we define a purpose. Given that we all are aware that we will die some day. Why define a purpose when we know a day will come when a asteroid might destroy us all. If you follow this line of thought one might just say lets give up and not bother. I think you can see the contradiction in this.

Regards

[Lester]

Many are doing that every day= "lets give up and not bother" Its called Suicide.

[fringe_dweller]

I find the arguements so far for the faith side enigmatic and sometimes a little portentous, whereas the science side seemes to trying hard to be pragmatic as possible!
I agree with some other writers here, why the heck does the universe need to be so darn supersized just to accomodate one little planet with some mammals on wheels running around thinking they are in charge?. that one has got me stuffed!
But I have to admit there is one fact that does seem a little spooky to me, and thats why are the differences/developmental gap (not talking biology here either) between humans and the next sentient animal/critter in the pecking order, *appear* so flippin' LARGE!?? WOOOOOOOOO

[netwolf]

We are not necessarly the only life in the universe, my faith in creation does not exclude but includes this possibility. And more so it includes the possibility for more than one univerese. Creator of Universes.

There is much stuff on this site on a diffrent pespective on Creation. I inivte you to take a look. I have not reviewed it all and am uncertain how true it is. But its intresting all the same.
http://islam.speed-light.info/


Regards

[Don Pensack]

The Existentialist Conundrum does point out the pointlessness of our consciousnesses and even our extistences. But it is the response to this that defines us as Human. As I said, WE care if there is meaning in our lives, and it is simply up to us to define this meaning, not to look for any Higher Authority.
From my vantage, Man created God(s) in his own image to externalize the value system he had internally. I think it's time for Man to realize this, debate what that value system is, and become a species who, though its existence is fleeting in the overall sense, defines its own purpose in being here. That purpose may have no meaning outside of Man himself, but it would be enough.
[And one of the purposes of Man I would like to see is that he strives to know everything there is to know, even though the quest would be endless. Learning is one of the First Purposes I would propose. But you see, that is just one point to debate and there are millions.]
Don Pensack

[netwolf]

Well look around you eveyone has defined there own purpose, some have done it within the context of a larger faith framework. This is a never ending discussion becuase our free will allows us to disagree.

At least we can agree that learning is one of our purposes in life. Faith does not limit this ability in anyway as it is seprate from this. I dont know of any faith that stops you from learning.
But our learning will never reveal any proof of the existance or non-existance of a creator. Because by virtue of that title excludes them from our concious ability to understand. You either belive or you dont that is part of your freely defined pupose.

Regards

[g__day]

That's a pretty reasonable perspective Don, and a faith belief simply responds with we have a purpose that is hidden at the moment.

By the way I found a decent list of biblical "absurdities" (their words) here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html

Personally I can see the evidence for a creation event, even if we have only a paltry understanding of reality that exists beyond our human senses (alah hidden variable theory). Its just the size of the universe and the unlikeliness of us being here with higher intelligence that leads me to ponder do we have critical purpose and mission to fulfil. Is this why we are here, because our actions will cause a 3rd party some collateral benefit from our human perspective? Seems a remote possibility to me. I ponder we are missing perspective somewhere in all of this.

And will we one day travel and colonise the stars? What if in 5,000 years or way less we discover say size, distance and time at lower levels of reality are simply illusions to be bent as far as we like with an uber-science? What if way faster than light travel isn't only a possibility, its simplicity - like pouring water from a tap, to a race than can play and totally master materials at a quantum or a galactic level with equal ease.

Perhaps our vision and dreams are way too small today. Maybe theoretcical physics will show us even how to create our own universe with definied physical constants. Would having the creation and environmental manipulation capabilities of a Biblical diety really help us that much? Of would it only serve as entertainment - lets go create a universe, play with it, raise a few higher life forms, then eat lunch at the other end of the Universe before the next wave of reality tv come son in the afternoon.

What is our purpose!

netwolf

That link you posted had better scientific analysis than I expected - but they are making some big assumptions, especially about the Earth / moon distance and length of a day in ancient times equaling each other put over extended periods of time, to give a constant formulea for the speed of light in the Koran. They don't go back to when say the moon was 1,000 times closer to the Earth and deduct what our orbital period was back then and what factors determine it to be so. They simply stated it was and faild to say why and check their results - Major Oppsie. Sadly their models are thoughtful but their assumptions are too strong and incorrect. For one they don't equate of mass changes to the Earth due to meteorites dumping extra mass onto our planet every day. Nor do the account for how far the moon travels thanks to our galactic cluster heading towards the Great Attracter at about 960 km/sec. So it would kinda change their figures.

And the way they spectulate with relativity is frivolous. I could just as reasonable argue God is a black hole that can't every enter our Universe by their brand of logic (e.g. God has inifinte power or energy, but e = mc^2 which implies God has inifinte mass, but large massive bodies create black holes that warp spacetime, and if God has infinite mass then in our reality he has a even horizon of infinite radius about him). So only an infinitesimaly small quotient of God can every enter and interact with our reality without blowing it all away.

Kinda cute logic isn't it? Maybe reality is just a bit more complext than that...

[netwolf]

Faith does provide a purpose, for me it is simply to submit to the will of the creator. It clearly identifies what that will is and what our duties and responsibilities are towards all of mankind. Further it limits us in no way from learning rather it encourages it. Lookup where the concept of Quarantine and Hospitals came from. So if you are going to argue faith limits purpose or limits our ability to learn then you are ignoring documented history. The lunar callendar, the concept of a moon circling the earth, and reflecting light from the sun. All these and more have come from a text 1400 years old that has remain unchanged in that time. Not one letter has changed. You are welcome to question its authorship but the knowledge and frame work it provides have encourage many of the modern scientific principles. Perhaps you have heard of the city of Babylon and what knowledge came from there, in art, scinece, music, phillosophy etc etc.

Some more links and insights
http://www.hinduism.co.za/vedic.htm
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.khwarzimic.org/frontline/history.html

Taoism (theres nice book called The Tao of Poh (winnie the poh)), Budhisim, Confusism all of these great Eastern Philosphies/Faiths have contributed much to current modern Science by giving there followers a framework to do so.

I have much much more shall we keep going..

I would like to state for the record that this is totaly in the nature of a discussion and i am not trying to push some hiden agenda to convert you all. One point i am trying to make is that Faith often is only seen in the west as western faiths and there treatment of science in the past and present. There are other faiths out there and other philosphies, Chinese, Midle Eastern, Indian (Vedic and other), etc etc. And these faiths/philosphies have contributed to what we call modern science by encouraging there followers.


g__day,

Yes its is a bit cute, but certainly there are concepts there that were not known at the time.
Rember it is after all man trying to extract meaning from the divine ;). And man is not infalable.
Look my point boils down to faith is seprate form Science, but it does provide man with a purpose that is condusive to learning. It also provides information if you are keen enoug to look.



Regards

[Doug]

Thanks for your reply g__day,:hi: I had trouble finding the reference because I was guided by the word 'creation' contained within "" in your earlier post. (I'm not pedantic, its my search tool :rolleyes: ) It now emerges that rather than the whole creation, it was just a reference to the kingdoms of the world, and equally important; their glory or splendor. Not quite the same thing since these kingdoms would not have included loose tribal communities which covered most of the world's land surface in those days and were yet to be brought under the aegis of civilization. That is at least if one takes a literal view, however if one considered for discussion's sake, the nature of who Jesus is supposed to be, and the nature of who satan is supposed to be, we are forced to see this as a symbolic event where the vantage point would be such that all kingdoms in all ages then and future, would have been showcased.
Not wanting to play Dentist, just seeking facts and truth.
ta,
Doug

[g__day]

netwolf - no I was never trying to argue, in your words "faith limits purpose or limits our ability to learn ", puzzled you thought I were? Faith gives a purpose. Science ponders is there a discoverable purpose? Faith intreprets commands, their meaning and how our understanding of the world through science changes the way in which the faithful have intrepreted their faith in the past. So science certainly does interact with faith. When faith says the dinosaurs (leviathans etc) lived when the world was created 12,000 years ago and science says add a few more zeros you have a reconcilation challenge on timelines. To simply say "so what?" gets you quickly into the terrority of a book that is deemed holy, infallible given prophets words were classified as directed by God so not subject to mis-speaking - hence you get a direct clash between faith and science, but one that must play out in science's courtroom. Then faith must question not only all of sciences dating mechanisms to say science got it wrong when it sees the Earth as 5 billion years old, its less than 20,000, but multiple interlinked systems of geogology, astro physics, cosmology, ecology, etc... basically its fighting a very one sided battle.

I'd prefer to accept a signal to noise issue given how languages evolve in that the original message to the faithful got some noise in the signal, so keep searching! The truth is out there!

[Lester]

There is cirtainly some long winded replies going on here. This is what faith is= Faith calls what is not as though it is.

If you have got to see it with your own eyes first=you have no faith.

I am walking evidance that this is so, but will not go any further here. If anyone is interested to hear more you can P.M. me.

[netwolf]

g_day, the only problem in this debtat and the point i am making is that Science may disagree with some faiths, but there are faiths out there that Science is in complete compliance with. Some faiths give purpose and encourage Scietific discovery also.

As to purpose perhaps i missunderstood what you said. I appologise. I do agree that mans increase in knowledge has made permited him to explore faith in more detail. And that is as it is meant to be. As our knowledge expands we see things more clearly than in the past. That is why i am a strong supporter of Science and encourage it. But when we use Science to interprets Faith we should also realiase that perhaps our Science has not reached a level where it can helpe us intepretate Faith yet. And perhaps there are some relegions that from the outset have encouraged Scietific discovery and have withstood any challenge made by Scienctific interpretation. Much science has come from faiths that encouraged it. And they are also the faith that you can find more in sync with Science.

My framework and background are perhaps diffrent to what your using to base faith on. The scientific community seems to have a bias towards Chrsitianity to compare anything to. Why dont you compare Science to other faiths and be fair in it. Islam for one does not claim any age to the earth nor does it claim that evolution did not occur. Perhpas when you clasify theory of Creation you might want to brooden your field, rather than just dealing with one Religion. Faith in a creator is not the domain of Christians only but many many other religions and as a Scientisit you sureley need to be fair in genralising comparission to all.

Lester you are right Faith does not need proof. But it does not discourage the search for knowledge or proof for things. The debate here is Faith vs Science, there is no point to this. Because Faith and Science are not at war. This vs is only man interpretation that somehows Faith and Science are against each other or at odds with each other. This is not true if you examine more than just one faith.


Regards

[Lester]

Faith doesn't chop and change, faith believes. Faith doesn't just try something, faith gets results. Faith isn't influenced in anyway by what is seen with our eyes, heard with our ears, or touched.

All of these are contrary to how science works. Science doesn't work in the realm of the super natural. Science needs evidence that can be seen.

I am not against scientists; we need them, but just making a piont that faith and science are two completely different things. We would have more luck trying to get all the lions and tigers in the world to eat grass than for faith and science to be in harmony.

All the best.

[netwolf]

Lester, The interpretation of faith is down to the individual, each individual will see meaning based on his/her knowledge and circumstance. For a long time it was belived that the earth was the centre of the universe, but this is not true. Science helped us see that this is not even really based in faith. It was a man made concept that hijacked the faith and seperated it from Science.

Faith does not change but our understanding of it does increase over time. Thats the point i was making. But the basic tenants of the faith do not change. But perhaps we can see more of the wonders of faith as we increase our knowledge.

Regards

[Shawn]

Come on Guys,, Love the title to the thread,,,But Faith implies something we believe that is not material nor tangible....have we not in the last 2 millenia evolved past that indoctrination ...wake up and consider that we are what we are is a result of a chain of events we have No control over. Self comfort is a warm fuzzy thing that cannot be defined as faith nor science...
.. its more like whatever flicks your switch...

[Lester]

Hi Shawn,

What can I say to that little out burst; except that just because something is not seen or tangible to our senses doesn't make it "crap".

[netwolf]

The many and varied Faiths of the world are the rational behind most social norms of the day, and most laws we have. Shall we dispense with them. I mean why is stealing wrong, is there any tangible proof that it is wrong to steal. Is it for example wrong to steal if no one can possibly find out about it. Modern man accepts all the comforts that have developed from faith yet wonders why it is necessary. When you teach your children to respect ther elders, is there any tangible proof that they must..

Look at our society and how more and more teenagers are disrespectfull towards there peers. Perhaps because there is no tangible proof not to be.


Regards

[Shawn]

Lester ,Hi I reworded It was a little strong, no offence was meant by my comment. I do have thoughts on what you say, but currently Im late for work..pick it up again soon,,,

Apologies to those who may have been offended..
S

[Lester]

Hi Shawn,

thanks, apology accepted. Many of us have been hurt, stabbed in the back or just convulse at the demoninational big wiggs etc. etc. (myself included) But just because I have been put down, hurt and stabbed in the back isn't reason for me to throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are so many counterfiets out there that taint the Truth.

All the best.

[g__day]

I was watching a Star Trek genre tv episode late last night (Enterprise?) and a person had the rather apt throw ayway line "us arguing the existence or not of a transcendant diety is kinda like cockroaches arguing about nuclear fusion".

Kinda a nice perspective on the whole matter.

But still I ponder why so many stars? The only scientific rational that may align with faith is a diety wants to set up a self consistent, self correcting system where things generally work without a creators touch at the helm every micro second, possibly this was the system and physical laws and constants needed for higher intelligent life to exist.

Given Heisenberg showed that one of the strongest laws in physics is the uncertainity principle its pretty clear the universe is non deterministic and not just a giant abacus going through its motions towards a definable result. Face it if it were we and the universe wouldn't need to exist if we are simply a tool like a hammer or a monkey wrench. So if a God created us and in built uncertainity into the very framework of our existence, plus promises us free will - meaning he doesn't intervene with lightning bolts every time we piss him off, well it implies to the faithful our purposeis more subtle and grand. You don't do a high risk experiement unless you want to find out something. So where on a journey to answer something fairly important and teh fact we get to live in a pretty neat universe and have often a swell time is just some neat collateral benefit for many.

[avandonk]

If you really need to know why the Universe is so big. Look up Godel's incompleteness theorem.

Or to paraphrase him 'a finite system always has paradoxes and non proveable truths'

In other words the Universe has to be 'very big to infinite or even better bigger than infinite' so there are no internal inconsistencies.

Bert

[Starcrazzy]

ok..enough sitting back reading..here goes...

The notion of a god as an interveening being in the day to day lifes of mere humans is an obsurd proposition..It is almost comical..i was raised in a strict christian house, by parents that werre ministers, so i know the bible and the religon as well as anyone...i grew up believeing all the story's my parents taught and preached as 'facts' to young minds..while the thought of religon is honourable, the means and the message is simply unscientifacally sustainable..

It wasn't untill i removed myself and my mortality from the equation that i started to see things much more clearly...
We as humans have a basic urge, a longing to know when we die we move on...our loved ones 'move on'...its a nice thought...

But i urge you all to try looking at the facts from an unsympathetic, un human view...

Christianity can't have its cake and eat it too, nor can any other religon for that matter...either the bible speaks the truth, or it doesn't...either the earth is 6000 years old, or its 14 billion..there is no eating of the young earth cake..im sure you have all heard the analogy of the timeline thing...if all the time in the earths history were compressed into a 24 hour period, humans would have appeard at around 10 seconds to midnight...life itself appearing within the last few minutes...

now...consider that for a moment...what was god waiting for??

I am well read on all the alternate theories...the youg earth, intelligent design..these theory's use so called science as there basis..where if you look deeply enough(which isn't very deep) you see the science is simply ludecrous..things like 'irreducable complexity' and the inconstance of the speed of light...thats my personal fav...some creationist would have us bel;ieve that the speed of light has slowed(or sped up) dramatically in the lsat few thousand years...therefor these galaxies and so on that we see that are measured mathmatically to be millions of light years away, aren't rea;lly that far at all...

well...i believe the closest thing we have to a god is mathmatics...its the one true constant thing...2x2 is 4..no matter what speed, no matter how old or young, or how far away....maths is the true unmovable object in the way of an interventionist god being a reality...he simply doesn't ADD up...

of course...this is all just my opinion..

[Shawn]

Excellent SC...

My thoughts I composed today after putting my foot in it, so to speak..

Hi Again Lester ,also

my remark regarding indoctrination was not intended to belittle any persons individual beliefs, I myself am a pious man. What irks me however is that whilst "for example" and Christianity is not the only faith that this applies to, Christs teachings have over the millennia been edited , altered , embellished and in some cases been totally and intentionally misinterpreted , to enable those in power to both maintain and increase there hold on the masses, not to mention any pecuniary gain from these activities. Some of these dubious alterations to Christs original teachings have stuck and we have been indoctrinated with these since childhood. My point is that we should now be relying on science and research to remove the veils of deception and deliberate misinterpretation in order to reveal a more accurate description of the teachings and the life of Christ. As per the title of this threat Faith vs Science. It is unfortunate that through the ages "faith "and I use that word carefully, has severely and to some extent still is impeding scientific research, purely as a result of the manipulations I have mentioned here. Literally millions of souls have perished as a result of these manipulations over the last two millennia. As a religious man this angers me immensely. Hence the rather terse post prior to this one. I should have bit my lip.

Do you believe for a moment, that fat cat televangelist with their silk shirts 25 thousand dollar wrist watches, diamond rings and stretched limo,s and multi million dollar mansions actually believe what they preach. A modern day example of mass manipulation in that lucrative business called faith. I am sure that a lot of people like myself are not happy with having their faiths and beliefs capitalised on by ruthless hypocrites.
Again I apologise if I offended anyone,

A comment made on the youth of the day, hmmm. IMHO I don’t think that faith nor any kind of religion are the main problem here, I believe that breakdown of the extended family followed be the breakdown of the nuclear family are the main cause of this contentious issue. Family values for the majority are being watered down due to various external pressures for the most part beyond their control. This saddens me also.
All the best
S

[netwolf]

A persons faith can not be judged by the actions of others. There are out there as we all know people who are called fundamentalist, but do not follow the fundamentals of any religion. The use of this term trueley irks me because, the religion that my parents have taught me would not condone such behaviour. Do we for example hold all Scientists responsibile for the actions taken at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fatman and the little boy were after all made by Scientists. So you and I both can then agree that the actions of some can not be used to attack the whole.

So yes there are people out there that manipulate relgion to gain power. I dont dispute this point, it is most valid in todays world. There is no shortage of this in any faith. But there actions make them clearly unfaithfull. They condem themselves but i will not be there judge nor executioner a more suitable fate awaits them. But there are true and pious people too, pepople who truely lived there faith. And you can never take that away with any amount of Science.

People say they dont belive in God, and they dont belive in any organised religions. And I respect your right to that. But this does not mean you have not faith. Everyone has faith in themselves at the very least. The good people, also have faith in following some basic principles. Like do not steal, etc etc. I again asky why do they do this, why follow any such rules if you only belive in mathematics and logic, then why do you have emotions. Why do you follow the norms of society. Why do you follow any rules, when often you can not find any prof of there value.

As i said before can Science provide any tanginble evidance that doing the right thing is necessary?

To me life is a test to see for ourselves who we are. There is no judgement necessary because we will testify for our own actions. Faith keeps us on our path to success. And even the Scientific method requires Faith in onself if nothing else.

I wonder how many countless souls people like Mother Terassa have saved. And how many of them because of her faith will become the next Einstiens.

Regards

[RAJAH235]

& here is little ol' me thinking that we just evolved to suit the ever changing/current conditions....Well, bless my soul.. Live n let live..Believe it or not..
:D L.

[Shawn]

This is also my belief, its a fact that cannot be disputed. another manipulation of the faith. :P

[netwolf]

Yes Humans adapt and evolve to the changin environment, and many faiths concur with this view. But then there is postivie and negative change, progress has its vices and virtues. Faith provides a moral framework from which we can assess the vices and virtues of progress/evolution.

Why is the universe so big? This is a question for Science more than faith, faith accepts what is as the will of the creator. Some quotes that may be of intrest on the subject at hand.

Big Bang...
"Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe? "
<Qur'an-Anbiyaa 21:30>

And on Expanding universe.
Sura 51, verse 47 "The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."

Regards

[g__day]

Avandonk,

Unfortunately you just quoted or intreptred Godel's Incompleteness theory to the guy who topped maths at Uni in 1983.

That's not at all what Godel stated, rather he said in simplitistic terms once a system (say a logic system or a mathematical system) gets beyond a certain level of complexity (that is he implied once a system is powerful enough to be actually real-world useful), then its loses the power to be fully deterministic. So once you move a logic system above a certain level of grunt it inherits infinite possibility for asking questions that must have a clear answer but can't be answered by the rules of that system. I.e. our reality - is there a god? In maths Godel showed using an Godel Universal Truth Machine you could ask a question which itself had an embedded but reversed GUTM that flips the correct answer and then when you point the first GUTM at the inverted second GUTM and ask it what happens you have a contradiction - the orignal GUTM can't prove or disprove the second inverted GUTM because both are fully state aware and both will therefore conflict in any answer given.

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

So in essence once a system achieves a certain level of power - it looses precision in its ability to have assured outcomes. So a ruler can always measure an inch, but a PC can't always get the right answer to the problems it attempts to solve. Simple things work, but they can only do Mickey Mouse tasks. Powerful things mostly work, but there is a level of power or capability beyond which things are always guaranteed to have some level of failure! Enhancing such a powerful system with more rules, or inference systems, or logic, or capabilities or more levels of redundancy doesn't address the problem, it only brings in new and more subtle points of failure!

So bottom line your quote "Or to paraphrase him 'a finite system always has paradoxes and non proveable truths' ... In other words the Universe has to be 'very big to infinite or even better bigger than infinite' so there are no internal inconsistencies." doesn't quite hit the mark. A finite system above a certain level of complexity always has areas it can never resolve or illuminate. A universe is not proven to need size nor complexity to avoid internal inconsistencies; I wish that it were that simple!

* * *

My personal belief is science doesn't preclude nor prove a directed intelligence rather than blind luck created our Universe; rather it can predict and go some ways to explore the mechanisms used for creation and why things are the way they are. It can show what likely happened when the big red creation button was pushed, but not if a God or a stray quantum possibility tripped this switch.

But equally faith is often reinforced for various reasons by folk who wish to intreptret reality and recorded past events in a certain way. In this faith must contend with science and what can be observed and validated to be internally consistent and what can't. As said above 2 + 2 must always equal 4, even for very large values of 2! Once you get into trickier proofs you can either show a system with a known level of consistency and tens of millions of validation points works; or you can try and twist out an outcome you wish and either say its unknown or scientists have it all wrong (a.k.a. bad science or psuedo-science).

On th esubject of is there a God - its neither proveable or dis-proveable to science by a long, long shot. As I said before its kinda like as relevant as gnats arguing about nuclear fusion; the capabilities and/or very existence of an infinite supreme being not of our existence are beyond us to predict, test or verify in any material way, shape or form. Regardless of human longing for a God, gods or no gods, it doesn't change the underlying reality or result. God or gods either exist or they don't. You can not use logic to either confirm or deny your point of view in any material way - it has to be a faith call; science can't solve this one either way for anyone.

At best science can say if a powerful, directed intelligence (or random chance) initiated creation as a set and forget event - what likely mechanisms were used so as to be self sustaining and internally consistent with the self propgating reality or laws of that system as it came into existence.

[Starcrazzy]

g'day g_day..lol..
Your understanding of maths is obviously a lot more profound then the lay persons..i wonder if you.ve heard of the turing machine experiments??I think your post was pointing towards sort of self referencing equations??am i correct..anyway i recently read an interesting parrable about an ultimate truth machine...evryone was invited to ask it a question, and anyone who could ask it a question that could not be answerd would get the prize...many men came with tricky questions that the machine handled easily..intill one man put to it a simple statement...."the machine cannot prove that this statement is correct".....the machine exploded and the man recieved the prize...

anyway, to the rest of you that keep quoting phrases from the bible and the koran...whats the go??you speak as if a statement in a book, written a long time ago by some human, can prove the existance of a god...i mean, the human mind can conceive and write down on paper almost anything, it doesn't make it a fact..science is the only true measuring stick..not phrases from works of fiction..you may not like this, or even believe in it, but evrytime you turn the key in your car, its science that starts the engine...evrytime you flick that switch, its science that turns your light on...and when your sick and go to the doctor, its science that will make you well..i am yet to see faith alone affect the physical world at all..not even in the slightest..i have seen faith effect the person who holds it, but they still need science to make that car go...

i leave you with a wise proverb...(from a scientist)
"if there were no death, then there would be no god..there simply would be no need"

[Lester]

That is your opinion= wise proverb

From where I stand= foolish

[Starcrazzy]

yes..sorry...i forgot to add that its just my opinion..
It may seem foolish to you..but its quite true, if we all lived forever, why would we need religon??can you answer that??

[Starcrazzy]

where did we come from??in all likely hood, we evolved from lower mammals.not from the garden of eaden..where did the universe come from??in all likely hood from the big bang..not from a 6 day working bee by the creator..have i missed something...may just be my opinion, but its also the opinion of science..

[iceman]

Seems that this thread has a lot of the same opinions rehashed in a different form every day or two...

Unless there's something new to add, maybe just let the thread continue on its natural course to inactivity.

These threads are usually preferred to be avoided, because topics like this are very close to people's hearts, and there's usually zero chance of convincing either side to change the way they believe. They also have a very high risk factor of someone getting upset and things start to get personal.

[Shawn]

Good point Mike, I agree this is probably a thread that should be discontinued. Each to there own, and adding to it ,is wear and tear on your keyboard. indoctrination is called that for a reason.

Indoctrination

1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.

2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.

...

[g__day]

Starcrazzy - Yes HaltTester on a Turing machine is analogus to a truth machine in Godel's argument.

Lester - science answers how thing soperate, not why they are here, faith intuits or guesses or simply hopes for the why and physicology also studies why some people need an external source of hope to help validate their existence. No absolutes there.

iceman - the question can only be asked to see what new information surfaces. When its simply saying I saw something interesting and staying calm at worst a bit of name calling happens (thought I saw the audience here as being experienced enough to not fall into that simple stumbling pit), at best you get a very intriguing dialogue occuring and clever people actually examining not only what they believe, but more importantly why. You don't ask, you won't learn!

Sometimes you get an unexpected post of incredible elegance or insight, so nothing venture, nothing gained. This post good or bad will fade away eventually if no further value is added.

[fringe_dweller]

Mike, while I fully respect and understand you and the mod squad have to say that, but it may be asking too much to start a forum based around and on the enjoyment, study and understanding of the universe, and not expect a few curly questions/threads and debates containing the 'G' word now and then.
this is stating the obvious i guess, but in my limited experience and understanding, a certain percentage of AA's and people attracted to astronomy/star gazing will always be the type of person who likes to go beyond the usual lightness and fluff, take the grey matter for a bit of a workout, and think deeply or profoundly on the BIG questions (rightly or wrongly) occasionaly. Kinda goes with the territory?
So good luck with keeping that genie in the bottle constantly :)
maybe shoulda started a forum on woodworking or something else instead? ;) could always rename it to astronomical imaging only?

[Shawn]

I for one say...more sport and haircuts,:rofl:, going off topic a bit, "well not really because Im sure he would have something to say here" wheres snavexela, or whatever his screen name is ,,,you know Spock, he ok ? anyone know.

Great couple of recent posts here too , might add.

S

[iceman]

You'll note Kearn, that no attempt has been made to keep the lid on it constantly.
These discussions have been left to run their course, because as g__day said, they often reveal some well thought out and insightful posts. They also often (in the past) have revealed some nastiness, personal attacks and preaching. That's all my friendly reminder was about.


I don't understand why you'd try and be so sarcastic and leading with that sentence. Astrophotography is a very important part of astronomy, and is very important part of the hobby to a large percentage of the membership here.. just as visual astronomy and observing is a very important part to others.
You'll note that many aspects of the hobby are catered for here, Kearn..

[netwolf]

Starcrazy,

Science is also man made, and to some it would seem that it to has become a faith. Science started the car, i dont think so. Without the will of a person wanting to start the car the car would not start. You speak of Scince as if instead of a method it is a sytem of belifs. Next you will say Science created tha car, the atom and the universe. Lets get some perspective here shall we. I was merly quoting the Q'uran to show that modern scientific methods are only now discovering what is already known. So what you place so much faith in was touting the earth centred universe when clearly there was some higher intelect authoring works of fiction as you call them that today are considerd facts. And these quotes were in direct response to the thread title, which poses the question about what Faith vs Scince's with regard to the size of the universe. So i belive i was on topic in quoting what a current faith of the day has to say on the matter. If i have offended then i apologise but i belive i am on topic.

I am not against Science, i have been intrested in how things work from a very young age. But i dont take my study of the universe and turn it into a faith. As that study provides no morality, no right and wrong. There is a place for both. And I am as intrested to learn about the many scientific theories on the matter as the many and varied faith based theories on the matter. That is indeed the topic is it not.

Regards

[Doug]

Netwolf, many things are not testable and so can be viewed as faith in the absence of hard empirical fact. Regardless if a faith system promotes 6 x 24 hour days or 6 gazillion years for creation, it is not testable because we can't go back there and verify the reality. However, there are some things that are testable;
when life departs a formerly living body, what is ultimately left? Is it steam? Is it a puddle of water? No, it is a powdery residue from the many and varied chemical elements/molecules that contributed to that bodies form. True a body in good nic contains a lot of water, but it is a testable fact that it is not made from water. As Adam was reportedly told 'from dust you came and to dust you will return'. Now that is testable, we have the testimony of the evidence of our own eyes. At the time of writing, a precise chemical analysis would have been both meaningless and superfluous to the intent. It is testable; it does have a high correlation of truth; unless a person is in complete denial. What we can eventually find after life departs a formerly living body is a 'dusty' residue. Even bone given the right conditions will break down to a dusty residue.
I like to check most references given on the internet, and I am dismayed at the amount of false information or falsely represented information that is published. Faith can be good in certain circumstances where it is used to fill a void in knowledge and understanding, but when any faith system fails to find the support of its own testable claims, it needs to be amended don't you think?

Doug

[Doug]

g__day, I think it was you who asked why the universe is so darned big, why so many stars?
Can't say I have an answer, but I think we might be all a bit psychotic if there was only the Sun and moon out there and then just nothing...period. Maybe we would feel like bugs on a microscope slide.

Doug

[Starcrazzy]

[quote=netwolf]Starcrazy,

Science is also man made, and to some it would seem that it to has become a faith. Science started the car, i dont think so. Without the will of a person wanting to start the car the car would not start.

I disagree..it is nothing but science that starts that car...if you take a link out of the chain rection that causes that car to start ie, the fuel, or the battery, and that car will not start...you can will it to start all you like..you can even pray and ask god to start the car...but i garentee, it won't start..In fact...lets use the scientific method to see if your statement or hypothasis that it is the will of the person that starts the car, is true or not...get in your car, will with all your might that the car won't start..i mean really will it not to kick over...then turn the key...if it starts whats happend to your hypothesis..thats right, the science still works, weather you will it or not...

and yes i do speak of science as if it were a system of beliefs...what is it if it isn't??yes, it is a method for which we come to find the truth's of our universe, and thus, believe in them...i am confronted daily by creationist's who only take from science that which doesn't contradict thier faith..and that's why you end up with wacko theories full of half truth's and bad science..

i appolagise if in my previous post's i offended you , but i can't find any mention (by me) of you going off topic..

[Adrian-H]

to anything you know, everything you do, is towards beleif?

if you believe you have faith?

to have faith in science?

so tell me.

what is the difference between science and faith?, can you really defie?

is not science a faith?

:screwy:

i sure do know you have faith in your books.

[g__day]

Science relies on a method of model -> hypothesis -> tests -> data -> statistical analysis (e.g. F or P tests or regression analysis of Chi squared tests etc) to obtain a confidence interval for the likihood of outcome not being chance when viewed against all otther data!

[xelasnave]

The Universe is so big because we are so small.. The Universe is even bigger than we can see and is bigger than we can imagine. Into this Universe we put humans and declare them to be above all that it is, was and shall be.., and that we are created using GOD as the model (man was created in God's image it goes someplace) and that the whole place was created for them. I dont know what model he used for all the other animals..maybe copies of units placed on other worlds??? Maybe the Universe was not made all for us... that would make it appear smaller to us as we would know that only this part over here was made for us and that part over there was made for another reason or other creatures. Or go the other way there is no God and all this just happened..sure we have ideas (big bang) but they dont go much past "it just happened" either.so on either side a giant leap of faith is required to accept the respective proposals.. so when it all boils down faith is required for belief in a totally scientific approach or a totally religious approach.
The thing I think we need to guard against is those who seek to suppress others opinions because they offend their belief systems... If your faith can be offended so easily maybe you should work on building your beliefs if you feel threatened be anyone discussing ideas contrary to yours rather than seek their silence for fear they may say something "unpleasant and contradictory".
I dont like having a book written by man thrust in my face and being accused of being a heathen because I dont believe all contained therein is "gospel" any more than I like Richard Green sprouting that he has the TOE thing worked out and he is more wonderful than Einstein ... both lack evidence and physical support for the basics they put forward.. fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on me... If it is God that we can thank for our intelligence I think he may be disappointed how so many fail to use it to qualify the information that enters their thinking. I bet if God appears to us all the first things he will get rid of are the religions of the world profiting by using his name in vain.
To suppress this style of thread would be wrong because it is in effect seeking to salience someone’s view.. is that what we want controlled thought??? I dont get bitter and twisted if someone thinks my gravity rain idea is nonsense why should anyone become bitter and twisted if I wont give authority to their God via a book written by man (many men over many years and supposedly inspired by, and secretly "edited" by God).
AND I am not a heathen I practice Christian ethic in a loving and non hypocritical manner more so than most believers I have met who profess a total following of their faith.. so I have no fear for being struck down for blasphemy. Thank goodness the Universe is so big as we must all be able to fit without a fuss. It is certainly big enough for all views to coexsist in peace...maybe not when one looks at the "experiments" of tolerance.

alex

[Doug]

G'day Alex, who is Richard Green? There was one who played in 'the adventures of Robin Hood', though I think he was 'Greene', there is a current day Richard Green; a golfer, but which one do you mean?:shrug:

I tend to agree with you in some ways, however it might be helpfull for people to confine discussion to the topic area, and that is what I see is being asked for. The 'Pandora's box' of faith versus faith has been opened several posts ago and a good deal of care needs to be taken to avoid WW3. Faith versus Science is one thing and it is a good healthy thought provoking topic. Faith versus Faith is not part of the same discussion, but when it is injected in, it is not unreasonable to expect an inrush of antibodies. Best thing would be if people were to remain on topic, me thinks.(myself included):whistle:

You have expressed some misgivings about a certain book (probably the Bible), accepting your concerns as well founded, that has nothing to do with 'Faith versus Science' that would be 'the Bible versus science' would it not?
The Bible is just a collection of 66 books from which a multitude of various faiths have come into being. Even the Koran has spawned more than one faith, (sunni, shee-ite (sp) and maybe others, the book of Morman at least 2 sects, but not one is definitive of 'Faith' IMHO.
I don't personally see that wanting to remain on topic is gagging debate, just keeping on topic. If someone wants to start another thread, (eg. Religion versus Faith versus Christianity)that would be another thing, and people who can't weather the storm could choose to stay out of it.:windy:
Couse it would be a moderators worst nightmare, so better not.
Sadly I can't imagine that anything new and on topic remains to be said, but I can live in hope.
BTW I can tolerate your Gravity rain idea FWIW.
cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

I thought the guy with the string theory was Richard Green.. but I could be wrong names is not a strong point with me. Sorry Mr Green that your name is not burnt into my mind given my interest in your area of expert experience.
Doug I dont disagree with anything you say should I look again? I hope I have not been on a tangent to the point, and yes I guess that could be it.
Moreover please remember that if I have nothing to say I will go to the trouble to say it... I dont seek to annoy people but I would be stupid to think that my views dont irritate some. I would like to think I give everyone as hard a time as the rest and not single out any group for undue attention. I like christains and support their right to their beliefs.I live the christain ethic of love your fellow man etc and have no problem with following the ten commandments. I have been a believer in the past so I have experienced the "joy" of believing in something.
My point really was I get alarmed when warned off certain subjects as if I am going to insult someone, I would not intentionally do so and will listen to any direction that I am coming close. AND if anyone thinks I am having a go I suggest they have never witnessed me having a verbal attack on someone.. I can be very hard and destructive if I choose... which I do not...Nevertheless I feel these areas benefit from discussion as long as it is polite and considered. I personally enjoyed this thread greatly and worry when I interpret comments that the thread is not going anyplace as attempts to shush things up because it may upset someone..which I think is not right.
alex

[Shawn]

Sc ,,Your last post is directly on topic, as far as I can see. Although the discusion here is miandering slightly "actually a lot" from the original post. Science vs Faith and why the universe is so big. Let us just consider that we have all been influenced by a faith,"no matter if we like it or not, or even aware of it"?. how much further would science & research evolved without the impediment of faith. I think that is what the thread is supposed to be about. Any individuals beliefs aside, the end result does not change. The question was a double ender 1 faith vs science, which do you trust, ?.2. why is the universe so big, goes back to the first question as a sub clause..Answers we have been told so, Dont ask questions, or be burnt at the stake as a heretic. only recently the last couple of hundred year has it been OK to question the past. mainly because burning at the stake is frowned upon in most civilised countries, hence starts a trend towards another type of belief. It may take decades, centuries even but the misguided tracks laid down by our ancestors will eventually become the norm and subsequently be challenged by new ideas..

A consensus of opinion here is impossible, indoctrination you see.

We have but one faith , and science has nothing to with it.

Just be human. And the universe being so big, " get over it, it is.":rofl:

[Shawn]

Alex you hit the post button before I did,,,well said...

...

[netwolf]

I accept Science for it is, i dont take it paritaly and pick and chose what i like. I accept that the Scientifc method has thus far proved only so many truths, but I also accept that the method is improved and those truths change.

The human will is behind all discovery and knowledge, our determination to understand the universe is what drives the scientific method. Science is not a being so you can atribute anything to it. It is the method used to understand how/why things work. Using this we cand seek to create machines that take advantage of these truths. But with my will i dont simply sit and pray, my will will give me the motivation to get up and check and test what is wrong with the car to stop it from starting. My will to use the Scientifi methods will help me diagnose the problem and resolve it. I use Science it does not use me. I make science it does not make me. I am infalable so can science be infalable.

And what we have achived today with Science, may tomorow be questioned with tomorows Scinece to show it was not good prorgress or the correct assement. Scince of today is used all the time to change the Scinece of the past. Adding 3 extra Planets to the textbooks, creating more energy efficent systems, less use of fosil fuel. So Scince is a method and the method does not say observer and stop, it says continue to observer, and increase the resolution of the data and the quality of the data. This constant reaplication of the method brings us closer to the truth.

Yes the universe is big and no we humans dont no why.

We are not made in the image of god, that would be idoltry. And i dont belive the source for that is any faith i know. And the universe was not just create for human beings, No such claim is made my faith. There is much much more other than us.

Religion has not surprsed Scince, people have surprsed it for ther own gains. Dont place the actions of people on the Faith. In what faith is it written that it is wrong to understand the universe. Faith itself does not require proof, but it does not supress the search for proof. People have done this. Forget 100 years ago, oil companies surpress research into alternaitve fuels, they buy out any such research. Tell me has faith detered this or the peoples greeed. Perhaps if they had morals and did not only seek capital gains, then would seek Scinece for the true reason. For the improvement of all mankind.

Regards

[netwolf]

I agree that we will not reach any consenus, but that is not the goal. The goal is to engage people to 'think' about it. Everytime we think we come closer to understanding. And understanding does not need consensus. We are each at diffrent places in our journey each engaging our mind from a unique perspective. This unique perspective is the wonder of life. "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations"

Regards

[avandonk]

Sorry G__day I am only a lowly Physicist and my short paraphrasing was only meant to convey some idea of Godels thinking. The fact that a self referential well defined system such as simple number theory stumbles is cause for concern, at least it was in the thirties.
Chaos theory has this as well. In other words even seemingly well behaved systems if they are non linear are not deterministic. And yet the paradox is a non deterministic system can lead to stability. One example is your heartbeat.

I also agree with all you said, the bits I understood. The impression I got was that to get rid of the inconsistencies and paradoxes the defining system had to be outside the system under scrutiny. I missed the point that even this does not solve the problem. The problem is inherently embedded in the system as it gets more complex.Have I got this correct now? I am amazed we can even begin to elucidate how things work, let alone be so smug to think we can get a Theory Of Everything. That should not stop us from trying however no matter how futile.
I will now go back to cavorting with all the other gnats in the sunshine! Or is that join two cockroaches Pons and Fleichmann arguing about nuclear fusion.

Bert

[netwolf]

Hmm i recall reading somewhere that the potential for chaos is high in a ordered system, and the potential for stability is higher in a chaotic system. At the time (year 10) the nearest thing i could associate to that was the energy converstion. The kinetic energy of moving an object to a height is converted into the potential energy when it stops at that hight. And when its droped the potential energy is realised as the kinetic energy. Hey i was 16 and just grasping at straws to understnad things more complex than I.

Regards

[xelasnave]

re thread not going anywhere that may be so but the counter shows more interest in this thread than any other, I would like to think that the interest is more than search bots sniffing out the many key words to be found therein.
As to being a little off topic, is that so bad given the opportunity that is presented to discuss sometimes abstract ideas (or views).
The input by all shows a healthy group of people enjoying exploration of the concepts presented...

alex

[Doug]

Netwolf, I suppose in making the following statement; you do believe in a God of some sort or other. How would such a God, having none of His attributes reflected in man ever be able to relate to man, or be related to by man? :confuse3:
Seems to be a bit like a cobler trying to relate to a shoe box and maybe expecting the shoe box to relate to him in return.:confused:

It seems to me that any creative, directive agency, be it God or Intellegent design factor 'X', being sentient would seek contact with the fruit of His labours. Seems to me that there would need to be some common ground as it were for this to take place.:campfire:

Doug

[netwolf]

Doug,

Finlay some questions that i have myself pondered on much over the years.
I think the creator of the universes does not need to make us in his image in order to relate to us. I think the creator is far superior in an ability than we can possibly imagine. To say that it must be otherwise how can he relite is to place a restriction on a entity that knows no bounds. In my opinion this is human rationalisation to atribute human traits to this entity. In a way if you follow this line of thinking one could eventually rationalise and conceptualise this entity and hence reach a state of nirvana. Or as i call it this is the Single Soul theory, as opposed to the monthestic concept ot a creator seprate from creation. Or as i call it seprate soul theory.

Regards

[xelasnave]

It really bolis down to man thinking he can contemplate a God and understand his motivations. Be there or be there not I think one must see the futility of such an attempt, still many feel they are priveledged to understand his intentions and directions. Very presumptious I recon. AND I have not a bible in my possession but I am sure it contains a specific statement "that man was created in Gods image" if I did not get that idea from there where could it have come from I wonder.
alex
alex

[netwolf]

Alex, I agree that man can not presume to know the intentions of God. But faith often stipulates this intention in its divine litrature.

Doug
And why does man need to relate to God? Are we going to provide some comfort or empathy to God? This again is a human rationalisation there is not need to relate. Like you example states it is not possible and more over like your exampl shows its not necessary. Why shoul a shoe relate to a man it simply must to as is intened for it. Serve its purpose. A Star is born and it dies, it serves its purpose like all nature. Man however has freewill to chose not to follow any purpose or set his own purpose.

SirDystic, thanks you have given me something to look into. What was done a while back by religious leaders to surpres ideas is still done in the modern world for profit. And it begs the question that perhaps it is selfishness/greed that drives man to supress other men from exploring. And these are often atributed to religion or God, when they do not say this. Indeed in life we alwasy percive faith as how others practice it, rahter than actually study that faith for ourselves. Pehaps this is a seprate topic beyond this forum, but thank you for giving me something to think about.

Regards

[Doug]

Net wolf,
consider the implications of your own statement:"There is no need to relate" is at minimum just as presumptuous as saying there is a need to relate. Actually it is the Atheist who would most be expected to say there is no need.

Moreover if it is the creator who says it, not man, how is it you say it is presumption on man's part? This is not rational surely, unless you do not admit the possibility that it was actually said in the context of which it was said. Yet, you quote from the Qur'an as though it was given by divine disclosure,(yes, in this very thread) then you should admit such disclosure is not without precedent. Otherwise you must entertain the notion that mankind was left in ignorence for an awefull long time waiting for ad 610 to come along. So why then are you being so presumptuous (your argument line) as to disallow other literature from being given in a similar way? Why the monopoly? Every religion thinks they alone are the holders of truth; in what way do you differ from all the other religions? Atheists think they are right and everone else is crackers, Judaism says no it is not us, we're not crackers it is all the others, Zoroastrians ditto, Jws ditto Mormons ditto etc. etc. Well there are a few non conformists that take the less confontationist approach and say 'Everybody has the truth, it just varies from one to the next'.
(posted under the last part of the thread topic..............'a rant':lol: )

Doug

[Doug]

Well, I suppose we are free to take an isolationist approach if that is where our comfort is to be found, but I question the notion of presumption. Surely it is a matter of faith/belief/acceptance. If a person has faith in and believes that God might have made known certain things how is accepting this being presumptuous? Is such a person any more presumptuous that the person who presumes that divinly initiated communication did not/could not take place?
Doug

[Doug]

Alex, you suggest:
is that so much worse than man attempting to scrutinise the inscrutable?
Man strives to contemplate the universe and gain an understanding of it, so...................

cheers,
Doug

[Doug]

Netwolf asks :
The fullest answer to that question could require a full discussion on the Christian gospel, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ and is not likely to belong on this forum, or at least it is IMHO, way too far off topic for this thread. However it is true enough to say that everyone needs to relate in some way to another. Man is a relational being afterall is said and done. You can live in denial if you choose, that is your right.
cheers,
Doug

[netwolf]

Doug,

Yes thats your faith and i can respect that. And i am not in denial i just have a diffrent faith, and i hope you can respect that. I dont belive in crucifiction, nor trinity, i do belive in Prophet Jesus who is still alive (in another place) and will return. And you are rigth this is beyond this forum.


Regards

[xelasnave]

My presumption is that God would seek to experience all that he created thru the eyes of each creature he created... why ? because thats the way I would do it:D . I think there is a little of that approach to things by any involved in coming up with "their" view.
I must say this is a top thread even if a little all over the place. The deep thoughts you guys can express so fluently leaves me feeling like a child sitting listening to grownups talk about things kids know nothing about. I would like to thank you all for being so open and engaging in this discussion. I treasure the insite into others beliefs and ideas.
alex

[janoskiss]

"God Shmod! I want my monkey man!" - Bart after teacher tells him mating monkey with a human would be playing god.
"Jesus, Buddha, Allah! I love you all!" - Homer in big trouble.

Seriously guys, this is getting way too serious and delving too deeply into debating the merits and otherwise of religion. If you want to continue in this discussion I suggest you do it in PM or find a more appropriate forum/venue for this specific discussion. Or wait for your Sat/Sun morning door-to-door Bible salesman / evangelist and have fun arguing with them. :P

[xelasnave]

Hey Steve I am not debating and as deep as it is it still is only a chat. I dont see the harm. Many of the worlds problems stem from folk having no understanding of others points of view or even entertaining that another view is out there... you can call this thread what you like but if nothing else it is enlightening.
Funny you mention the door to door bible salesman... the only folk to call for a visit up home (and people who have been there twice cant find it a third time) was from a dear old couple with the JW sect. Did I argue with them or call them to question their faith?..no I encouraged them that they were doing a wonderful thing by following the teachings of their faith (which dictates spreading the word) and extended to them the hospitality of my home. There are others who would set the dogs on them.
So seriously do you want to can "the debate" here? you are the moderator make a call and we (I ) will abide the ruling.
alex

[janoskiss]

Alex, I understand what you're saying and discussion has been kept civil for longer than most threads of this nature, and I complement everyone on keeping their cool around such "hot" topics. But in light of the TOS (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=7856):



the fact that the present discussion focuses virtually exclusively on religion and has little to do with the forum topic "Astronomy Science" or the thread topic, i.e. size of the universe (and because of the butterflies in my stomach from the potential of the present topic to turn into a mod's worst nightmare), I am closing the thread.