Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

by keenobserver1 Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

by trevorw2539 Thu May 03, 2012 1:19 pm

polyglide wrote:The only reason you ARE NOT GOING TO WASTE YOUR TIME, IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWER AND NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE.

Polyglide. The real truth is that science has most of the answers. We have our respective faiths.

by Shirina Thu May 03, 2012 2:15 pm

The only reason you ARE NOT GOING TO WASTE YOUR TIME, IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWER AND NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE.

I have quite thoroughly explained my position on this issue. I am tired of believers never having to answer for their own beliefs. It is dishonest, cowardly, and predictable. I am not an expert in evolution. I don't think anyone here is. This is a subject that cannot be explained in a few paragraphs on a forum. People spend years learning this stuff ... decades, even. You can get doctorates in this field. This is not light weight material. Expecting a layman to explain it to you is absurd. As I've said, if you're really curious about it, then go research it. Trying to argue that because non-scientists cannot give you a detailed, step-by-step dissertation on butterfly evolution means it must be God ... well, that's a horrifically illogical position to take. I doubt very much that you can explain how, precisely, your computer works, either. Does that mean God is inside your CPU making it function?

But in every argument on this subject, it's always the evolutionists who are required to put forth all of the evidence, to do all of the explaining. Believers can simply resort to special pleading: "Since God is all-powerful, he can do whatever he wants." There are no rules, no parameters, no boundaries, and no limits. You can make whatever outlandish claim you want to where God is involved and we'd have to accept it as a possibility. Because God can do anything. It is a pointless and very moot argument because you feel you don't have to prove a damn thing. You just have to say it and viola, it's the truth!

But you know what? I'm going to meet you halfway.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the universe was created by a God and that humans were designed and created - fully formed - also by a God.

You also said that Christianity is the only "true" religion.

Prove it. Show me the evidence that YOUR God is the creator god. No, you can't use the Bible, either. You have to show me using the same evidence as before ... butterflies, eyes, and whatnot ... to prove that the Christian God is the one who created the universe.

Let's see how good you really are.

by trevorw2539 Thu May 03, 2012 3:26 pm

shirina quote

Let's see how good you really are.

That's not fair. You want actual proof. Wink

by Shirina Thu May 03, 2012 3:30 pm

That's not fair. You want actual proof.

Yep. We can endlessly debate about the existence of A god, but religion has boundaries. One should be able to prove a religion, even if one cannot prove the existence of a god. Cool

by trevorw2539 Thu May 03, 2012 3:57 pm

Shirina quote. but religion has boundaries.

I'm not sure about dimensional boundaries. I have a recurring nightmare.

I dream that man has reached the stars and every planet he lands on there are copies of The Watchtower scattered everywhere. It's horrible. Laughing

by Shirina Thu May 03, 2012 11:35 pm

I dream that man has reached the stars and every planet he lands on there are copies of The Watchtower scattered everywhere. It's horrible.

Yeah, I can see it now ... the human ship lands on a planet orbiting Zeta Reticuli. Even before the astronauts shut off their engines, there's a knock on the hatch. They open it and find an alien man and woman in nice suits saying, "Hello, earthling. Have you heard the Good News?" And hands the astronauts a Watchtower pamphlet.

by polyglide Fri May 04, 2012 11:14 am

Science has none of the answers or you could answer my quesion.

If I read a book detailing the method of baking a loaf, then I could and would, be able to tell anyone else stage by stage how to do so.

If you or anyone else feel so well read in the sciences to which you refer then answer my quesion.

You state science has the answer then tell me what it is.

You must start with the egg of a butterfy or I will ask where the butterfly came from.

So lets start with the egg, where did it come from, how did it know which leaf to attach itself to, how did it turn into a chrysalis, which involves that which man cannot do, then whilst in the chrysalis it developes all the attributes of the butterfly. And you do not believe in magic?.

I will give you an example of magic, place all the ingredients of a loaf of bread on a kitchen table leave them to their own devices and sit and wait for them to develope into a loaf of bread by evolution, the only way it could be done is by creation exactly the same as the butterfly.

by oftenwrong Fri May 04, 2012 12:27 pm

Instead of everyone else arguing the cause for science, which is self-evident, polyglide, how about you providing PROOF of the magical creation of our world?

No more arguing, please just explain. We're listening. It's your show!

by oftenwrong Mon May 07, 2012 7:09 pm

It's gone rather quiet in here.

by Shirina Tue May 08, 2012 1:02 pm

I will give you an example of magic, place all the ingredients of a loaf of bread on a kitchen table leave them to their own devices and sit and wait for them to develope into a loaf of bread by evolution, the only way it could be done is by creation exactly the same as the butterfly.

Okay, think about what you just said:

Evolution can't possibly occur because magic would be necessary. Therefore, we should instead believe that magic created everything.

Teehee, I'm going to be chuckling over this for the rest of the day. Very Happy

By the way, all you're doing is arguing the same old "God of the Gaps" position that Creationists always use. If we don't know something, it must be God. It is absolutely stunning that anyone would put their faith in religious explanations despite the fact that religion has never been proven true ... not in one single case. Ever. Not in 100,000 years of human existence.

This argument always reminds me of the troupe of priests who tromped off to a glacier threatening a village in the French Alps. Since they had no clue whatsoever why glaciers moved, they used the "God of the Gaps" argument and assumed it must be supernatural - a demon must be inside the ice making it move. So they waved around some incense, muttered some prayers, and hammered a big iron cross into the glacier. Because we all know, even in the 21st Century, that glacier movement is caused by demons, right? Any peer reviewed scientific journal will talk at length about glaciers and demons.

Or maybe those priests simply didn't know everything ... just like we, today, don't know everything. Believing that some supernatural God using magic to create the universe is simply the 21st Century equivalent of believing demons are moving glaciers around.

by polyglide Tue May 08, 2012 2:52 pm

OK, I will explain in very clear terms exactly the manner in which I feel certain, everything was created.

But first I would like to give you two examples of the scientists.

The world is flat, so they thought, is it?.

The dinosaurs were wiped out by a huge asteroid, they had proof so they said.
They have now changed their minds, they have now said to have farted themselves out of existance.

Another point I would also like to make is that Serine never ever actually answers that which is asked.

Example, what is normal human behaviour? she answers in the vain that because their are examples of aaabnormal behaviour in other walks of life it therfore excuses abnormal behaviour in humans, when in fact they are all abnormal.

The intended role of a man and woman are not different because some women do not want to follow their intended path etc;

As if this changes the fact that a woman can bear children and a man cannot.etc;

So I will try to explain in simplistic terms what I firmly believe is the way in which the earth was created along with all that it contains.

The creator used the energy to form atoms from which all things are made
I believe without any reserve whatsoever that the whole uiniverse was created by the use of energy, the the energy being derived from a medium beyond our understanding, but which is evident throughout the universe.

The atom bomb proves that the atom was put together and by splitting
it energy was released and the atom split into it's components.

What can be split must have been put together.

The creator used the atoms to manufacture everything just as man will use the materials he has at his disposal to create hundreds of things etc;

Now all that is needed to substanciate this is a creator and that would be the end of any debate as that would be and in my opinion is the answer.

Alternatively you have the evolution theory when you do not have to accept one miracle but thousand upon thousands, along with suppositions that include the odds as being impossible.

Just consider the poser I set regarding the butterfly, when did it decide it wanted two eyes, did it want three legs and things went wrong, why did it want wings and how did it suddenly have the ability ot construct them
along with the rest of it's abilities.

Just sit back and consider the chances of the above happening by chance.

by trevorw2539 Tue May 08, 2012 3:05 pm

Shirina quote. This argument always reminds me of the troupe of priests who tromped off to a glacier threatening a village in the French Alps. Since they had no clue whatsoever why glaciers moved, they used the "God of the Gaps" argument and assumed it must be supernatural - a demon must be inside the ice making it move. So they waved around some incense, muttered some prayers, and hammered a big iron cross into the glacier. Because we all know, even in the 21st Century, that glacier movement is caused by demons, right? Any peer reviewed scientific journal will talk at length about glaciers and demons

Can I offer 'Trevor's Mythological Scientific Encyclopeadia in 20 parts'. All you need to know about glaciers and demons. How incense melts ice, and the advisability of not standing in the way of melting ice.

Each volume $10. Postage and packing $100. Well I've got to make a profit, haven't I.

Recommended but The Gullible's Journal Weekly.

by polyglide Tue May 15, 2012 2:40 pm

You have accused me of homophobic comments.

Homophobia is the fear or hatred of homosexuals.

WIll you please point out in any post I have made either of the above.

Every week I attend a function at which a well known homosexual entertains, I great him with a hand shake and sometimes a hug, a friend of his often stands in for him and he is also a homosexuakl, he gets exactly the same treatment and I neither hate or fear either them or their orientation in fact I am fond of both but not in any way sexual.

Let us now consider blasphemy and heathens, there are numerous posts
that include the most outrageous blasphemy possible and to me that is far more unacceptable that telling the truth about homosexuality, I do not want those respossible banned ,I just feel very sorry for them and pray they may see the light.

The main problem I feel is many do not want to accept what homosexuality involves and wish to redefine it into something it is not.

The vtruth should hurt no one.

by polyglide Tue May 15, 2012 3:02 pm

I have given the answer asked for.

Now give me the answers to the quesions I asked and not with a load of nonsense.

Another little poser to consider.

A helicopter lands in eskimo land where the inhabitants have never left their locallity and are totally unaware of the outside world.

It's occupants drop a table, knives, forks, plates, a pot of jam, a loaf of bread and butter along with all that we would have for a snack etc

The accupants set tha tablle out as for a meal and leave.

How long do you think it would take the eskimo to learn how to manufacture, all that this would involve.

Take just two examples, steel and bread along with glass and tell me if they would ever be able to fathom it out.

by astra Tue May 15, 2012 7:24 pm

is that Serine never

I got to that part and gave up!!

Iffifn yer cannot get the Lady's name right, (and it is displayed a number of times on the page) how can I expect you to impart accurately the information you are attempting to discuss Question

Thor and Hagon would be the boys (Gods) for me - you do not mess with those guys

All gods from the mists of time, have been used by the lazy and the corrupt to usurp the fats of the hard work of the undefended for their own purpose.
If you don't swear allegiance to MY God I will not defend you!

It's happening even now!

by Shirina Tue May 15, 2012 7:47 pm

Take just two examples, steel and bread along with glass and tell me if they would ever be able to fathom it out.

If they wanted to, they could. If they wanted to, they would have done so by now.

They would do it like the rest of the world has done it ... assuming they had the accessible natural resources. They would do so with trial and error. Their technology would evolve (gasp!) to eventually reach a point where they could manufacture forks, knives, tables, and table cloths.

Of course, your scenario involving the helicopter is actually more likely to have occurred in our past than some magical God waving wands to grant humans technological prowess. Ancient texts are filled with the idea of beings coming down from the sky and granting primitive tribes basic technological knowledge. The problem here, though, is that these texts do not refer to gods, and they certainly don't refer to the Christian God.

I'm sure what I say will be considered "nonsense" because I'm not handing you the answer you want to hear, but it is just as valid as your belief.

by polyglide Wed May 16, 2012 11:11 am

You have not addressed the quesion of heathens and blaspphemy or are you selective in your moderating as you are in attempting to answer quesions that are straight forward but unanswerable.

You have never answered any of my quesions with anything like reality and several postings of others just show there obvious limits are the Dandy and the Beano.

As for one post, if you spell murder wrongly that makes it OK. some mothers do have them.

by Shirina Wed May 16, 2012 12:07 pm

You have not addressed the quesion of heathens and blaspphemy or are you selective in your moderating as you are in attempting to answer quesions that are straight forward but unanswerable.

I addressed this in the other thread where you voiced the same complaint.

Heathens, eh? What's next? An Inquisition?

Yes, I am selective in my moderating because I understand the difference between insulting a poster on this forum and insulting an idea or concept like religion.

by polyglide Thu May 17, 2012 4:30 pm

When anyone insults my religion they insult me, just as you seem to think telling the truth is unacceptable because some do not like it.

A heathen is a godless person and by your own posts you are one, are we now going along the old line it does not mean that and change another word's meaning, help there will soon be no need for a dictionary.

by astra Thu May 17, 2012 7:48 pm

Polyglide, I suggest, just for a jest, that you go to the town square in Riyadh on punishment day and spout the same rubbish.

Again, Happy Thor's day

by Shirina Thu May 17, 2012 8:05 pm

When anyone insults my religion they insult me

When anyone insults evolution, they insult me. When someone criticizes Ozzy Osbourne, they insult me. When someone says they don't like pizza, they insult me. In fact, whenever someone says something I disagree with, I'm haughtily insulted!

See how the game is played? Even a mundane, banal topic like the weather would end up off limits because someone might be insulted that someone else prefers winter to summer.

Religion is a concept, not a poster on this board, so your surrogate offense doesn't count.

just as you seem to think telling the truth is unacceptable because some do not like it.

It is the height of hubris to think your opinions are truth.

A heathen is a godless person and by your own posts you are one

I know you probably think you're being terribly clever in choosing words with multiple meanings that enable you to insult someone without really insulting them, but seriously, I wasn't born yesterday.

hea·then (hn)
n. pl. hea·thens or heathen
1. Offensive
a. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
b. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
2. Heathen An adherent of a Neopagan religion that seeks to revive the religious beliefs and practices of the ancient Germanic peoples.
3. Informal
a. One who is regarded as irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened.
b. Such persons considered as a group.

See the words highlighted in bold?

Nice try, but no.

by polyglide Fri May 18, 2012 11:07 am

You deviate, you wish to use menaphors rather than the correct meaning as indicated by the quesion involved, of course there are several ways in which you can use certain words, our discussion is about God and nothing else and so everything I say is regarding God and nothing else and anyone with common sense would realise this.

by oftenwrong Fri May 18, 2012 12:24 pm

polyglide wrote:You deviate, you wish to use menaphors rather than the correct meaning as indicated by the quesion involved.... and so everything I say is regarding God and nothing else ....

"everything I say is regarding God and nothing else"

Well, perhaps not quite EVERYTHING, e.g.

by polyglide on Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:11 pm.
I am afraid you have lost the plot.

by polyglide on Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:24 pm
.I have never heard such tripe in all my life.

by polyglide on Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:45 pm
.Snowflake has a lot to learn.

by polyglide on Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:07 pm
.I need go no further than your first two paragraphs to prove your total inability to answer my quesion.

by polyglide on Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:22 pm
.And that is about the most intelligent answer you are capable of.

by polyglide on Tue May 01, 2012 4:05 pm
.Yes, I most cetainly have, in every living thing I see and I appreciate every one even those who cannot tell stork from butter.

by polyglide on Tue May 15, 2012 3:02 pm
.I have given the answer asked for.
Now give me the answers to the quesions I asked and not with a load of nonsense.

by polyglide on Wed May 16, 2012 11:11 am
.You have not addressed the quesion of heathens and blaspphemy.

Not very much Godliness to be found there, polyglide.

by polyglide Fri May 18, 2012 4:22 pm

Yes I am afraid through frustration anyone can become a little less than what one should be but my replies have been in response to similar remarks regarding myself and what is good for one should be good for another but I agree, I should be above such replies and stick to what I believe in.

I do not pretend to be perfect and can be provoked just the same as anyone else.

by polyglide Fri May 18, 2012 4:24 pm

However, my comments regarding this matter was in respect of one instance and none mmare.

by Guest Fri May 18, 2012 7:28 pm

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10¹⁰ ¹²³. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10¹⁰ ¹²³ to 1 (ten to the power of ten to the power of one hundred twenty three to one).

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10¹²³ means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 10⁷⁸ believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Full article: http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html

by oftenwrong Fri May 18, 2012 7:47 pm

Which only goes to show that Persil washes whiter.

by Shirina Fri May 18, 2012 8:35 pm

Creationists have always been quick to embrace science when it is convenient, but they are quick to shun it when it contradicts scripture.

by Guest Fri May 18, 2012 9:00 pm

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses… Under the following conditions: Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws. No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.” Wikipedia’s Creative Commons Deed states “You are free: to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work… Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).” Full texts of Terms of Use and Creative Commons Deed available below.]

Roger Penrose
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir Roger Penrose OM, FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe. ^[1] He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.

Religious views

Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine,^[24] and refers to himself as an atheist.^[25] In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, “I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance… some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along - it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it.”^[26] Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.

Awards and honours

Penrose has been awarded many prizes for his contributions to science. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1972. In 1975, Stephen Hawking and Penrose were jointly awarded the Eddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1985, he was awarded the Royal Society Royal Medal. Along with Stephen Hawking, he was awarded the prestigious Wolf Foundation Prize for Physics in 1988. In 1989 he was awarded the Dirac Medal and Prize of the British Institute of Physics. In 1990 Penrose was awarded the Albert Einstein Medal for outstanding work related to the work of Albert Einstein by the Albert Einstein Society. In 1991, he was awarded the Naylor Prize of the London Mathematical Society. From 1992 to 1995 he served as President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation. In 1994, Penrose was knighted for services to science.^[27] In the same year he was also awarded an Honorary Degree (Doctor of Science) by the University of Bath. ^[28] In 1998, he was elected Foreign Associate of the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 2000 he was appointed to the Order of Merit. In 2004 he was awarded the De Morgan Medal for his wide and original contributions to mathematical physics. To quote the citation from the London Mathematical Society:

“His deep work on General Relativity has been a major factor in our understanding of black holes. His development of Twistor Theory has produced a beautiful and productive approach to the classical equations of mathematical physics. His tilings of the plane underlie the newly discovered quasi-crystals.”

In 2005 Penrose was awarded an honorary doctorate (Honoris Causa) by Warsaw University and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and in 2006 by the University of York. In 2008 Penrose was awarded the Copley Medal. He is also a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association and one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society. In 2011, Penrose was awarded the Fonseca prize by the University of Santiago de Compostela. In 2012 Penrose was awarded the Richard R. Ernst Medal by ETHZ for his contributions to science and strengthening the connection between science and society.

References

1. Penrose, R (2005). The Road to Reality: A Complete guide to the Laws of the Universe. Vintage Books. ISBN 0-09-944068-7
24. Harris, Sam. "Letter to A Christian Nation". SamHarrisOrg. http://www.samharris.org/site/book_letter_to_christian_nation/. Retrieved 5 June 2010. Quoting Penrose's blurb for Harris's book Letter to a Christian Nation.
25. "Big Bang follows Big Bang follows Big Bang". BBC News. 25 September 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9032000/9032626.stm. Retrieved 1 Dec 2010.
26. See A Brief History of Time, quote starts at about 1:12:43 in the video.
27. Official announcement knighthood. The London Gazette 11 June 1994.
28. "Honorary Graduates 1989 to present". bath.ac.uk. University of Bath. http://www.bath.ac.uk/ceremonies/hongrads/. Retrieved 18 February 2012.

Retrieved 18 May 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

This is a human-readable summary of the Terms of Use.

Disclaimer: This summary is not a part of the Terms of Use and is not a legal document. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the full terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the legal language of our Terms of Use.

Part of our mission is to:

Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and either publish it under a free license or dedicate it to the public domain.
Disseminate this content effectively and globally, free of charge.

You are free to:

Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.
Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.

Under the following conditions:

Responsibility — You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.
Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws.
No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.
Terms of Use and Policies — You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.

With the understanding that:

You License Freely Your Contributions — you generally must license your contributions and edits to our sites or Projects under a free and open license (unless your contribution is in the public domain).
No Professional Advice — the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

Creative Commons Deed (Wikipedia)

You are free:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Creative Commons Deed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

by Guest Fri May 18, 2012 9:29 pm

Shirina wrote:
Creationists have always been quick to embrace science when it is convenient, but they are quick to shun it when it contradicts scripture.

I embrace truth.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10¹⁰ ¹²³ to 1 (ten to the power of ten to the power of one hundred twenty three to one).

RockOnBrother wrote:
Roger Penrose
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religious views

Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine,^[24] and refers to himself as an atheist.^[25] In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, “I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance… some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along - it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it.”^[26] Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.

References

24. Harris, Sam. "Letter to A Christian Nation". SamHarrisOrg. http://www.samharris.org/site/book_letter_to_christian_nation/. Retrieved 5 June 2010. Quoting Penrose's blurb for Harris's book Letter to a Christian Nation.
25. "Big Bang follows Big Bang follows Big Bang". BBC News. 25 September 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9032000/9032626.stm. Retrieved 1 Dec 2010.
26. See A Brief History of Time, quote starts at about 1:12:43 in the video.

Retrieved 18 May 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Truth is accessible to all who seek truth; accordingly, I invite you, and any others hereon who so choose, to join me in embracing truth.

by Shirina Fri May 18, 2012 9:53 pm

“I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance… some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along - it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it.”

Atheists are still human, and that means they are subjected to the same meandering thoughts and questions most of us have: Why are we here? Who am I? Does any of this have a purpose?

The human brain loathes chaos. This is precisely the reason why we see rabbits in cloud formations or faces of Jesus on pizza slices. Our minds are always trying to find order in randomness. Thus the idea that the universe could be here by chance and without a directed purpose is a difficult - and often unappealing - possibility. We want everything to have meaning because it alleviates the feeling that the tragedies in our lives are utterly senseless. No, grandma was taken from us for a reason, or, you lost your job because of "the plan" directed by an all-powerful entity with only our best interests at heart. I didn't survive that horrible crash by dumb luck, no, it was a guardian angel sent by God.

Even atheists can sometimes find themselves asking "Why?"

But the truth is, even believers have to accept the possibility that there is no "why," that things just are. The universe and everything in it, from galaxies to your body, is constantly fighting a losing battle against entropy. We spend the bulk of our waking hours performing some sort of maintenance to stave off that entropy, but we will all be defeated in the end. How terrifying it would be for many to surrender to a possibility that there is no perfect paradise waiting on the other side, a paradise filled with love and comfort. Isn't that what we'd all want?

But wanting something doesn't make it true. Our minds have, once again, created order from chaos. Only this time, people are trying to tame the random, chaotic whimsy of death. I suppose that isn't such a bad thing; perhaps it is even healthy in a way, for these beliefs can prevent us from wasting our lives fearing death. It is only when religion (rather than Creation) enters the fray when our obsession with the afterlife becomes nightmarishly destructive.

by Guest Fri May 18, 2012 10:10 pm

Shirina wrote:

“I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance… some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along - it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it.”

Roger Penrose [added by Rock]
The human brain loathes chaos. This is precisely the reason why we see rabbits in cloud formations or faces of Jesus on pizza slices. Our minds are always trying to find order in randomness. Thus the idea that the universe could be here by chance and without a directed purpose is a difficult - and often unappealing - possibility. We want everything to have meaning because it alleviates the feeling that the tragedies in our lives are utterly senseless. No, grandma was taken from us for a reason, or, you lost your job because of "the plan" directed by an all-powerful entity with only our best interests at heart. I didn't survive that horrible crash by dumb luck, no, it was a guardian angel sent by God.

Even atheists can sometimes find themselves asking "Why?"

But the truth is, even believers have to accept the possibility that there is no "why," that things just are. The universe and everything in it, from galaxies to your body, is constantly fighting a losing battle against entropy. We spend the bulk of our waking hours performing some sort of maintenance to stave off that entropy, but we will all be defeated in the end. How terrifying it would be for many to surrender to a possibility that there is no perfect paradise waiting on the other side, a paradise filled with love and comfort. Isn't that what we'd all want?

I await your direct response to the text that you’ve quoted, keeping in mind that Roger Penrose calculates the odds against “such an occurrence” are on the order of 10¹⁰ ¹²³ to 1 (ten to the power of ten to the power of one hundred twenty three to one).

by Shirina Fri May 18, 2012 10:30 pm

I await your direct response to the text that you’ve quoted

I already gave a direct response. Look at this quote, for example:

But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe

What does being "fruitful" or "helpful" have to do with the science behind the universe? Things are what they are whether they're fruitful or helpful ... or not. The fact that Penrose would even insert his desires into a scientific analysis speaks volumes. He WANTS the universe to be a created and purposeful construct, so his findings are biased.

More to the point, however, is that I don't believe anyone can accurately calculate those odds. What was he basing his numbers upon? You would need knowledge no one has. The most glaring omission is how many chances the universe had in getting it right. If the universe is infinite, which most scientists agree is the case, then the laws of probability not only state that there will be many earth-like planets, but also there will eventually be an exact duplicate of earth. Why? Because the universe would have an infinite number of tries to produce a second earth - never mind our own earth.

While Penrose can come up with all kinds of variables, there is no way he can assign a number value to these variables without something to compare them to. It's like trying to calculate the odds of drawing an ace of spades out of a deck of cards ... except you have no idea how many cards are in the deck, what cards are in the deck, how many draws from the deck you receive, or whether there's an ace of spades in the deck at all. A mathematician he may be, but even he can't conjure numbers out of thin air and apply them.

His calculations are similar to the Drake equation since both have the same flaws. How can anyone know how many civilizations are out there, whether or not they survived, etc. Yet those are numbers that have to be plugged into the Drake equation. With Penrose, he would have to literally guess at his numbers since there is no concrete data from which to work.

by Guest Sat May 19, 2012 12:33 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
I await your direct response to the text that you’ve quoted

Shirina wrote:
I already gave a direct response.

In your previous post, you’ve commented neither on this…

Shirina wrote:

“I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance…”

… nor on this…

Shirina wrote:

“… some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along - it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing.”

Penrose states that the universe has a purpose. I await your comment thereto. Penrose states that some people view that the universe as “just there.” I await your comment thereto.

Perhaps such comment follows.

Shirina wrote:
More to the point, however, is that I don't believe anyone can accurately calculate those odds.

It seems that Roger Penrose disagrees.

Shirina wrote:
What was he basing his numbers upon?

This.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence?

Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang[/i].

Shirina wrote:
You would need knowledge no one has. The most glaring omission is how many chances the universe had in getting it right.

Apparently, Penrose believes he possesses sufficient knowledge for the puyrpose. I tend to so believe in concert with Penrose, given his seminal role in generating data about Big Bang.

Additionally, Penrose has not omitted “how many chances the universe had in getting it right.”

RockOnBrother wrote:
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10¹⁰ ¹²³ to 1 (ten to the power of ten to the power of one hundred twenty three to one).

Penrose calculates that the universe had one in 10¹⁰ ¹²³ (ten to the power of ten to the power of one hundred twenty three) chances to get it right.

Shirina wrote:
While Penrose can come up with all kinds of variables, there is no way he can assign a number value to these variables…

Once again, it seems that Roger Penrose disagrees.

by Guest Sat May 19, 2012 12:55 am

For information purposes only:

The descriptive term “creationist” identifies one who embraces a certain ideology, “creationism.”

I embrace truth; accordingly, as embracing an ideology (and its tenets) and embracing truth are mutually exclusive activities, I by necessity embrace no ideology.

by Shirina Sat May 19, 2012 1:07 am

Penrose states that the universe has a purpose. I await your comment thereto. Penrose states that some people view that the universe as “just there.” I await your comment thereto.

Like I've said before, there is no proof that the universe has a purpose. In fact, there's not even any evidence. I mean, look around at our own lives and notice how random everything is. There is no built-in justice, no inherent morality, and things happen for no reason at all. Why does a 17 year-old girl named Pebbles, who scored in the top 10% on her SATs, get murdered by her own mother in Florida. Meanwhile, bullies and gangbangers and drug addicts continue on wasting oxygen? Who knows?

And that's the real trick. We want order. We want purpose. We want meaning. We want the universe to be "fruitful" and "helpful." We want everything to play out like a movie script with a climax, a plot, and a good solid ending. But there's no evidence that it does. None. There's no rhyme or reason to the universe other than that which we give to it. What we want doesn't enter into it. Sometimes things work out, sometimes they don't.

Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang

How does he know what all the possible results of the Big Bang could be? And how can he assign odds to this? In fact, the only way his calculations could be considered accurate is if it were proven beyond doubt that we are the only earth-like planet in the universe.

Penrose calculates that the universe had one in 1010 123 (ten to the power of ten to the power of one hundred twenty three) chances to get it right.

He calculated the odds at 10^{10 123} to 1. That only means that for each individual opportunity, the odds of getting it right are 10^{10 123}. That's what the 1 stands for. One singular opportunity. Mathematically speaking, if the universe has had 10^{10 123} opportunities, then the equation would equal 1 ... 10^{10 123} divided by itself. That becomes a mathematical certainty. Since there is no humanly way to know how many opportunities the universe has had to get it right, then the odds are somewhat meaningless - unless it was proven that earth is the only planet like itself in the entire universe. THEN he could say that the 1 in his calculation is truthful.

I embrace truth; accordingly, as embracing an ideology (and its tenets) and embracing truth are mutually exclusive activities

Someone's perception of the truth often IS an ideology. One cannot say he's believes the universe was created while claiming not to be a Creationist. However, since you often reference Genesis 1:1, which comes from a book filled with ideology, well ... I'll just leave it at that.

by Guest Sat May 19, 2012 1:42 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Penrose states that the universe has a purpose. I await your comment thereto. Penrose states that some people view that the universe as “just there.” I await your comment thereto.

Shirina wrote:
Like I've said before, there is no proof that the universe has a purpose.

You’ve not said that before in this current conversation on this thread. Moreover, as Penrose has mentioned neither “proof” nor any variation thereof (“prove”, “proved”, “proven”) in the quoted and referenced text, the point is moot.

Shirina wrote:
In fact, there's not even any evidence.

Penrose seems to disagree. I concur.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang

Shirina wrote:
How does he know what all the possible results of the Big Bang could be? And how can he assign odds to this?

I don’t know. I can and do assume that Penrose, a seminal generator of Big Bang data, “knows his stuff.” Given his vitae, this seems highly logical.

For a definitve answer, one must ask Penrose. It seems logical that he has an email address and phone number. I can make telephone calls to the UK for $.0.01 or $.0.02 per minute. If you locate Penrose’s telephone number (work, not personal), I’ll attempt to call him from here and ask

Shirina wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
Penrose calculates that the universe had one in 1010 123 (ten to the power of ten to the power of one hundred twenty three) chances to get it right.
He calculated the odds at 10^{10 123} to 1. That only means that for each individual opportunity, the odds of getting it right are 10^{10 123}. That's what the 1 stands for. One singular opportunity. Mathematically speaking, if the universe has had 10^{10 123} opportunities, then the equation would equal 1 ... 10^{10 123} divided by itself. That becomes a mathematical certainty. Since there is no humanly way to know how many opportunities the universe has had to get it right, then the odds are somewhat meaningless - unless it was proven that earth is the only planet like itself in the entire universe. THEN he could say that the 1 in his calculation is truthful.

Your analysis is flawed.

Penrose’s correct analysis is readily available for your perusal on the Internet. If you choose to access Penrose’s analysis, post his analysis hereon, and comment upon his analysis hereon, I’ll most likely comment thereto.

by Guest Sat May 19, 2012 2:42 am

Shirina wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
I embrace truth; accordingly, as embracing an ideology (and its tenets) and embracing truth are mutually exclusive activities
Someone's perception of the truth often IS an ideology.

I don’t embrace a “perception of the truth.” I embrace truth; accordingly, any ideological identification applied to me is an inaccurate identification.

by polyglide Sat May 19, 2012 11:26 am

Sherina, as usual, you are not answering any quesion you are just replying with another one which is groundless with respect to the points in quesion.

If you doubt the odds quoted and the methods used you have to quesion many, many, many, other things based on the same method of deciding a problem.

It is no good and gets us nowhere without you can come up with concrete grounds for disputing that which is put forward and not just the same old rhetoric.

If you doubt something then please give a logical reason why and then we can get somewhere.

by Shirina Sat May 19, 2012 2:35 pm

If you doubt something then please give a logical reason why and then we can get somewhere.

No, we'll get somewhere when you actually make an attempt at refuting something that I've said. So far, you haven't done that. You aren't debating, you're dismissing. That's disingenuous to say the least, and to be honest, it's irritating as hell.

If I'm so wrong and illogical, surely it would be extremely easy to offer up opposing facts and information. But you don't. Almost all of your responses to me can be boiled down to one singular word:

"Nuh uh!"

Well, I'm done playing the "I set 'em up, you knock 'em down" game.

by snowyflake Sat May 19, 2012 3:53 pm

If you doubt something then please give a logical reason why and then we can get somewhere.

Because there is no verifiable proof or even any solid evidence that anything religion proclaims is true. If you've got any please present it otherwise you are on a loser with this argument.

by Sponsored content