EEVblog #833 - Mailbag

[mtdoc]

There is no definitive proof that god exists.
There is no definitive proof that god does not exist.

Centuries of theological and philosophical debate has proven this to be true.

Nothing said here is going to change that....

[Fungus]

2.) Living things appear to be designed. 

No they don't. 

What about the appendix? (obvious one)

What about the thousands of people choke to death every year because the "food" hole is the same as the "air" hole? (eg. My wife's father who died at Sunday dinner when she was 10...) Was that an intelligent design decision?

Who made disease? Who made viruses? Who made parasites? What for?

There's whole bunches of creatures that can only live on human hosts (eg. pubic lice). Were they designed by God in his own image? God has crabs...?

[Fungus]

There is no definitive proof that god exists.
There is no definitive proof that god does not exist.

Centuries of theological and philosophical debate has proven this to be true.

There can never be proof that god doesn't exist. It's an unfalsifiable claim.

There can be proof that god exists, Christians often claim that such proof does exist, but it never appears.

[Fungus]

Infinite time or space isn't in the universe we observe.  I put a number on the probability and shared it earlier.  I'll link it again http://jonw0224.weebly.com/blog/darwins-doubt.  It's still pretty much zero.  Sorry!

As a start, try to evaluere WHO you listen to..

Yep. That page makes the same head-pounding error     that most apologists do, ie. That life has to appear instantly, exactly as we know it, in one single step.

[jonw0224]

I already addressed that with the African elephant comment early on.  Saying it happened in steps explains nothing.  Because I could imagine atoms coming together in every increasing complexity in steps doesn't remove the improbability of it happening at all.

[Lightages]

1.) Given what we know about atoms and energy, the probability of life springing into being is near zero.  We are here.  Therefore something beyond atoms and energy made that happen.

No... given what we know, life is possible. We have proof. We are here. How probable is it? We don't know yet.

2.) Living things appear to be designed.  Other things that appear to be designed were engineered by someone.  Someone engineered living things.

Snowflakes appear to be designed. This immediately refutes your assertion. Appearance and reality have been proven to not always be the same too.

3.)  The universe obeys an ordered set of laws.  Without an overarching power to put order to these laws, I shouldn't expect an ordered universe.  There must be an overarching power.

How do you know the Universe obeys laws? We have theories that explain what we see, but not perfectly. The theories we have, or "laws", are descriptive and not prescriptive.

4.)  There is a correct method to making relationships and moral judgments.  Without a creator of moral rule, anything goes.  There must be a creator.

There is a correct method to help guide our morals according to the benefit of humanity to survive, just has been shown to exist in other animals. Anything doesn't go if the species is to survive. In the short term anything doesn't go neither if YOU want to survive. An imaginary creator is not needed to explain our behavior.

I know for certain people here will disagree with these and any other proof I would offer. However, to the degree that I know that gravitation exists because of the trajectories of things falling and the orbits of the planets (due to repeated observations), I also know that God exists because of the trajectories within the interaction of living beings that I've observed.  I know of no other explanation for my existence that has come out of scientific theory.  I know of no other explanation for the rapid spread of Christianity in the first century, the strong conviction of the first Christians, or the impact following God has had in my life or the life of many of my friends.  Maybe none of these are sufficient reason for you, but they sum up to a genuine belief on my part.  I could lose that belief and rely on scientific conjectures and "unprovable theories", but frankly, I just don't have that kind of faith, and I have no reason to do so.

This is known as "the god of the gaps" fallacy. Anything you don't know must be God. And each time we find an explanation for something you assert must be God, he gets smaller and smaller.

I think with that, my opinion has been stated.  I'm still open to the opinion of others, in so much as we leave the bashing of others out of things.  If you'd like to talk further, feel free to message me.  Carry on and I wish you all a good rest of your day.

I already said I was out, because I know you don't want to see evidence and it is pointless to continue to talk to people who ignore evidence and believe what they want. But here I am to try and help someone see the error of their thinking. Open discussion is better because all benefit. Closed discussion means someone is afraid to be in the open.

[jonw0224]

No... given what we know, life is possible. We have proof. We are here. How probable is it? We don't know yet.

We don't know.  I'm still open to estimate.  I guess you can estimate too.

Snowflakes appear to be designed. This immediately refutes your assertion. Appearance and reality have been proven to not always be the same too.

We're both about as complex as snow flakes, I suppose...

How do you know the Universe obeys laws? We have theories that explain what we see, but not perfectly. The theories we have, or "laws", are descriptive and not prescriptive.

You're playing word games here.  The equations describe the behavior, yes.  But the universe is behaving regularly as by a law.

There is a correct method to help guide our morals according to the benefit of humanity to survive, just has been shown to exist in other animals. Anything doesn't go if the species is to survive. In the short term anything doesn't go neither if YOU want to survive. An imaginary creator is not needed to explain our behavior.

The problem with this is it makes it okay for me to kill another person just because I see them as a threat.  What the Nazi's did?  Perfectly okay?  Survival of the fittest?  I'd say that's wrong in any moral setting.

This is known as "the god of the gaps" fallacy. Anything you don't know must be God. And each time we find an explanation for something you assert must be God, he gets smaller and smaller.

There is a difference in explaining a mechanism of something occuring (i.e. how) and a cause of something occuring (i.e. why).

I already said I was out, because I know you don't want to see evidence and it is pointless to continue to talk to people who ignore evidence and believe what they want. But here I am to try and help someone see the error of their thinking. Open discussion is better because all benefit. Closed discussion means someone is afraid to be in the open.

Maybe I'm ignoring evidence.  Maybe I'm just interpretting the evidence different from you.  But assuming I'm ignoring it because we disagree isn't correct.  And obviously, I'm not afraid to be in the open.  I'm also open to individual discussion.  That's all I'm saying.  Again, I wish you all the best.

[jonw0224]

Please, allow me to share this video from Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project.  He says it better than I have been able to convey.



It's quite long, but worth the watch.

[Fungus]

Maybe I'm ignoring evidence.  Maybe I'm just interpretting the evidence different from you.

It's the only explanation.

Evolution is very simple to see and understand. That's what makes it so compelling as a theory.

The fact that later discovery of DNA and genomes explains it perfectly makes it rock solid. This is as good as science gets.

How did the first amino acids appear? They're honestly not that complex (a dozen atoms):



If you can't imagine throwing trillions of trillions of trillions of sticky balls together to get one of those then you're not trying. I find it impossible to believe you wouldn't get one.

[Fungus]

Please, allow me to share this video from Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project.  He says it better than I have been able to convey.
It's quite long, but worth the watch.

I tried to watch it, I really did, but as soon as he stopped waffling and got down to the 'facts' it took literally a minute to for the whole thing to fall apart. I refer to his powerpoint starting at 20 minutes or so.

There is something instead of nothing (and no reason that should be!)

Science doesn't try to explain why, lack of intention isn't proof of god.

The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics

Why should nature have laws? Anthropic Principle anybody? 

The Big Bang.

The universe had a beginning. Something came out of nothing and nature isn't supposed to allow that. If nature isn't able to create itself then how did the universe get here? The only plausible explanation is that there must be some supernatural force. That force would not need to be limited by space or even by time.

Why exactly isn't nature supposed to allow that? I dunno.

Even if we accept that 'argument' (which we don't) it would only show that A god created the universe. It doesn't have to be the Christian God of the Bible, it could equally be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (If you only take one thing away from this debate, take that last sentence!)

Precise tuning of physical constants in the universe.

Anthropic Principle again.

Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time covers this topic perfectly (much better than anybody posting in a forum can do).


And.... that was it. That was the entire science content. After that it went off into good vs. evil. In short: Not one proof of anything. The entire 'scientific' content was four bullet points in a powerpoint  that reduce to "If it seems amazing or if we can't explain it then it must have been the Christian God of The Bible".


PS: The thing about the train at 30 minutes? Laughably incorrect: Do you have any idea how much the "Subway Hero" is going to get laid after doing that? Evolution loves altruists who risk their lives.

[Kalvin]

The more we know the less there is room for god. That's one reason why the education is considered dangerous.

[mtdoc]

It doesn't have to be the Christian God of the Bible, it could equally be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (If you only take one thing away from this debate, take that last sentence!)

Hey now, don't be messing with the Pastafarians:

"And yay, when upon the damn heathens come fiery meatballs and little bits of sausage, and His noodly appendages touch all, to embrace some and indeed, destroy all else. Thats when ill make your damn colored lights you ungrateful little boy!!!"
—Thomas Edison

You've been warned.

[miguelvp]

Should I throw some wood to the fire?
Well, maybe is more petrol than wood.

I know I was raised Catholic and I really don't follow it because I think unified churches are not good.
But then there is Copernicus, Mendel and Lemaitre. All of them clergymen from the Catholic church pioneering things like Astromony, Genetics and the Big Bang theory.

For what I gather, they have been big in Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

The problem is that other Christian beliefs are still stuck into the books, where for the Catholics it seems that at the end game, they are more than willing to accept that God was nature to begin with and Heaven and Hell are just your right of passage as in how you will be remembered.

Maybe they think that a society has purpose and or consciousness not un similar than an ant or bacteria colony with a common purpose, that's more organization than actually a conciseness. Does nature actually has purpose? That goes beyond the physical realm so I'm not to contradict it but I really don't think that our neural net perpetuates as part of a collective after we are gone.

It's maybe an interpretation of your legacy? well, maybe and they (the Catholic church) wont have a problem adapting to the new views because they never really had.

True, there were extremist and what have you back in the days. After all power corrupts and the churches are not immune from those human tendencies no more than political systems as we know it's also the case.

Myself, I don't know, I just take care of my family and do the best I can. Maybe based on creed or patriotism? well, they might influence my views and I do bet they do, but I'm OK with it.

I do wish that the rest did put away the book as the ultimate literary answer, there has been too much controversy over the eons about that. Also the branching off the other religions like Judaism and Islam based on the same scriptures and still to this day battling about it is just silly with a lot of carnage left in the trail and even to this day.

Gaza, the Inquisition etc is all economical and not religious at all. Isol or isis or whatever still the same thing, they want the ottoman empire back.

I do get it, the Phoenicians had it,  the Romans too, even the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese Danish and even the Netherlands had it.

It seems the Denaurios was replaced over hundreds of years with the Spanish doubloon and I bet there where many main currency changes in between but I'm too lazy to look it up, but now it's the US Dollar.

I know the  British Pound and the German Mark dictated things in the short term but does it really matter?

At the end of the day Me, You and Everyone. Just tries to get by and do the best they can for their families. Selfish? of course as selfish as any other biological conglomerate.

Do you think a bacteria colony tries to play fair? nah, it's nature and that is as savage as it gets, so it does match in a way religions.

It's all a metaphor, Hinduism, Greek Mythology (very similar than the Roman and Nordic ones) and history of seasons being deities and whatever is how humans copped about their reality.

Are we different? do we know enough that it's a done deal?

Some say yes, but in reality we know nothing. Or do you really think that in 50,000 years humans then won't see us as archaic as we see our civilization 50,000 years back? or even in 2,000 years compared to 2,000 years back?

I think we are more delusional overall regardless of creed or lack of it.

Anyways, we are not that close and Science (yeah I do put it in uppercase because it's after all a current belief), think about it, the Gods from the past let them navigate around the globe, it was their Science, it did make sense because they were trying to explain nature, maybe not as sophisticated as using Math and Calculus but it did work for them.

Is the answer on Gods? Nope. Is Science done, Nope, we are in my belief just infants in our new found knowledge and of course it doesn't matter anyway, I won't be here to find out what the ultimate answer is, and I do hope it's not 42.

Edit: it's just like people from all countries and even from this good U.S. of A blaming a president.
What do you all think a president can do?
It's not ultimate power, things are way more complex than our navies points of view.

Edit again: the term, everyone has an opinion as they have an a-hole comes to mind.
Live and let live, should be really that simple but it's not.

[Fungus]

But then there is Copernicus, Mendel and Lemaitre. All of them clergymen from the Catholic church pioneering things like Astromony, Genetics and the Big Bang theory.

For what I gather, they have been big in Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

Science even managed to happen in a world where everybody was forced to be Catholic? Yes.

for the Catholics it seems that at the end game, they are more than willing to accept that God was nature to begin with

They've fallen back to the safety of unfalsifiable claims, hoping that nobody will study basic logic.

Sure, the Christian God of The Bible might have been there guiding the Big Bang and Evolution. So might the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Both of those claims are equally probable. Surely you can see that. The only difference between them is that one has been institutionalized for 1500 years and one is very recent.

[Brumby]

The only difference between them is that one has been institutionalized for 1500 years and one is very recent.

Not really true.  Purpose is an example of a rather significant difference between the two, among other things.


If you are going to press an argument, making narrow statements and depicting them as comprehensive is a dishonest technique.  It also exposes you to the risk of being called out which not only damages your credibility, but also of those who hold the same views.

[Fungus]

If you are going to press an argument, making narrow statements and depicting them as comprehensive is a dishonest technique.  It also exposes you to the risk of being called out which not only damages your credibility, but also of those who hold the same views.

Just trying to focus the debate on that particular issue because I think it's the main stumbling block here.

The arguments being presented (eg. in the Francis Collins video) seem to be that science is so amazing that there must be a designer and guiding hand behind it.

It's an unfalsifiable claim, no argument possible, but let's not forget that the Christian God of the Bible isn't the only god that can fill those shoes.

[jonw0224]

Isn't the Anthropic Principle also unfalsifiable?

[miguelvp]

But then there is Copernicus, Mendel and Lemaitre. All of them clergymen from the Catholic church pioneering things like Astromony, Genetics and the Big Bang theory.

For what I gather, they have been big in Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

Science even managed to happen in a world where everybody was forced to be Catholic? Yes.

According to that link, it seems it was both religious and lay as well, I only put actual  non-secular scientists
Also they did coexisted with other religions, although political powers did take advantage of the situation many times.

I recall hearing about a Pope that even carried a sword (Luna I think) also no one was forced to be Catholic, at least not by the church, but surely some states took advantage of religion to obtain the goods from other religions like the Spanish Inquisition, that was more economical than anything else and used religion as a loophole to steal goods.

Power corrupts men, and clerics are just that, so it's normal that did happen as it can happen with any other form of government.

Edit: regarding the Luna Pope, I guess there were more than one at that time, because of power struggles which is really human nature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Benedict_XIII

for the Catholics it seems that at the end game, they are more than willing to accept that God was nature to begin with

They've fallen back to the safety of unfalsifiable claims, hoping that nobody will study basic logic.

Sure, the Christian God of The Bible might have been there guiding the Big Bang and Evolution. So might the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Both of those claims are equally probable. Surely you can see that. The only difference between them is that one has been institutionalized for 1500 years and one is very recent.

But science and universities are a result of the Catholic church. In pursue of the ultimate truth. It's not a new thing.

What is a new thing is protestants that totally don't agree with the Vatican's point of view and went back to actually read the bible and hold it true.

If you look it up, Christians are not too happy with Catholic's take and went back to pre-christian beliefs. As in taking the Bible as something they can use directly. For example:

http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-attitude-towards.htm

But that's a different debate all together.

So that is the truth? is religion actually the one that brought science to us or not?

[Kalvin]

Hey guys, let's focus on electronics here, please. There are other sites more suitable for spiritual and religion argument.

Electronics is just so cool because the Ohm's law, the Kirchhoff's laws and the Maxwell's equations are always the same no matter our religion, nationality, social status, age, gender, sexuality, or ethnic background.

[Circlotron]

But those other sites are often filled by nutcases. Not saying there aren't any here too, but electronics people are predominantly logical rational clear thinking people, at least the engineer type people amongst us anyway. Besides, it's good to take an interest outside your normal sphere, and even better to do that with like minded people. Go to another forum and it just hopeless.

[Fungus]

Hey guys, let's focus on electronics here, please. There are other sites more suitable for spiritual and religion argument.

It's one thread, spawned by a mailbag video that has a part devoted to religion. Nobody's forcing you to read it.

[Fungus]

If you look it up, Christians are not too happy with Catholic's take and went back to pre-christian beliefs.

The Catholic church is run as a business and always has been. They tell people whatever they need to hear before passing the collection plate.

So that is the truth? is religion actually the one that brought science to us or not?

Some percentage of people want truth. This means science will happen in any environment. If the the prevailing environment is religion then it could easily appear so, yes.

But you're avoiding the question: Why is the Flying Spaghetti Monster less likely to have guided the creation of the universe and evolution of man than the Christian God of the Bible?

[miguelvp]

To me it's all just an interpretation of Nature itself like all other religions.

The difference is that there is one truth not many, like the Roman Gods for example.

Haven't indulge in the pastafarian readings usually makes me hungry for some pasta.
So I don't know if it has connections with nature.

Also churches are of course businesses but more than that they are world wide political system. I do like that they have influence over governments, since the UN is pretty much hopeless so far.

Anyways, back to my project.

[Circlotron]

I do like that they have influence over governments,

Ah, yes. Revelation chapter 17, that famous prostitute riding on the back of the wild beast.

[Circlotron]

The Catholic church is run as a business and always has been.

In times gone past the Catholic Church was against charging interest on lending money then in 1929 Mussolini gave them a piece of land to call home and $500 million, an awful lot of money in those days. Then all of a sudden they changed their mind about charging interest on loans... Fancy that!