Conquer Club

A discussion in the "Logic dictates" thread got me thinking some, and I'd like to see how my new theory fares now. So here's where I'm going with this.

I mentioned earlier that there are somethings that science cannot, and probably will never be able to, explain. These things are the basic fundamental laws of science. Obviously, it's circular logic to try to prove the foundation of your belief based on the beliefs you get from that foundation. Think how annoying it is when Christians try to prove that there is a God using the argument that the Bible says so.

Anywho, the basic point of this is that science cannot prove everything. In short, it cannot prove itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing science. I believe that science is important and to be encouraged. My point is that there is something BEYOND science.

So check this. There are four basic fundamental forces of nature. We'll take gravity as an example because it's the most easily understood. Everyone knows that mass attracts other mass. But no one knows why.

Just to be safe, I did some research on the topic. Google gave me this website on the top of the list:

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/StarFAQ5.htm

Most notably:

Article from the above physics website wrote: What might be a satisfactory answer to a question like "why does gravity exist"? If the question can be rephrased "can we deduce the existence of gravity from more fundamental laws?" the answer seems to be "no." Gravity seems to be one of 4 fundamental forces in nature, the other 3 being electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force (holding nuclei together) and the weak nuclear force (mediating between neutrons and protons). Each is independent.

Universal gravitation is a basic fundamental law which cannot be proven using other laws. Science fails to explain why gravity happens. But of course, we know through empirical evidence that it does happen, and that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the two objects and varies inversely with the square of the distance between them. But we don't know why.

In effect, gravity occurs for no reason. None whatsoever. It just occurs.

So here's where I'm bringing God in. Yeah, I know what you're going to say. "There you go, bringing in God when you can't explain something."

This is a different case. This is the very basis of all science. It cannot and will never be able to be explained scientifically, and even if it WAS eventually explained scientifically, it would be using yet another law which has no basis aside from empirical observation. Even if it's not gravity, you're going to ultimately get down to a fundamental law which has no reason for existing.

So here, science fails. It's not just that we don't know yet, it's just that science straight up fails. This is something it cannot explain. This isn't like the moon and the sun which could eventually be explained by science, this is the very foundation of science itself.

So here's where we stand. Either:

a) these laws for the universe exist for no reason whatsoever, and bfor no reason these laws with no reason at all resulted in sentient life. Talk about a slim chance. Out of all the laws that could have existed for no reason, the laws with no reason we got resulted in life. For no reason.

or

b) there is an all-powerful sentience who exists for no reason (god), who created these laws with the specific intent of sentient life coming into fruition.

B makes the most sense to me.

I prefer A, but without the opinions built into the answer.

You chose B because you the need to give reason for your existence and everything around you.

3000 years ago, people needed to give reason for the existence of lighting. Without the knowledge of physics and electricity, the explanation given was that of that the gods where agree.

I see something in common here.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:So here's where we stand. Either:

a) these laws for the universe exist for no reason whatsoever, and bfor no reason these laws with no reason at all resulted in sentient life. Talk about a slim chance. Out of all the laws that could have existed for no reason, the laws with no reason we got resulted in life. For no reason.

or

b) there is an all-powerful sentience who exists for no reason (god), who created these laws with the specific intent of sentient life coming into fruition.

Can't argue with you there. Those are in fact the only two realistic options I can think of (maybe someone more imaginative than me can add a third). Anyways, both options imply that something beyond our grasp exists for no reason. I for one choose option A, but there's clearly no proof for either choice.

Frigidus wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:So here's where we stand. Either:

a) these laws for the universe exist for no reason whatsoever, and bfor no reason these laws with no reason at all resulted in sentient life. Talk about a slim chance. Out of all the laws that could have existed for no reason, the laws with no reason we got resulted in life. For no reason.

or

b) there is an all-powerful sentience who exists for no reason (god), who created these laws with the specific intent of sentient life coming into fruition.

Can't argue with you there. Those are in fact the only two realistic options I can think of (maybe someone more imaginative than me can add a third). Anyways, both options imply that something beyond our grasp exists for no reason. I for one choose option A, but there's clearly no proof for either choice.

That's essentially the point I'm trying to hammer home.

Which is why I tend to find it ridiculous that some atheists consider theists complete idiots.

Heimdall wrote:I prefer A, but without the opinions built into the answer.

You chose B because you the need to give reason for your existence and everything around you.

3000 years ago, people needed to give reason for the existence of lighting. Without the knowledge of physics and electricity, the explanation given was that of that the gods where agree.

I see something in common here.

There is nothing in common here. Lightning is explainable by science. Science itself (and the fundamental laws it is based on) is not explainable by science.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:There is nothing in common here. Lightning is explainable by science. Science itself (and the fundamental laws it is based on) is not explainable by science.

You missed the point. Lighting is now explainable by science because human knowledge permits it now. Back then it wasn't the case. Science could not explain it 3000 years ago.

Gravity is currently explainable up to the limit set forth by the knowledge base humanity has at this present time. The theory of Gravity has itself evolved from the times of Aristotle, to Gallieo, to Newton, to Einstein. There's no reason believe that this trend will not continue.

So as humanity evolves, so will our knowledge of "how things work".

Heimdall wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:There is nothing in common here. Lightning is explainable by science. Science itself (and the fundamental laws it is based on) is not explainable by science.

You missed the point. Lighting is now explainable by science because human knowledge permits now. Back then it wasn't the case. Science could not explain it 3000 years ago.

Gravity is currently explainable up to the limit set forth by the knowledge base humanity has at this present time. The theory of Gravity has itself evolved from the times of Aristotle, to Gallieo, to Newton, to Einstein. There's no reason believe that this trend will not continue.

So as humanity evolves, so will our knowledge of "how things work".

The theory of gravity evolved in the extent that we now better understand HOW it works, not WHY it works.

Once again, think of the idea of a Christian explaining why God exists using the Bible.

And also once again, even if gravity IS a result of some other law (according to most modern scientists, this is not the case), then that law is in itself fundamental. Ultimately, you're going to get down to some fundamental law. No matter WHAT that law is, the universe acts in a certain manner, and there is no reason for it.

So, gravity or not, that brings us back to option A and option B.

Nice OA. I was planning on creating a very specific religion thread sometime soon, and I know you might have trouble logging on often enough to catch it, but I do wish to know what you would think of it. So whenever you can, I'd appreciate you atleast checking it out sometime.

Will do, I'll keep an eye out

OnlyAmbrose wrote:The theory of gravity evolved in the extent that we now better understand HOW it works, not WHY it works.

Once again, think of the idea of a Christian explaining why God exists using the Bible.

And also once again, even if gravity IS a result of some other law (according to most modern scientists, this is not the case), then that law is in itself fundamental. Ultimately, you're going to get down to some fundamental law. No matter WHAT that law is, the universe acts in a certain manner, and there is no reason for it.

So, gravity or not, that brings us back to option A and option B.

I see your point. I think my answer would be "The universe acts in a certain manner, and we cannot fully comprehend a reason (if there is one) for it at this time, and possibly never."

Well I'm glad we've come to an agreement then

In regards to the 4 fundamental forces, here's a interesting read: Theory of Everything

It' not yet proven, but maybe one day it will be. So at least that would be 3 less to deal with

I say the whole problem with this kind of argument for the existents of god is that it can be used the same way against the existents of god. Where did god come from? Did he just happen to be there and if so why is that any less astounding than the universe just happening with these rules of nature?

although I have been arguing more towards the non-existance of God, I do think that the whole thing about "how has god always been there" and "where did he come from" is a non-existant argument.

If you assume that god created the universe, then by definition he would exist outside of our space/time continuum (his creation).

I hope you understand what I mean... i can't really find the words to explain it more than that. other than it is a not existant issue, because time does not exist.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
a) these laws for the universe exist for no reason whatsoever, and bfor no reason these laws with no reason at all resulted in sentient life. Talk about a slim chance. Out of all the laws that could have existed for no reason, the laws with no reason we got resulted in life. For no reason.

Have you heard of the weak anthropic principle, Ambrose? "We see things as they are because we are here to see them", or something along those lines? Presumably you have.

Of all the non-theistic explanations for the specifics of the laws of physics, I think that's the best. "Why does gravity act as it does"? Because it can. If it were any different we would have never existed to comment on it.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:So here's where we stand. Either:

a) these laws for the universe exist for no reason whatsoever, and bfor no reason these laws with no reason at all resulted in sentient life. Talk about a slim chance. Out of all the laws that could have existed for no reason, the laws with no reason we got resulted in life. For no reason.

or

b) there is an all-powerful sentience who exists for no reason (god), who created these laws with the specific intent of sentient life coming into fruition.

Can't argue with you there. Those are in fact the only two realistic options I can think of (maybe someone more imaginative than me can add a third). Anyways, both options imply that something beyond our grasp exists for no reason. I for one choose option A, but there's clearly no proof for either choice.

That's essentially the point I'm trying to hammer home.

Which is why I tend to find it ridiculous that some atheists consider theists complete idiots.

Ambrose i do see where you are coming from with this argument, but there is a world of dfifference between theism and christianity.
I do not believe in god, but i will happily concede that I don't know. For me the balance of probabilities suggest that there is no creator, because in our experience complexity requires billions of years of cosmic and evolutionary time to arise. But I have to remain agnostic, basically for the reasons you state above. I can't call theists idiots anymore than i can call christians idiots. I have to believe they are misguided, much as many on here believe we atheists are going to burn in hell.

But nevertheless, theism is still a million miles from judeo-christian mythology. The strangeness and apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental laws can be used as arguments for a creator, but not that the creator has to be yahweh and not ra, or zeus, or for a virgin birth/resurrection/etc.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:So here's where we stand. Either:

a) these laws for the universe exist for no reason whatsoever, and bfor no reason these laws with no reason at all resulted in sentient life. Talk about a slim chance. Out of all the laws that could have existed for no reason, the laws with no reason we got resulted in life. For no reason.

or

b) there is an all-powerful sentience who exists for no reason (god), who created these laws with the specific intent of sentient life coming into fruition.

B makes the most sense to me.

So, you're admitting that there is something that exists that exists for no reason...

A) the universe

or

B) god

And you would rather pick the one that takes the question of existence one more step back just because you can't understand the workings of the universe? Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Parsimony is a lovely thing. The question comes down to what is infinite: god or the universe? And since we're talking about probability, which is more probable, a universe that happened for no reason, or the god that is capable of creating a universe (who also is around for no reason)? Of course, the answer is the universe. Adding sentience to the beginning of the system just makes it that much more improbable.

Additionally, who the f*ck thinks that gravitational theory is easier than thermodynamics? I'd take thermodynamics over gravity any day...

I will have to say (and I think I may have mentioned it to him before) but Ambrose puts forward the best case forward for theism out of anyone else on these boards that I've seen. I can totally see what you are trying to say with your statement at the start of the thread.

I don't believe in god, I think jesus was just a very smart con-man whose mother was a cheating whore. (I swear joseph! I didn't sleep with anyone else! Immaculate conception!!) - hey it's just a theory. No offence meant.

How the universe started is rather arbitrary. If god did create it, he would much rather that we work together and try to fix and make sure we don't destroy his creation, rather than argue over how it was formed. If it was formed by random occurences and chemical reactions, then we should make sure we don't destroy this fluke of nature that gave life. The biggest tragedy of human history has only just started to begin, and if we don't do anything about it, all our inherent differences of cultures will seem insignificant once it's apparent that we have destroyed the planet.

Neoteny wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:So here's where we stand. Either:

a) these laws for the universe exist for no reason whatsoever, and bfor no reason these laws with no reason at all resulted in sentient life. Talk about a slim chance. Out of all the laws that could have existed for no reason, the laws with no reason we got resulted in life. For no reason.

or

b) there is an all-powerful sentience who exists for no reason (god), who created these laws with the specific intent of sentient life coming into fruition.

B makes the most sense to me.

So, you're admitting that there is something that exists that exists for no reason...

A) the universe

or

B) god

And you would rather pick the one that takes the question of existence one more step back just because you can't understand the workings of the universe? Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Parsimony is a lovely thing. The question comes down to what is infinite: god or the universe? And since we're talking about probability, which is more probable, a universe that happened for no reason, or the god that is capable of creating a universe (who also is around for no reason)? Of course, the answer is the universe. Adding sentience to the beginning of the system just makes it that much more improbable.

Additionally, who the f*ck thinks that gravitational theory is easier than thermodynamics? I'd take thermodynamics over gravity any day...

QFT!

But I think Ambrose tried to make a point with the fact that the universe can sustain life. Which misses the point ofcourse because if it didn't we wouldn't be here talking about how wonderous it is.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:So here's where we stand. Either:

a) these laws for the universe exist for no reason whatsoever, and bfor no reason these laws with no reason at all resulted in sentient life. Talk about a slim chance. Out of all the laws that could have existed for no reason, the laws with no reason we got resulted in life. For no reason.

or

b) there is an all-powerful sentience who exists for no reason (god), who created these laws with the specific intent of sentient life coming into fruition.

B makes the most sense to me.

So, you're admitting that there is something that exists that exists for no reason...

A) the universe

or

B) god

And you would rather pick the one that takes the question of existence one more step back just because you can't understand the workings of the universe? Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Parsimony is a lovely thing. The question comes down to what is infinite: god or the universe? And since we're talking about probability, which is more probable, a universe that happened for no reason, or the god that is capable of creating a universe (who also is around for no reason)? Of course, the answer is the universe. Adding sentience to the beginning of the system just makes it that much more improbable.

Additionally, who the f*ck thinks that gravitational theory is easier than thermodynamics? I'd take thermodynamics over gravity any day...

QFT!

But I think Ambrose tried to make a point with the fact that the universe can sustain life. Which misses the point ofcourse because if it didn't we wouldn't be here talking about how wonderous it is.

Meh, add sentience wherever you want. Adding it unnecessarily at the beginning just blows the probability out of the water.

It certainly is a good argument, but yes the weak anthropic principle is very valid.

We are here, on this earth, because of the particular conditions which allow us to exist.

Gravity works. For us. However, we could not exist on Jupiter, even if it were not a gas giant, because the gravity would crush us in an instant. The very fact that we are here to the discuss this simply implies that a planet exists where conditions were stable enough to produce life. Gravity is a beneficial force, for us, but not for the chances of life on Jupiter. When we look at the Earth, and the life it has produced, in the context of the billions of other 'attempts' (which quite possibly may hold life themselves in some cases, life which follows drastically different rules) then we're just lucky.

It still does not imply a creator really. If we get a bit deeper into the physics and go with an infinite number of universes then yes, a great deal of those universes would not be able to support life because the balance of the four forces is wrong. However, a small minority would. The very fact that we are here to observe means we must be present in one of those universes, but nothing more than that. One person wins the lottery every week, but we don't say 'what a minute chance... that person must have some supernatural explanation... he could never have won otherwise...'

And, furthermore, if we are to accept the argument as a proof of God it doesn't prove which God any more than the other thread. It could just s easily be an evil God, which would fit more cleanly with the problem of evil and the fact that I can never find two matching socks.

You're all right, of course. My leap from "There exists something which has no reason for being" to "There exists a God" is purely a leap of faith. On the other hand, the leap to "There exists something which has no reason for being" to "The laws of physics have no reason for being" is also a leap of faith.

I am NOT making the argument for Christianity, mostly you could say I'm making the argument for agnosticism. I've said it many times, think that agnosticism is the furthest that human reason alone can take us. After that point, it's up to the Holy Spirit. So here we're discussing creator/no creator, regardless of the nature of that creator.

So in essence I'm not trying to prove that there is a God, I'm trying to prove that it is not unreasonable to believe in one, or at the very least acknowledge the distinct philosophical possibility that there could be one.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:, or at the very least acknowledge the distinct philosophical possibility that there could be one.

See the problem is that I already do this. I merely consider it to be unlikely and I personally don't think there is one.

I've been thinking about this and I still don't see why the laws of physics would need a reason for being and why it's supposed to be a leap of faith to say they don't.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:So in essence I'm not trying to prove that there is a God, I'm trying to prove that it is not unreasonable to believe in one, or at the very least acknowledge the distinct philosophical possibility that there could be one.

You're absolutely right. To expand it to more ambivalent language, with a Universe of the size we have it now and all of the billions upon billions of stars there is a possibility that behind it all is some form or another of God.

Personally, I see a minor flaw in your argument (I say personally because it seems to be a flaw when I place it against my own personal philosophical conclusions). I've always found the question "Why?" to be somewhat of a nonsensical one when applied to science. It assumes a motivation behind the fundamental forces at work. I've never found it necessary for science to answer the "Why?" question. Science's job is to answer the various "Hows, Wheres, and Whens" questions. The question "Why?" should be answered by theologians and philosophers. It is not something scientists should concern themselves with simply because it's not their field.

I don't infer God into those questions because God isn't an answer. God is an identity to something transcendent that humankind has never been able to fully define. It's the interconnectedness we feel toward other human beings. What Jung called the collective unconscious, the strange link that we feel as a species that holds all of the total sum of human knowledge.