The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[tas8831]

Cellular respiration is about 45% efficient. You should know this if you've studied physics. Even a Carnot's engine isn't 100% efficient.
Photosynthesis has an efficiency of about 35%.

EDIT: Grammar.

But 100% sure sounds more God-y (all that 'perfection' talk).

 

[DogmaHunter]

What would be the conclusion of a completely objective/neutral, non-colored, very intellectually honest point of view on the subject of science and God...?

I've heard things like, how the moon and the earth would have to have touched or have been in the same place, say a million to a hundred million years ago based on the data that we have, and the earth would have had to been touching or in the sun, based on the same kind of data, ect, ect...

Also, that nearly all science is based on cause and effect, yet no cause for creation, or the universe... Law of thermodynamics, ect... I can't remember what else, but there are others some having to the problems involved in (process of) the ToE as it is currently thought of and known anyway...

I don't know though, and i don't exactly know where I stand on these things...? What do you guys think...?

And try to be completely intellectually honest please...?

I've also heard that if one is completely intellectually honest, that there is almost "nothing certain", at this point...? But oh how we love things that "seem" certain, and are very stubborn and hard-headed when it comes to letting go of those supposed certainties, that may not be so solid or certain, cause oh how we hate uncertainty or being uncertain...

But that is where I am currently at...

God Bless!

First about certainties... In science, an absolute certainty doesn't exist. For the simple fact that to have absolute certainty, you'ld have to know everything about everything.

That's logically impossible. We can use the word "certain" nevertheless though, reminding ourselves that there are degrees there.

Because what if we really all live in a simulation of some sort? There is zero valid reason to think that. But it could be the case, why not? If it is the case, then what do we then really know for certain? We'ld have knowledge about the simulation perhaps, but simulation aren't real. You see?

This is why we make a few basal assumptions, like
- the universe is real
- the universe is consistent enough to learn about it (ie: physics is what it is and works the way it does today, tomorrow and yesterday)

Within that framework, we can have certainties, sure. Up to a point.

As for Gods and science........
To me, it's not different from the Simulation hypothesis.

It could be the case, but there isn't a valid reason to think it is.
So I treat both in the same way.

Science's job is the find out how the universe and everything it contains works. And to find out what the universe itself is and how it came about.

It's rather obvious that that isn't an easy job. It's very hard work.
It's easy to just skip all that work and just slap a "god-dun-it" on that, but I don't think that's very satisfying, nore compelling.

Most of all, it doesn't advance our understanding about ANYTHING in any way whatsoever, so it's entirely pointless as well.


You want science to incorporate gods? Give it a good reason to do so. Unless such a reason is given, what's the point?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I always use to think that the ToE was so very solid and certain, but now just don't know...?]

Evolution is as certain as can be.
It's a theory, which means that it is a well tested and confirmed explanation of a set of facts.

The set of facts supporting evolution is pretty gigantic.
The set of facts contradicting it, is empty.

It doesn't get any better then that in science, in terms of succesfull theories.
It's said sometimes that evolution is the most solid theory in all of science, due to the mountains of evidence in support of it. And it's not wrong, to say that.

If you take and equal dose of both sides perspectives or points of view and their evidence

That's just it. There are no 2 perspectives.
There is only one and it is evolution.

The other is a RELIGION.
The religious tale has no evidence. That's why it requires "faith".

What is "presented" as evidence from the religous side, is not evidence at all. Instead, it consists of a collection of stabs at evolution theory, which aren't even correct as they are based on strawman versions of the theory.

, and be completely intellectually honest, with no pride involved, can you really come to any or very many completely solid certain conclusions, for certain...?

Evolution theory being accurate is as certain as it can get in science.
And I already explained why "absolute" certainty is different. There's always the potential of uncovering new evidence later down the road, which turns your world upside down.

I couldn't imagine that happening to evolution theory, just like I can't imagine that happening to atomic theory or germ theory of desease, but intellectual honesty demands to keep the possibility open.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And I really don't like to or mean to be cruel or blunt, but...?

I suspect you (and others like you) have some kind of "personal problem" with God, I suspect anyway...? or maybe with the whole idea of a God maybe... But, either way, it's a bit difficult, and even a little bit ridiculous, to have these kind of problems, (feelings and passions and issues) toward or with someone, who you say, does not exist, isn't it...

(sorry)...

God Bless!

I have a problem with propositions that are indistinguishable from those that were invented out of thin air.

No, I don't have a "personal" problem with whatever god you happen to worship due to geographic accident.

I just care about the evidence. And the god-hypothesis doesn't have any.
So there is no reason to include it in evidence-based explanations. Au contraire... there not being any evidence is exactly the reason to NOT include it.

 

[Neogaia777]

I have a problem with propositions that are indistinguishable from those that were invented out of thin air.

No, I don't have a "personal" problem with whatever god you happen to worship due to geographic accident.

I just care about the evidence. And the god-hypothesis doesn't have any.
So there is no reason to include it in evidence-based explanations. Au contraire... there not being any evidence is exactly the reason to NOT include it.

I'm sure...

I'm sure your point of view is completely objective and totally neutral, and completely and 100% totally intellectually honest, and is always taking in "equal doses" of both sides of all scientific points of view or all voices on all science matters, (or other matters, like the existence of God, for example, as well) and is completely free of any trace of pride... And is not colored or skewed by any personal issues or personal biases at all...

I'm so sure...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm sure...

I'm sure your point of view is completely objective and totally neutral, and completely and 100% totally intellectually honest, and is always taking in "equal doses" of both sides of all scientific points of view or all voices on all science matters, (or other matters, like the existence of God, for example, as well) and is completely free of any trace of pride... And is not colored or skewed by any personal issues or personal biases at all...

I'm so sure...

God Bless!

@DogmaHunter it comes out in your writing that your just "not" (this above) that is that: your just "not" 100% completely totally and truly "objective", or have a truly objective point of view... On or in science, or with scientific matters, or with matters about God or "any matters", for that matter...

And, I'm not surprised, very, very few are, or are truly that brave or bold after all...

I'm not talking about "absolute certainty", but just not even "relative certainty" is even possible in most matters, if your being 100% truly objective (or honest)...

For example: if you were being "that" (above) about or on, or with the matters of God, or God's existence or "whatever", (for example)... You'd almost "have to conclude" that it (the subject of God, or God's existence or whatever) is "possible" at the very least, and perhaps maybe even likely, to very likely... or even more likely, to even very possibly, or very possibly, or even very probably (likely) (true, a God exists, or whatever)... (for example)...

God Bless!

 

[Speedwell]

@DogmaHunter it comes out in your writing that your just "not" (this above) that is that: your just "not" 100% completely totally and truly "objective", or have a truly objective point of view... On or in science, or with scientific matters, or with matters about God or "any matters", for that matter...

And, I'm not surprised, very, very few are, or are truly that brave or bold after all...

I'm not talking about "absolute certainty", but just not even "relative certainty" is even possible in most matters, if your being 100% truly objective (or honest)...

For example: if you were being "that" (above) about or on, or with the matters of God, or God's existence or "whatever", (for example)... You'd almost "have to conclude" that it (the subject of God, or God's existence or whatever) is "possible" at the very least, and perhaps maybe even likely, to very likely... or even more likely, to even very possibly, or very possibly, or even very probably (likely) (true, a God exists, or whatever)... (for example)...

God Bless!

Except that the question of the existence of God is unrelated to the question of the validity of a scientific theory like the theory of evolution and rests on a different epistemological footing, so comparing degrees of certainty is not likely to be useful.

 

[Neogaia777]

Except that the question of the existence of God is unrelated to the question of the validity of a scientific theory like the theory of evolution and rests on a different epistemological footing, so comparing degrees of certainty is not likely to be useful.

I only used the question of the existence of God as an/one example only... But that what I said about being 100% truly completely objective, intellectually honest and true, (ect), could apply to almost anything, or "any question of any debatable subject matter"...

And that the problem lies in most of us just "not being that way" (about "things")...

And when you truly are, even any "relative certainty" of anything, becomes highly debatable or uncertain...

God Bless!

 

[Sanoy]

If I wasn't a Christian i'd be a deist or something close. There just isn't enough to carry me over the extreme improbability that all existence came about naturally. It's too big of a pill to swallow unless it's medication.

 

[Andy centek]

Huuum!
There can't be a God? Or should I say, a Creator of all that it?
Consider this view point. There are certain trees that only grow in certain areas with certain established conditions for those particular trees! There is only certain groups that grow certain areas that have the proper growing conditions for them! There is certain birds that are for certain parts of the Earth.
Mathematics works the same in all parts of the Earth, why? The star constillations tell the entire story of the coming of a spiritual saviour; these are what the wise men in the Bible understood when They said They saw His sign in the stars!
I guess it must all be an accident?
Andy Centek

 

[HitchSlap]

I wanted to do this for awhile and put the evidence that led me away from Atheism. The scientific evidence. And I felt that this post should stand on its own. To my knowledge I don't know that this is out there in one place and there maybe be some things that are not out there.



So for me it started with Quantum Physics. As I studied QP I began to become uneasy. I was seeing something that didn't match my world view. There was too much interconnectedness and well something bigger afoot. The Dual Slit experiment was the first problem for me as I began to see what looked like intelligent interaction between the matter/energy (depending on your interpretation and what is being tested) and the observer. I began to talk to physicists about this and was shocked at the responses. They didn't like this line of questioning at all. Because they knew it led to an outside intelligence. They assured me that it was all mechanical but that raised even bigger problems. If as most physicists believe and most people that study QP that its all mechanical from Quantum to Macro then we have a direct and necessary link between consciousness and matter. Which presents a huge problem in the creation of the universe. How do you get something form nothing without a conscious agent present? Then there is entangled particles that can transmit information instantly to the other side of the universe with ease. And what does this information do? It can reverse the spin on an electron on a dime. This is an amazing amount of energy from no where that can not be accounted for. And of course then there is the problems of Quantum Tunneling. For an Atheist all these things are problems. This is why many scientists didn't like these ideas when presented with them. Which brings us back to the beginning of the Universe.



We had nothing but a quantum field and the laws of relativity and that was enough to produce massive amounts of energy and mass. And before this energy and mass there is no time. So we have something that can not be tested in a lab that exists outside of time and space that creates everything? Sounds like God to me. At this point if you believe this you yourself are just a hop skip and jump away from a "God" you just call it something different. But you still have the consciousness problem. We know that we have only witnessed consciousness creating consciousness. We have never seen otherwise. We have never seen anything but life give rise to life. And so we are asked to accept on faith that it happened somehow without an outside intelligent agent for the first and only time and then everything else changes forever after that. Once again sounds like "faith" sounds like "God".



But that is not the real problem.



The real problem is in the math.



In order for things to evolve into different life forms you would need new proteins and new protein functions along the way. The best way to explain this would be that a new protein fold is the most basic change we would expect to get a new life form generally. And so work has been done to see what this would take. Without boring you with the details the math works out like this 1 in 10^77 for a new protein fold for an average protein (150 amino acid length) and 1 in 10^90 for a very small brand new protein (90 amino acid chain). To do this once if there was only once chance would be impossible as expressed by math done that calculates that beyond 1 in 10^40 is considered impossible. But there would be trillions of lifeforms that can have a go at it. But how many? Well the math has already been done on that and that works out to 10^40 total lifeforms since the dawn of life on this planet till now. That is everything from your dog and you to some pond scum. So after you work the math it comes to this problem. If everything single life individual life form that has ever existed on this planet had one unique try at solving the combinatorial problem you would still be left with a 1 in 10^37 chance at solving a new protein fold. The combination inflation gets worse though. Remember we are not talking about doing this once. Ohhhh no. We have to do this every time we need a new protein fold. Now you may say wait. Not all different protein functions have different folds. This is true but you still have the problem of brand new proteins and their math problems. We have over 10,000,000 proteins that we have estimated so far. It is also estimated that 10-20% of these are orphans or completely different. So now you are saying that we would have to go through the lottery with a chance of at least 10trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion in 1 chance .... not once but over a million times just for the orphans. The real odds then just for proteins to overcome this would look something like this:



1 in 10^74000000 now this is a very very big number. We have only 10^80 particles in the known universe. We have nothing that we can actually compare to the that protein number because nothing exists that can be counted close to it. Your asking me at this point to accept that you could win the Powerball lottery a trillion times in a row ... take a break on your fat yacht then do it another trillion times and repeat this process millions of times.



I was on board the atheist train until I began to see this problem. If you ask me to accept by faith that we could do 1 in 10trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion feat once. I will accept it. Because my belief was that "God" was too crazy so we are here so some how it happened. And even though its crazy unlikely it happened. It must have happened and did so without a "God". But when you ask me to accept that we have to go through that crazy lottery millions of times then I have to leave the reservation.



I debate atheists all the time not because its a hobby but because I like to test my beliefs. One of the questions is always where is the proof? But then what proof are you looking for? Are you looking for a glowing sphere in some undiscovered desert that will talk to you and grant you 3 wishes? Are you looking for a magic piece of toast? Something you can measure in the lab? If that is what you looking for then don't you think that would make the thing your looking for illegitimate to the task it must've done? How can something so simple that is trapped in our universe and subject to our laws be able to create something as massive as the universe? We are trapped in a box. What is inside this box can not be created by something in the box. In order to get a universe you need something more powerful then it. And yet as atheists we all believe in something similar by different names. We believe something existed outside of time and space and created everything out of nothing. I don't think that you should be able to directly measure "God" that would denigrate the very existence of such a being but I do think you can detect what this entity has done. Its in the math of the universe.



And now on for another problem that began to seriously trouble me. The irreducibly complex argument. We have all heard it before. Of course and most atheists myself will dismiss thinking that it has already been debunked. There have been answers to this argument but I am not sure they would qualify as debunking. We know of the classic examples the flagella motor, the eye, the blood clotting system. By the way the blood clotting system seems out of reach but I do not want to travel down this path. Rather I would suggest that all of life is irreducibly complex. When we get down to the cellular level its all interdependent with multiple chicken and egg problems that defy imagination. When we see functions in nature that operate at near 100% efficiency and do so with such ease that the host organism doesn't even think about these processes. From converting sunlight to chemical energy to converting chemical energy to mechanical energy we see design on steroids. We see a technological sophistication that is beyond our civilization as if put here for our amazement by an advanced alien civilization. I know of no single life form that either A. does not have irreducibly complex systems within itself or B. does not rely upon some other life form that does. I am beginning to suspect that all of life needs all of life and is therefore all interdependent. Such a grand system where you can go from molecular to planet scale and find connectedness and interdependence defies any other explanation then .... GENIUS.

It was more or less Mortons’ demon for my conversion.

 

[Ophiolite]

Consider this view point. There are certain trees that only grow in certain areas with certain established conditions for those particular trees! There is only certain groups that grow certain areas that have the proper growing conditions for them! There is certain birds that are for certain parts of the Earth.

Indeed. And tens of thousands of scientists, Hindu, agnostic, Moslem, atheist, Christian, deist, Jew and others have established, through dedicated research how these situations have arisen through evolution. You appear to be rejecting their findings. Why?

Mathematics works the same in all parts of the Earth, why?

Because mathematics is a logical process constrained by rules. The rules are universal. Just as the rules of evolution, that determined only certain trees grow in certain areas are universal. I'm reasonably certain you don't get a partial differential in a quadratic equation. Why? Because there are rules. And you don't get palm trees groing on the tundra. Why? Because there are rules. Mathematicians and scientists seek to determine what those rules. are.

The star constillations tell the entire story of the coming of a spiritual saviour; these are what the wise men in the Bible understood when They said They saw His sign in the stars!
I

I don't understand that. How did, lets say Ursa Major or Cepheus tell of the coming of Jesus?

I guess it must all be an accident?
Andy Centek

While much of what occurs in the universe is contingent, things like planetary systems, galaxies and life are anything but accident. You appear to have picked up some nonsense from reading popular science books/articles. They don't always do a good job of what "chance" means in a scientific context. Perhaps, you may have been exposed to one of the less reputable creationist websites (there are good ones too) that equivocate, prevaricate and distort. There are plenty here, Christian and non-Christian, who can help you correct your current, misunderstanding. Just ask.

 

[Ophiolite]

If I wasn't a Christian i'd be a deist or something close. There just isn't enough to carry me over the extreme improbability that all existence came about naturally. It's too big of a pill to swallow unless it's medication.

An Argument from Incredulity can only ever work for the individual who is incredulous. Informed bystanders are generally not impressed.

 

[Sanoy]

An Argument from Incredulity can only ever work for the individual who is incredulous. Informed bystanders are generally not impressed.

It wasn't an argument.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Huuum!
There can't be a God? Or should I say, a Creator of all that it?

-_- no one has claimed that it's impossible, only that there isn't much, if any, evidence supporting that conclusion.

Consider this view point. There are certain trees that only grow in certain areas with certain established conditions for those particular trees!

It's the water in the pothole situation again. The water so perfectly fits the shape of the pothole that one might conclude that the pothole was made for the water. However, water, being a liquid, adapts the shape of its container, regardless as to what shape that container is. Living organisms are likewise shaped by the environment in which they live rather than the environment being tailored to their needs. Heck, the fact that environments change all the time means that organisms MUST change in response to them, or end up going extinct as they fall behind.

-_- also, even if the seeds of the plants end up in areas where they aren't native, they obviously won't be able to grow in environments that would kill them.

There is only certain groups that grow certain areas that have the proper growing conditions for them!

Oh what do you know, there's no corn on the moon, and it is inhospitable to corn. Who'd have thought? Seriously, it'd be miraculous for plants to grow in an environment that should kill them. However, it's not necessarily the case that the native environment of an organism is the IDEAL environment. Dandelions seem to love North America, for example. Rabbits are doing great in Australia. Organisms very clearly don't usually occupy every ecosystem in which they can thrive.

There is certain birds that are for certain parts of the Earth.

Birds go where the food is. No more and no less.

Mathematics works the same in all parts of the Earth, why?

-_- you say that as if math isn't a human invention.

The star constillations tell the entire story of the coming of a spiritual saviour; these are what the wise men in the Bible understood when They said They saw His sign in the stars!
I guess it must all be an accident?
Andy Centek

Astrology is known woo, dude. Plus, the NT was written long after Jesus died, so who knows what was added in post.

 

[Ophiolite]

It wasn't an argument.

It had all the appearance of an argument:

Wikipedia: In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.

You presented your reason for rejecting evolution. The reason: you think "it's too big of a pill to swallow unless it's medication".

Thus, you were guilty of the logical fallacy, Argument from Incredulity.

 

[Sanoy]

It had all the appearance of an argument:

Wikipedia: In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.

You presented your reason for rejecting evolution. The reason: you think "it's too big of a pill to swallow unless it's medication".

Thus, you were guilty of the logical fallacy, Argument from Incredulity.

It wasn't an argument. It is a series of statements, so that much is right.

 

[Ophiolite]

It wasn't an argument. It was a series of statements, so that much is right.

In what way was is not an argument.

You do not find evolution plausible.
Consequntly you reject it.

That has the structure of an argument. It has no missing ingredients. If it walks like a duck, etc.

Now, why are you so insistent it was not an argument, and on what basis do you justify such a position?
(Warning: In order to do this you will have to make an argument. )

 

[Sanoy]

In what way was is not an argument.

You do not find evolution plausible.
Consequntly you reject it.

That has the structure of an argument. It has no missing ingredients. If it walks like a duck, etc.

Now, why are you so insistent it was not an argument, and on what basis do you justify such a position?
(Warning: In order to do this you will have to make an argument. )

Being triggered by a personal statement doesn't make it an argument, it just makes you close minded. If we ever meet we should avoid getting ice cream together lest I offend you in my dislike of certain flavors and my enthusiasm of others.

 

[Ophiolite]

Being triggered by a personal statement doesn't make it an argument, it just makes you close minded. If we ever meet we should avoid getting ice cream together lest I offend you in my dislike of certain flavors and my enthusiasm of others.

I am bemused. I have not been "triggered", whatever that means...
1. You are fully entitled to your opinions.
2. You are fully entitled to your faith.
3. Your opinions and your faith take no skin off my nose, so they would certainly not "trigger" me. Or put differently, I am not offended by your views on evolution. Disappointed, yes. Offended, no.
4. Nevertheless, your statment of your views on evolution were in the form of an argument. You have still failed to explain why you feel it was not an argument, even though it had the form of one.
5. Rejecting evolution because it seems implausible to you is an example of the logical fallacy Argument from Incredulity. Base your rejection of evolution upon your faith. That is perfectly fine. Don't reject it on the basis of your own lack of information/undestanding about the theory and the evidence.