I need arguments against creation

[Robert the Pilegrim]

[snip]
So perhaps "The Critics Say" that nothing we observe or have observed in nature is without a natural and scientific explanation, or at least the promise of one in the future, and that making conjectures about some all powerful creator who is responsible for all these phenomena we observe that do not require supernatural explanation, is pointless, unscientific, and irrational.

Sounds like music and art...

Leaving aside the question of the awe I feel at the natural world, the beauty I find in flowers, or the seeking for spirituality that most humans seem pulled by, which I suppose could be written off as neutral side-effects of some other evolutionarily advantageous adaptation, I would suggest that there is more truth in the world than is accessable by science.

 

[Socrastein]

I don't see what's irrational, pointless, or unscientific about music and art's effects on people. Perhaps you could substantiate that insinuation of yours?

Of course there's more truth than is accesible by science, I would agree with that. However, I won't agree that we can ever know that truth, since science is observence of natural facts to piece together theories and laws, and we are bound within this natural universe, so anything outside of it is not only outside the realm of science, it's outside the realm of human understanding, and therefore it's existence has no relevence to any rational human whatsoever.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I don't see what's irrational, pointless, or unscientific about music and art's effects on people. Perhaps you could substantiate that insinuation of yours?

Why should a symphonie have that effect? It is irrational. It is also real.

Is a belief in God, that we can reach, be touched from, beyond the universe we know irrational, perhaps, but it is real and has real effects.

Of course there's more truth than is accesible by science, I would agree with that. However, I won't agree that we can ever know that truth, since science is observence of natural facts to piece together theories and laws, and we are bound within this natural universe,

And you know this because?
I'm curious, do you believe there is truth to love? Do you understand why the East?West Coast physicists prefered Truth and Beauty to Top and Bottom?

 

[Socrastein]

Evolutionarily, humans that evolved to enjoy listening to and participating in music would have greater survival advantage, because music would become a fantastic social strengthener, and the stronger the social bonds, the more likely that tribe is going to survive. Nothing irrational about that.

There are also certain frequencies of sound that have physiological effects on humans, like resonating with the liquid our brain sits in, giving us a peaceful feeling as our brain is essentially massaged and various endorphines are released. Again, perfectly reasonable.

And why do I know that humans are bound within a natural universe? Well, I've yet to see any human leave the bounds of this universe in any way, nor violate the laws that we all seem to be subject to. Show me a human that both exists and doesn't exist, or a human that isn't a human, and I will reconsider my opinion that we are bound by the logic and laws of this universe.

Do I believe there is truth to love? That's an ambiguous question. To I believe there is such a thing as love? Yes. Is that supposed to make me believe in God? I don't see why it would. One of the most fundamental truths of our existence is that happiness is better than nonhappiness - and when certain people possess attributes that we find favorable, being around them makes us happy. Love seems to be a very strong version of this compatibility and preference. For the last time, there is nothing "supernatural" or "magical" about it - it is perfectly reasonable and natural, no reason to suppose a God is responsible for who I prefer to be around.

I don't understand that last question of yours, so I'll simply await a further explanation of it.

And as a side note, of course BELIEF in God is real and has real effects, but that doesn't mean that God himself is real and has real effects - it just means a lot of people think he does.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Evolutionarily, humans that evolved to enjoy listening to and participating in music would have greater survival advantage, because music would become a fantastic social strengthener, and the stronger the social bonds, the more likely that tribe is going to survive. Nothing irrational about that.

To paraphrase Gould, that is a very interesting just-so story. Care to come up with one that covers art?

I am tempted to point out that music drives parents and children apart thus reducing the amount of learning that goes on

Of course counter-balancing that is the fact that the kid's music drove away preditors, ah and prey... oh well .

No, sorry, I don't see 100ky of evolution based on music around a campfire developing a facination with tone poems.

There are also certain frequencies of sound that have physiological effects on humans, like resonating with the liquid our brain sits in, giving us a peaceful feeling as our brain is essentially massaged and various endorphines are released. Again, perfectly reasonable.

Interesting, do you have studies that confirm that?

(Emphasis added below by me)

And why do I know that humans are bound within a natural universe? Well, I've yet to see any human leave the bounds of this universe in any way, nor violate the laws that we all seem to be subject to. Show me a human that both exists and doesn't exist, or a human that isn't a human, and I will reconsider my opinion that we are bound by the logic and laws of this universe.

Thank you for agreeing that it is your opinion. A not unsupported opinion and certainly a reasonable working hypothesis when designing an airplane but not a known fact.

And as a side note, of course BELIEF in God is real and has real effects, but that doesn't mean that God himself is real and has real effects - it just means a lot of people think he does.

I am a singularly dense person in some ways (okay, that is a bit of boasting, I'm sure there is somebody more dense than I am) but I have felt ... listened to, while praying. A historian I know, more rational than most people (the university courted him to get him back and ended up putting him in charge of their archives and rare books collection so they apparently think he is pretty rational) has on occasion strongly felt the presense of God in his life.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I'll let somebody else look up the cite, it is a sci fi author.

I would suggest that the difference between our understand of the universe and God's is twice over the difference between Newtonion physics and GR. And I pointedly use that example. Newtonion physics does a wonderful job of explaining 99.999% of what we humans normally experienced through about 1900. And it still explains about 90%, maybe more.

But it rather catastrophically fails to explain relativistic effects.

 

[Jet Black]

Why should a symphonie [sic] have that effect? It is irrational. It is also real.

why is it irrational?

 

[caravelair]

just a little pet-hypothesis of mine, but i think maybe human enjoyment of music has something to do with the fact that our brains are wired for pattern recognition. when you listen to music, you recognise patterns, learn new patterns, and hear variations on patterns. just an idea.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

why is it irrational?

<heh> thanks for getting me back on track.

I was not entirely clear in what I wrote. Music can be transcendental, it can cause us to transcend our existance... that is literally an irrational reaction. There is no rational thought behind it.

A lot of anti-Christians and hard atheists almost worship rationality, and yes it is important, but there times and places where it simply is not the be-all and may not apply at all.

Despite what some fundimentalists say Christian is not a wholly rational
religion, there is a reason we call it faith.

Peace be with you,
Robert

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

just a little pet-hypothesis of mine, but i think maybe human enjoyment of music has something to do with the fact that our brains are wired for pattern recognition. when you listen to music, you recognise patterns, learn new patterns, and hear variations on patterns. just an idea.

Interesting. It is also of note <cough> that birds sing on human scales. The scales we have devised have mathematically ?interesting? relationships between the frequencies.

 

[Philosophe]

Sounds like music and art...

Leaving aside the question of the awe I feel at the natural world, the beauty I find in flowers, or the seeking for spirituality that most humans seem pulled by, which I suppose could be written off as neutral side-effects of some other evolutionarily advantageous adaptation, I would suggest that there is more truth in the world than is accessable by science.

Interesting. So because you react to things in your environment, god must exist? Or more specifically, you seem to be saying because you react positively to certain stimuli, god must exist.

If not "evolutionarily advantageous adaptation", what would you suggest?

 

[caravelair]

Interesting. It is also of note <cough> that birds sing on human scales. The scales we have devised have mathematically ?interesting? relationships between the frequencies.

i think that would be perhaps due to the interference patterns created by playing the notes simultaniously. it's probably the simpler intereference patterns that create the more pleasing combinations of notes.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Interesting. So because you react to things in your environment, god must exist? Or more specifically, you seem to be saying because you react positively to certain stimuli, god must exist.

If not "evolutionarily advantageous adaptation", what would you suggest?

I'm sorry, where does "must" appear in my message?

 

[Philosophe]

I'm sorry, where does "must" appear in my message?

Bad wording on my part, I apologize. But you do seem to imply that those are good arguements for the existence of god, or at least beyond the realm of science to explain.

Perhaps you could clarify your meaning.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Bad wording on my part, I apologize. But you do seem to imply that those are good arguements for the existence of god, or at least beyond the realm of science to explain.

Perhaps you could clarify your meaning.

Read my response to Jet Black about rationality.

I think there are a number of lines of evidence that suggest the existance of God. A strict application of Occham's razor would likely eliminate many, but Occham's razor is not a proof.

On the evidence that led Hawking to the [size=-1]Anthropic Principle I am uninclined to declare those physical constants couldn't be at an equilibrium point that we just don't understand, but neither am I inclined to accept the Anthropic Principle as /the/ answer.

Not "must" but rather "I believe"
[/size]

 

[Socrastein]

Dictionary.com

Irrational:
1. Not endowed with reason.
2. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
3. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.

Robert, emotional does not mean irrational. You are seriously misunderstanding the word irrational. Reason is the capacity for logical thought, so irrational is committing fallacies and being logically inconsistent - it is not enjoying a piece of music, or a nice drawing. Since nearly everything you've been saying is founded on this faulty definition, I see no reason to bother discussing with you if you aren't even going to abide by the proper meanings of words.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Dictionary.com

Irrational:
1. Not endowed with reason.
2. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
3. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.

Robert, emotional does not mean irrational. You are seriously misunderstanding the word irrational. Reason is the capacity for logical thought, so irrational is committing fallacies and being logically inconsistent - it is not enjoying a piece of music, or a nice drawing. Since nearly everything you've been saying is founded on this faulty definition, I see no reason to bother discussing with you if you aren't even going to abide by the proper meanings of words.

From dictionary.com, i.e. your source:
ra·tion·al
Having or exercising the ability to reason.
Consistent with or based on reason;
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Influenced by reasoning rather than by emotion.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

ir·ra·tion·al
1. Not endowed with reason.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
For many music lovers there is no reasoning going on, it is an emotional reaction. Indeed I have heard musicians complain that it is sometimes hard to get past their professional analysis of a piece and just listen, just experience it.

As I noted elsewhere, my primary reason for bringing this up is to point out that being "rational" is not the end-all and be-all. While I am not a Romantic, there is a reason they came into existance.

 

[keliezimmer]

Creation of what, though? Creation of the Earth? The Earth is the product of billions of years of fusion in stars. Creation of the stars? Stars are the product of the advent of hydrogen and helium. Creation of hydrogen and helium? Hydrogen and helium (the first elements from which everything else is made) is the product of the "The Big Bang". Which is the product of . . . ??? No one knows, and intelligent scientist usually won't even touch it. They don't know what caused the "explosion" which brought matter and energy into existence, they can only measure and debate it's aftermath (e.g. the Universe). Sorry can't be of more help. I think the only real argument is like another wise person said, either "creation" or "always was", neither or which can be proven or even supported. You have to make up your mind on faith.

 

[JohnR7]

Unfortunately I've had problems finding actual scientific arguments along these lines, while I have plenty in favor of a creator.

Science does not really argue against things so much as they come up with a better explaination. The best theory they seem to have against God is their spontaneous theory. We hear that one all the time. If we pray for someone and God heals them, they will say God did not heal them, they just went into spontaneous remission.

 

[Raydar]

The Oort Coud is hypothetical no one has ever seen it.
David check out this site about the oort cloud www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/oort.asp
Also read some of the other sites about the cloud. I did a web search and found quite a few.