Why are there Alien Worlds?

[spblat]

Do you notice the breakdown from bullet 1 to bullet 2. In bullet 1 they make a statement that knowledge is derived through observation, experimentation and rational analysis. In bullet 2 they say evolution is a result of unguided evolutionary change.

Now you accurately identify the bullets as tenets but what would be the point of concluding that God does not exist. The tenets have no logical foundation from the beginning. So there is no reason to act as though there is a foundation for belief. You should just state that you have made an a priori decision that God does not exist and you have built a resulting belief system on that premise.

I have done no such thing; the answer to the question of God's existence is not the foundation for my belief system, as I believe it is for yours. My only a priori claim, in my opinion, is the first bullet. That's the bedrock: that naturalism and rationalism make a suitable foundation for a world view, that we should make important decisions and draw important conclusions not on faith nor dogma, but on the basis of logic, evidence and reason. Everything else flows from that.

As to whether God exists or doesn't, I have not, as you say, concluded that He does not. I have rejected claims that He does in the same way I have rejected claims of other supernatural phenomena for which rationally supported evidence is unavailable.

EDIT: hi from a fellow Linux fan.

 

[Linux98]

I have done no such thing; the answer to the question of God's existence is not the foundation for my belief system, as I believe it is for yours. My only a priori claim, in my opinion, is the first bullet. That's the bedrock: that naturalism and rationalism make a suitable foundation for a world view, that we should make important decisions and draw important conclusions not on faith nor dogma, but on the basis of logic, evidence and reason. Everything else flows from that.

As to whether God exists or doesn't, I have not, as you say, concluded that He does not. I have rejected claims that He does in the same way I have rejected claims of other supernatural phenomena for which rationally supported evidence is unavailable.

EDIT: hi from a fellow Linux fan.

Yeah, Linux is cool (the OS that is). Have you worked with Vista yet? I haven't seen it but I've heard it looks more like Apple's OS.

I do not take issue with the first bullet at all. I entirely agree with it. I do, however, take issue with the second bullet. The assumption that evolution is not guided is an a priori assumption in and of itself that says "there is no God". That assumption is directly contradicted by the first bullet. You simply cannot make a statement regarding the origin of evolution through observation, experimentation or rational analysis. Therefore, they claim knowledge despite the fact that they break their own rules in obtaining knowledge.

 

[Linux98]

By the way, I should be saying "one cannot" instead of "you cannot"

 

[spblat]

Yeah, Linux is cool (the OS that is). Have you worked with Vista yet? I haven't seen it but I've heard it looks more like Apple's OS.

I do not take issue with the first bullet at all. I entirely agree with it. I do, however, take issue with the second bullet. The assumption that evolution is not guided is an a priori assumption in and of itself that says "there is no God". That assumption is directly contradicted by the first bullet. You simply cannot make a statement regarding the origin of evolution through observation, experimentation or rational analysis. Therefore, they claim knowledge despite the fact that they break their own rules in obtaining knowledge.

The line of thinking works in the other direction: there is no evidence supporting the argument that evolution is guided, so in the absence of this evidence we assert that it is unguided. The whole way of thinking here is that belief in something must draw from experience. And no rational/natural experience points to a guiding creator.

Offtopic: I intensely dislike Vista, though I admit aero is quite pretty. "Vista is an upsell masquerading as an upgrade."

 

[Linux98]

The line of thinking works in the other direction: there is no evidence supporting the argument that evolution is guided, so in the absence of this evidence we assert that it is unguided. The whole way of thinking here is that belief in something must draw from experience. And no rational/natural experience points to a guiding creator.

Offtopic: I intensely dislike Vista, though I admit aero is quite pretty. "Vista is an upsell masquerading as an upgrade."

Actually, the only reasonable conclusion would be to remain silent on the issue. You just cannot leap from here to there; from restricting oneself to observation, rationalization, and experimentation to stating that evolution is unguided. The bridge for an assertion does not exist.

However, I do agree that Atheists reason their conclusion based on personal experience. There are Christians who do that as well. That is why it comes down to a perception of the natural experiences.

For example, a Christian could easily make the claim that evolution is guided by the mechanics of evolution. The mechanics of evolution show a history of consistency and that shows that randomness is not the primary force driving evolution. Anything that is not guided is random. Therefore, evolution certainly appears to be guided by an intelligence that keeps it from being a random process.

The only difference is in the eye of the beholder. It is nothing more than personal perception as to what causes the consistency in the laws we observe.

Furthermore, it is ultimately nonsensical to say that there is no evidence that evolution is guided (meaning guided by a God). It is conceptually impossible to derive such evidence through the process of observation, rationalization and experimentation. So if it is impossible to derive the evidence through the proposed process (science) then the statement becomes meaningless.

 

[spblat]

Actually, the only reasonable conclusion would be to remain silent on the issue. You just cannot leap from here to there; from restricting oneself to observation, rationalization, and experimentation to stating that evolution is unguided. The bridge for an assertion does not exist.

However, I do agree that Atheists reason their conclusion based on personal experience. There are Christians who do that as well. That is why it comes down to a perception of the natural experiences.

For example, a Christian could easily make the claim that evolution is guided by the mechanics of evolution. The mechanics of evolution show a history of consistency and that shows that randomness is not the primary force driving evolution. Anything that is not guided is random. Therefore, evolution certainly appears to be guided by an intelligence that keeps it from being a random process.

The only difference is in the eye of the beholder. It is nothing more than personal perception as to what causes the consistency in the laws we observe.

Furthermore, it is ultimately nonsensical to say that there is no evidence that evolution is guided (meaning guided by a God). It is conceptually impossible to derive such evidence through the process of observation, rationalization and experimentation. So if it is impossible to derive the evidence through the proposed process (science) then the statement becomes meaningless.

Clearly I cannot convince you that all of my views are correct. But I am attempting to show that they are not logically inconsistent with my other views.

Evolution, of course, is not thought to be completely unguided. It is agreed among those who accept the evidence for evolution that it is guided through the mechanics of natural selection, a process so remarkable that it could easily be (and often is) mistaken for intelligence.

Indeed, entertaining the idea that a sentient creator guides the process of evolution is to also entertain the idea that such a thing exists. And for a rationalist to accept the existence of such a creator would be to go against her most fundamental intellectual footing: that reason, evidence and logic are required for knowledge. When plausible natural explanations for phenomena are available (and in the case of evolution, they most definitely are), they are preferred over supernatural explanations. This is how we think. There is no room for "I don't understand, therefore God did it" in areas where our understanding is incomplete; when we lack understanding (or where we are shown to be wrong), it just means we need to go back for more research.

This is important: I do not need evidence to reject a claim, especially one offered without evidence. The way reason works is that the person making a claim has the burden of proof. It's impossible any other way. Otherwise, you would have to prove me wrong when I claim there is a small teapot orbiting the earth, too small to be detected by our telescopes.

Let me again quote Sagan, who was much more eloquent on this than I could ever be:

It used to be that the flowering of every plant was due to direct intervention by the Deity. Now we understand something about plant hormones and phototropism, and virtually no one imagines that God directly commands the individual flowers to bloom.So as science advances, there seems to be less and less for God to do. It’s a big universe, of course, so He, She, or It could be profitably employed in many places. But what has clearly been happening is that evolving before our eyes has been a God of the Gaps; that is, whatever it is we cannot explain lately is attributed to God. And then after a while, we explain it, and so that’s no longer God’s realm. The theologicians give that one up, and it walks over onto the science side of the duty roster.

Where is the rational evidence for God's existence? Where is the rational evidence that He guides the evolutionary process?

 

[silimauleaf]

has anybody considered this possibility however.
A deity, a creator figure, may have created the universe in its entirety and may well have dominion over all of it? It seems a little arrogant of humans, who, on the scale of things, are very insignificant, to believe a supreme creator figure might have pure interest in us. The universe is atoned quite well to support many forms of life, it may not be just about us.

It also might explain why a creator figure might be quite so sparing on the miracles and such, what with multiple orders of organisms.

UNIVERSE UNITY! haha

 

[Linux98]

Clearly I cannot convince you that all of my views are correct. But I am attempting to show that they are not logically inconsistent with my other views.

Evolution, of course, is not thought to be completely unguided. It is agreed among those who accept the evidence for evolution that it is guided through the mechanics of natural selection, a process so remarkable that it could easily be (and often is) mistaken for intelligence.

Indeed, entertaining the idea that a sentient creator guides the process of evolution is to also entertain the idea that such a thing exists. And for a rationalist to accept the existence of such a creator would be to go against her most fundamental intellectual footing: that reason, evidence and logic are required for knowledge. When plausible natural explanations for phenomena are available (and in the case of evolution, they most definitely are), they are preferred over supernatural explanations. This is how we think. There is no room for "I don't understand, therefore God did it" in areas where our understanding is incomplete; when we lack understanding (or where we are shown to be wrong), it just means we need to go back for more research.

This is important: I do not need evidence to reject a claim, especially one offered without evidence. The way reason works is that the person making a claim has the burden of proof. It's impossible any other way. Otherwise, you would have to prove me wrong when I claim there is a small teapot orbiting the earth, too small to be detected by our telescopes.

Let me again quote Sagan, who was much more eloquent on this than I could ever be:

Where is the rational evidence for God's existence? Where is the rational evidence that He guides the evolutionary process?

The biblical documents are the evidence for god's existence. It is the evidence that addresses the falsifiable aspect of Atheism.

In that light, the atheist has no choice but to address the evidence of the Christ recorded in the biblical documents. In other words, unless you can provide evidence other than the bible then the bible becomes your primary piece of evidence. It becomes the central issue.

Also, you should consider the fact that Sagan was ultimately arguing that the natural sciences cannot answer the question of god. Again, you are left with the bible.

 

[spblat]

The biblical documents are the evidence for god's existence. It is the evidence that addresses the falsifiable aspect of Atheism.

In that light, the atheist has no choice but to address the evidence of the Christ recorded in the biblical documents. In other words, unless you can provide evidence other than the bible then the bible becomes your primary piece of evidence. It becomes the central issue.

Also, you should consider the fact that Sagan was ultimately arguing that the natural sciences cannot answer the question of god. Again, you are left with the bible.

Surely then, we disagree on the relevance of these documents to the question of God's existence. I am certainly not the first to point out that the Bible's claims that God exists (or that the Bible is true) are not sufficient to make it so. The Bible is text on a page, its authority on these matters vacant, at least in terms a rationalist can even begin to accept. So the Bible is there, but its merit as evidence is very much in question; it doesn't prove the existence of supernatural phenomena any more than do the polytheistic myths which reach us from the ancient Greeks.

So in the absence of verifiable, scrutable evidence for the Bible's authenticity, you ask me to provide alternative evidence disproving it. And again, it doesn't work that way; consider the teapot argument in my last post (which of course I borrow from Dawkins. Substitute the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you like).

We digress a bit into the separate "you can't prove the Bible is true" argument. Let me try to return us to our earlier difficulty: you challenged the logic of taking a position of rationalism and naturalism and from it asserting that no deity guides evolution. I stand by this progression, and I maintain that it is logical (the more so because of the innumerable scientific observations which clearly show that evolution in fact requires no guidance). The pursuit of science has not answered all of our questions (indeed, some it may never answer), but to fall back complacently on "it must have been God" is to give up and quit searching, a hopeless waste since “if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves” (sorry, Sagan again).

You correctly say that science cannot answer the question of God. But no reasonable scientist would attempt this. We can say God's existence seems quite improbable, but that's about as far as it goes. But answering the God question is not what I was trying to do. My point is that nothing requires a rational thinker to attempt to weave the supernatural into answers for questions where a natural answer is (or may be) available.

 

[Mumbo]

has anybody considered this possibility however.
A deity, a creator figure, may have created the universe in its entirety and may well have dominion over all of it? It seems a little arrogant of humans, who, on the scale of things, are very insignificant, to believe a supreme creator figure might have pure interest in us. The universe is atoned quite well to support many forms of life, it may not be just about us.

The Bible says it is, which is good enough for most Christians.

It also might explain why a creator figure might be quite so sparing on the miracles and such, what with multiple orders of organisms.

God can't work on two things at once? I was under the impression that He is omnipotent.

The biblical documents are the evidence for god's existence. It is the evidence that addresses the falsifiable aspect of Atheism.

In that light, the atheist has no choice but to address the evidence of the Christ recorded in the biblical documents. In other words, unless you can provide evidence other than the bible then the bible becomes your primary piece of evidence. It becomes the central issue.

Also, you should consider the fact that Sagan was ultimately arguing that the natural sciences cannot answer the question of god. Again, you are left with the bible.

Uh oh. Looks like the classic argument is starting up again.

Atheist: What if the Bible's wrong?
Creationist: It can't be, because it's the infalliable word of God.
A: How do you know?
C: The Bible says so.
A: But that's circular reasoning!
C: So what?
A: So that means the Bible might be wrong!
C: It can't be.

Repeat ad nauseum.
Edit: Beaten!

 

[joshualoves]

Some Reading Materials:

1. MAZZAROTH; or, the CONSTELLATIONS.
http://philologos.org/__eb-mazzaroth/

2. Mars Express Sees Its First Water (Water On Mars)
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEM8ZB474OD_1.html

3. Mission to Mars movie trailer (the opening to the 2004 Olympics had some interesting symbolisms that parallel this movie)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoT2xthKvjs

I can say that, even if the atheists investigate long enough they will see that there is more to the stars, planets and planet Earth than meets the eye. I mean, who would have thought that the specific location of the Washington Monument had something to do with the position of a specific star on midnight of a specific day? What might an atheist thing of the notion that the positioning of the U.S. White House, U.S. Capitol Building, Washington Monument and so forth might have all been based on some kind of 'astrological' calculations.

Despite the naysayers, I can say that have prayerfully come to quite some amazing revelations. For example, consider the pyramids along the Nile--I wondered if there was something special about their positioning. I would pray and ask questions then find I would myself seeking out the reason for the positioning of the pyramids--I mean answers apart from the 'typical story'. The answer is yes there is something very specific about their arrangement. Amazingly, it turned out that it had to do with specific 'star clusters' that I had long been fascinated with. The pyramids are laid out in a a huge map. These 'private revelations' came to affirmed by the work of others.

And no, I'm not about tauting some way-out cultic theories. Let those that have ears hear: seek and ye shall find.

 

[HumanisticJones]

The answer is yes there is something very specific about their arrangement. Amazingly, it turned out that it had to do with specific 'star clusters' that I had long been fascinated with.

Oh yeah, the Egyptian's were excellent astronomers. They layed the pyramids out specifically to follow certain stars and astronomical patterns. Of course given that they believed that pyramids were all about accending a person to the Western Lands where the soul could live comfortably, they used the order of the sky itself in hopes that it would grant power to help the pharoh.

I mean, who would have thought that the specific location of the Washington Monument had something to do with the position of a specific star on midnight of a specific day? What might an atheist thing of the notion that the positioning of the U.S. White House, U.S. Capitol Building, Washington Monument and so forth might have all been based on some kind of 'astrological' calculations.

I wouldn't be all that suprised. It doesn't suprise me at all that cetain buildings are layed out in the way they are because the owner believed in Feng Shui. That the people laying out Washington would have used star charts to place certain landmarks doesn't come as a shock to me.

 

[automan]

Were they all built at the same time? or did they have a gap and just put a building in it? were the roads there first and they just built alongside the road? if they were, a case could be made that the roads were built following the stars, the mind boggles at the ideas some people will come up with.

I think I will start a religious sect, I could have a thousand followers in a week, every one a nutcase.
feed them enough crap and they would love me to bits.