h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi FT,

Actually, I agree with Taliesyn on this. Words like 'God' and 'religion' do need further definition.

For instance, I might object to religion on the grounds that it makes people fly airliners into skyscrapers, or that it makes people kill each-other for having sex outside marriage. The response would almost certainly be 'that's not *my* kind of religion'. If I don't know what type of religion we are talking about, I don't know if I object to it, much less for what reasons.

Similarly with God. There are probably nearly as many ideas about God as there are believers. Some people believe in a God who made the Earth 6,000 years ago. I can argue cogently against such a being. Others might believe in a 'divine spirit' that is not active in the Universe; it is much harder to come up with positive evidence against that, and I'd have to fall back on negative evidence such as Occam's Razor.

Until the terms are clearly defined, we will be at risk of talking at cross purposes.

Gif

>cross purposes.< And so shall it be until the end....

Hair of the dog anyone?

Hi NPF,

On radiometric dating, you might like to look up 'isochronic dating' - there is a method by which we can check whether radioactive materials were partly decayed or not at the time of solidification of the rock.

(Of course, a malevolent, infintely powerful deity could have made the entire Earth 5 minutes ago with the perfect appearance of greater age...)



Yes, punctuated equilibrium does conflict with Darwin's idea of gradualism to a certain extent. Darwin was working 150 years ago; science has moved on! He was probably 99% right, but evolution can proceed rapidly or slowly, not at a single, constant rate as he probably believed (although obviously it must always take several generations at minimum).



'Could you perhaps give us an example of something you consider irreducible complexity?'
'DNA and the living cell.'

Cells can work quite well with several components missing - nuclei, chloroplasts and flagella, for example. They are, therefore, not irreducibly complex.

DNA is irreducibly complex, but could still have evolved. RNA can reproduce even without DNA, and it is therefore widely believed that DNA arose from RNA. Unlike DNA, RNA is chemically active - in other words, DNA can't reproduce on its own, but RNA (probably) can - though admittedly we don't know exactly how yet, and there is still the possibility of us being wrong on this. Again, happy to go into this in more detail.



'The type of "slavery" that was allowed in the Old Testament would probably not even be called "slavery" today since it didn't last more than seven years.'

Not if you were a Hebrew. It did if you were not a Hebrew. It would certainly be called slavery by any modern anti-slavery organisation. It was unpaid, forced labour by indentured workers who were the property of their owners and who could by physically beaten perfectly legally. I'd call that slavery, no matter how long it lasted. In what way do you think it differs from modern ideas of slavery?

'Modern ideas of slavery are obviously wrong based on both the Old and New Testaments.'

A challenge (in good spirits) then; please construct an argument against slavery from the OT only. You may, if you wish, ignore any OT verse that is inconvenient to your arguments, though it'll be more impressive if you include the OT references to slavery. You may *only* use the OT - no references to the NT or to extra-Biblical moral ideas. (It may be possible, I'm not sure, but I doubt it will be easy.)



Gif

Douglas Adams is irreducibly complex

I just knew someone would say that .

DNA is not irreducibly complex. Remember it did not initially form as DNA millions of base pairs long, it started out as far simpler molecules. Their spontaneous formation might be incredibly unlikely, but this is where the law of large number comes in.

Even if the chances of such a reaction happening by chance were tiny, given the number of places where the right conditions existed on earth and the half-billion years or so it took to happen, we're probably talking a number of opportunities with fifty-odd zeros after it. It could've been a virtual certainty.

Even the chemical process was indeed impossible, which is wasn't, in quantum theory there is a finite chance of anything at all appearing from nowhere, entirely by chance. The more complex, the more unlikely, but there is still a finite chance.

<<"macro evolution, if it is real">>

Given the following, which I think are pretty reasonable, propositions:
1) Creatures pass down and mix their genetic information.
2) That genetic information undergoes mutation.
3) Creatures live, die, and breed, and this is not random. They are therefore subject to seleciton pressures.

How could 'macro evolution' not be real? Surely, given the above, its a logical inevitability?

Moroever, we can observe evolution. For a particularly striking example, HIV will often evolve into new strains during the lifetime of its host

Having said that, I realised that of course there is also a finite chance of a divine intelligent spirit appearing by chance, though the odds must be astronomical compared to the likelihood of the precursors of DNA happening by chance.

I wonder if God is Irreducibly Complex?

Gif

If no, what did he evolve from?
If yes, who created him?
It's something that I've never fully understood, and one of the reasons (repeated by many people) I can't believe in a God. If nothing created God, it would have had to be its own cause, which mucks about with causality. Although there is that problem with any claim the universe had a beginning. How did something come from nothing?

Things appear out of nothing all the time. Providing the net balance of energy is zero, there's no problem.

And the conditions for creating the something must have changed since, otherwise there must necessarily be more than one of the something. In which case there would be more than one creator-type figure.

Simpost. I get your meaning Dave - I think. Could you give an illustrative example?

Post 246 at the end, beyond that, I don't know much. Virtual particles appear in matter - antimatter pairs, and then re-merge and destroy each other. Happens all the time I believe. But they reckon anything can appear, it's a simple case of probability. The more complex the more improbable. It's very Douglas Adams-esque.

I think you're talking about 'quantum fluctuations'.

Of course, if it is possible for God to spring into existence uncaused from nothing, that raises the question of whether it is possible for the universe to speing into existence uncaused from nothing... and if so, why we need God to explain it.

Gif

I'm of the wild opinion that the universe doesn't have a 'beginning' - no matter when you look, there is always a little bit of 'before that moment'. (Which doesn't prevent time to be bounded from below by the way.) So, to me in some sense the universe has always existed.

Is this brushing the question under the carpet?

NPF,

We are not asking for convoluted theology here. A simple, straightforward definition and characterization would do.

Since you appear to be unwilling, I offer this humble attempt, which hopefully will also clarify my position somewhat.
~~~~~~

Monotheistic, ego/homo-centric religion is typified by certain core beliefs:

A 'God', characterized as:

Omnipotent - it is infinitely powerful
Omniscient - it is all-knowing
Omnipresent - it is everywhere, simultaneous and concurrent with all existence
God is also characterized as being:
The supreme creator - it is ultimately responsible for all existence, past present, and future
Benevolent - it is purely good natured
Personal - (ego-centric) - it cares about individual humans -
Anthropomorphic - (homo-centric) - it possesses human qualities.

In isolation, these beliefs, although perhaps absurd, are innocuous, but also do not provide sufficient rationale for organized religions to cohere

Religions do not develop as a result of such core beliefs, but are organized around a set of supplemental or appended beliefs, typically claimed to be instructions received from the divine entity in the form of ancient records of direct contact, or individual claims of a supernatural experience, and so forth.

It is this additional dogma which imposes expectations on a religion's adherents, and ranges from personal, internalized contemplation to an astounding variety of dietary, fashion and group ritual behaviors.

More importantly for society at large, a significant number of monotheistic, ego/homo-centric religions require their members proselytize, to a greater or lesser degree.
Milder forms of religious proselytizing are merely annoying, whereas the more virulent strains are lethal.

Generally speaking, it is when the dogma of a religion adversely affects those who choose not to believe, that it becomes objectionable.
~~~~~~~

Bonus information. (or potential thread drift, if you will )

I've not included perhaps the most significant, esoteric pre-requisite of the religious equation: The notion of Cartesian dualism.

Briefly stated, Cartesian dualism is the belief that each human is composed of a physical body, occupied by an immaterial entity, usually called the soul.
Most monotheistic, ego/homo-centric religions believe this non-corporeal 'ghost in the machine' is, or has the potential to be, immortal.

"Steve K:

It sounds disgustingly opulent. I shall certainly have to make a point of visiting if I make it to Texas someday!"

Agreed. Not at the level of the Vatican, but sort of a Donald Trump version ...

BTW, I drove through the campus of the nearby church (resort?) I mentioned, I should have included the free standing gymnasium ... it's a long way off from the main complex, so I had missed the connection.

Hi Taliesin,

(Sorry for mis-spelling you name earlier)

I think that's a helpful definition, and I'll use it as a basis to go further, although of course no theist on this thread has yet confirmed that it is what they mean by 'God'.

'A 'God', characterized as:

(1) Omnipotent - it is infinitely powerful
(2) Omniscient - it is all-knowing
(3) Omnipresent - it is everywhere, simultaneous and concurrent with all existence
God is also characterized as being:
(4) The supreme creator - it is ultimately responsible for all existence, past present, and future
(5) Benevolent - it is purely good natured
(6) Personal - (ego-centric) - it cares about individual humans -
(7) Anthropomorphic - (homo-centric) - it possesses human qualities.'

(My numbering, obviously)

If the theists here accept that definition, I'd be prepared to argue that (1) and (5) together are inconsistent with observed reality; and that (4) and (7) are inconsistent (assuming that (7) incorporates intelligence or some other form of complexity). Also, (2) is incompatible with observation, specifically the Uncertainty Principle.

Gif

Hi Gaff,

The definition probably will not be acceptable, if only because of the obvious contradictions/absurdities.

I posted the definition purely in an attempt to respond meaningfully to original question.

Any objection to all or part of the definition must, of necessity, be at least as coherent, which will serve...