Why Can't We Just Have Freedom?

[GBurr]

The same reason first graders run to the teacher when a classmate says stupid. People seem to enjoy watching others get in trouble. It makes them feel better about themselves.

 

[Don't Tread on Mike]

I ask myself that question everyday. It tears me apart on the inside just knowing how dumb america can be and how little they care. Maybe the will when the dollar crashes and they can't afford to buy those pretty new shoes anymore.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

The thing is, as far as we are from "proving" the existence of God, we are at least as far from proving that these things were there for no other reason other than that they were there. The one that really trips me up and makes me believe that there must be something greater at work than chemical reactions in the universe is the sprouting of organic life. How does an inanimate object gain life?

Every object has degrees of animation at whatever level of magnification you choose to view it at.

Planets, suns, satellites, gases they all move around too. Atomic particles within everything are not sitting still.

You could say everything is just different arrangements of atomic particles and also if you "zoom out" or "zoom in" sufficiently you gain
a different subjective view.

Someone (hypothetical sentient being) who is too zoomed in or too zoomed out may not experience the viewpoint you have,
however they could conceivably see something else of great interest and amazement at their levels of zoom ie. a special and rare subatomic particle,
or a very unusual cluster of galaxies and could if they were so inclined automatically default to the creator explanation.

Now what do you mean by gaining life? The ability to reproduce, to think?

Why do such attributes require a creator? Because of the "complexity" level differences you subjectively experience?

It is hard to turn zero into anything greater without some sort of manipulation from outside forces.

Hard for who? For you?

Maybe in a universe with trillions of possibilities of atomic reactions and arrangements and "all the time in the world" it's not "hard" at all.

Surely you are aware of the enourmous number of galaxies, stars and planets in the universe, our existence in my opinion is just a
result of a combination of physical factors favouring our particular type of existence.

Furthermore, given that so many physical permutations exist out there, our existence isn't surprising.

However, given that it is "relatively" rare, I can completely understand why some feel we are "special", even though, we simply are a possible outcome
of trillions upon trillions of possible outcomes.

Considering the size of the universe and the number of stars in it, it is entirely possible that there are BILLIONS of species similar to ours,
but so far spread apart that each understandably thinks they are so special that they had to be lovingly created by a creator.

I think the most logical answer to that question is that God exists.

It's not logical at all. It is simply comforting to you.

You might believe differently, but I choose to believe that way because it provides answers that science will probably never provide to my satisfaction.

Your position sounds like -> We don't know everything yet, so it must have been God.

This is why at one point we had people believing that super beings were holding the earth up, or that the earth was flat, we know better now.
Why should this be different? Just because of scale of the question? That's a scientific logistical problem, nothing more.

As far as your comparison to green elves creating the weather, the difference is that there is scientific proof that other factors create the weather.

There is no proof, only theory, that organic beings sprouted from lifeless carbon. Therefore, most any position on why life and the universe came into being can be logically defended, and the truth will only be revealed either after we die in the case of Heavenly intercession, or probably never in the case of sprouting from complete nothingness.

I bet eventually scientists will figure out how the universe (that we perceive) comes into being (if we don't disappear as a species first) even before the big bang.

Even thought we haven't yet implemented/developed the technology to actually colonise our nearest planet we already know quite a bit,
yet there remains an even greater amount of unknown. Given that I have seen no proof of a creator, only speculation, I remain of the
opinion there is no creator.

I also think that its likely that the universe isn't bounded by time and space in the way we are (only the part we can observe directly),
which makes it easy for me to understand that it can simply always exist in whatever form it actually is.

Time and space is just our subjective experience of the system we are in, ie. a subatomic particle, if it could have a conscience
would not experience universe the way we do.

It is understandable you cling to finite ideas like a creator, implying there was a beginning and an end of the creation, given the limitations of our existence.

In the cosmic time scale (infinite time), we are probably a blip, with billions upon billions of many like us existing before, during and after us,
so not so special after all, or even that "rare".

The system itself (the entire universe observable and (currently) unobservable) could be self sustaining and permanent,
meaning that it doesn't need a creator, since it has always been around.

Think about it. It's really not that hard to consider.

 

[nate895]

How is my position any more "illogical" than your blind faith that there is nothing beyond chemical reactions? I never said it was absolutely impossible for that to be, I just find it to leave more questions than answers. There is no absolutely doubtless proof either way.

As far as it being "comforting," think it is "comforting" to believe that the world will eventually end as described in Revelations, quite possibly in our lifetime if our course does not change? If you think that is "comforting," then I don't what is uncomfortable.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

How is my position any more "illogical" than your blind faith that there is nothing beyond chemical reactions?

Why does there need to be something extra on top of interactions between particles/energy etc?

I never said it was absolutely impossible for that to be, I just find it to leave more questions than answers. There is no absolutely doubtless proof either way.

I bet eventually (provided we don't destroy ourselves or get destroyed first) we will figure it out by gaining sufficient information. But belief in a creator is
an example of an explanation that requires no proof whatsoever, its just a fail-safe that can be used for anything and everything and in the past such default beliefs have
been disproved, eg. God talking when its thunder or God making weather, God making earth the center of everything and having sun go around it.

You put a radio in front of a caveman and he will think God is talking to him.
But if somehow you could calm him down and teach him basic math, physics etc, he may understand and believe that its not.

Point is, as our scientific understanding grows, our beliefs in deities come under scrutiny.

As far as it being "comforting," think it is "comforting" to believe that the world will eventually end as described in Revelations, quite possibly in our lifetime if our course does not change? If you think that is "comforting," then I don't what is uncomfortable.

Of course one day we will disappear, unlike the universe we do not last forever.

I suppose the goal of all organic species is to last (collectively and individually) for as long as they can.

Even if we did last say a million years (very unlikely I think), we would not act or look or behave anything like today, even our DNA
could be very different (probably the entire species will be genetically engineered by then). Probably we wouldn't
really be humans anymore, but something else entirely, a distant relative of sorts, a continuation of evolution with the aid of intellectual factors if you will.

 

[nate895]

Also, as far as your comparison to old flat-earthers, I say this. If I lived in those times, and someone were to ask me "Do you believe the Earth is flat or round?" I would have said "Flat, that is what it looks like to me." When they responded "Do you have any proof?" I would have said "Only what I can see and what I can feel." If they responded that I should need proof, I would have said to prove to me otherwise. They have done so at this point to the satisfaction of most (there always is the flat earth society). For religion, I say this to you, prove to me that everything from the miraculous life we live to the miracle of the Holy Fire lit every year on the Saturday before Orthodox Easter is nothing but chemical reactions and I will concede the point. I don't believe you ever will, as I probably would have never believed that the round Earth people would ever prove their point. However, anything is possible. Prove to me there is nothing but chemical reactions (I don't mean conjecture on how it happened, I mean you actually reproduce the circumstances and it happens), and I will concede the point.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Also, as far as your comparison to old flat-earthers, I say this. If I lived in those times, and someone were to ask me "Do you believe the Earth is flat or round?" I would have said "Flat, that is what it looks like to me." When they responded "Do you have any proof?" I would have said "Only what I can see and what I can feel." If they responded that I should need proof, I would have said to prove to me otherwise.

What are you trying to say with this? I don't follow.

In any case, if people had means to travel around the world or take images from some distance away to reveal the spherical nature the flat earth proposition would have been disproven. Even back then without such means, you can still see a slight bending of the horizon if you look out over the sea for example. There was a bunch of things going on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

"By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical began to take hold in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. However, most Presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[12] According to Aristotle, pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460-370 BC) believed in a flat earth.[13] Anaximander believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top which remained stable because it is the same distance from all things.[14] It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat.[15]

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[16] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and that the Earth's surface therefore could not be flat.[17] He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.[18] Writing around 10 BC, the Greek geographer Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical."

They have done so at this point to the satisfaction of most (there always is the flat earth society). For religion, I say this to you, prove to me that everything from the miraculous life we live to the miracle of the Holy Fire lit every year on the Saturday before Orthodox Easter is nothing but chemical reactions and I will concede the point. I don't believe you ever will, as I probably would have never believed that the round Earth people would ever prove their point. However, anything is possible. Prove to me there is nothing but chemical reactions (I don't mean conjecture on how it happened, I mean you actually reproduce the circumstances and it happens), and I will concede the point.

As far as conditions for creation of organic life go, it's not a mystery at all, there has been a lot of work in this area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis is one means of the transition.

As scientific understanding grows, theories will get more and more refined or we could just say God did it and end the conversation.

The way a cavemen could slowly be provided the understanding of what a radio is and how it works, so that he eventually gives up his notions that its God speaking,
is a bit like the way our understanding of abiogenesis grows so that eventually its not a mystery at all, as to how it started from seemingly inorganic matter.

I just can't quite understand why a particular type of chemical and biological transition had to have a maker in your opinion.

Keep in mind that it wasn't no humans -> humans instant transition. It was a very gradual no humans -> most primitive organic building blocks (elements, molecules ..) -> different more/less complex organic building blocks .... millions of changes .. -> humans and all this over millions of years.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

If a molecule floating in a solution has the ability to join another molecule floating in a solution, and such a molecule comes nearby, is it a miracle that they joined?

If a molecule does not have an ability to join with another molecule, but can get such ability if some part of it "comes off", is it a miracle that eventually this particular
part may fall off through whatever means?

More to the point, is it a miracle that Hydrogen and Oxygen can combine to form water?

Is turning water from liquid to gas in your kettle a miracle?

Are basic chemical properties all miracles?

Is everything around us a miracle? This is where the creator thinking leads a person.

Now expand chemical and physical reactions to cover a span of MILLIONS of years and trillions of permutations and situations and the existence of organic species from seemingly inorganic origins is not so "difficult" to grasp.

If you have a whole bunch of english letters in a bag and letters drop out one by one and you find whole english words coming out with correct spelling.

Is that a miracle?

If you have a whole bunch of chemicals in a liquid soup, and you end up with certain organic life building blocks?

Is that a miracle?

Even the very thoughts in your head right now are neuro-chemical reactions, your brain is a biological computer, if we had the storage capacity and the
processing power (and one day we will) we could one day completely describe someone's state of mind and future choices as 1' and 0's on a man made
computer (especially if we end up understanding the "randomness" of people's actions, which isn't really random but based on prior experience and mood
state). You might find such abilities lacking in taste, but they only serve to show that there is nothing so mysterious about "life", "conscience" etc.

 

[nate895]

What are you trying to say with this? I don't follow.

In any case, if people had means to travel around the world or take images from some distance away to reveal the spherical nature the flat earth proposition would have been disproven. Even back then without such means, you can still see a slight bending of the horizon if you look out over the sea for example. There was a bunch of things going on:

from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

"By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical began to take hold in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. However, most Presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[12] According to Aristotle, pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460-370 BC) believed in a flat earth.[13] Anaximander believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top which remained stable because it is the same distance from all things.[14] It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat.[15]

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[16] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and that the Earth's surface therefore could not be flat.[17] He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.[18] Writing around 10 BC, the Greek geographer Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical."



You want me to create a universe to prove that the universe has no creator?

That's absurd.

No, they didn't have to go and take a picture of the Earth from outer space to prove the Earth is round. I want you to show me a lifeless element sprout life. I will then begin doubting the Christian story. I doubt you, or anyone, ever will, but if it happened once, it can happen a million times hence.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

I want you to show me a lifeless element sprout life. I will then begin doubting the Christian story. I doubt you, or anyone, ever will, but if it happened once, it can happen a million times hence.

Define life?

I told you that it happened gradually.

 

[nate895]

Define life?

I told you that it happened gradually.

I should have specifically stated: organic being. If it is similar to a virus, I will hand it to you.

 

[muzzled dogg]

because freedom isn't safe

you should know that by now

we need our protectors

 

[TheEvilDetector]

I should have specifically stated: organic being. If it is similar to a virus, I will hand it to you.

Well over time as I've said the abiogenesis field is closing in on specific mechanisms, already many interesting theories exist.

Do I need to copy paste volumes of work here? I am sure you can look at the research material yourself.

I've given you some links already.

If you have specific scientific queries you would have to speak to scientists who are actually involved in this field of research, who could give you much more information than I could.

It's the same as it always has been, some aspect is granted to an invisible maker deity by default (because that's the easiest explanation with the least amount of intellectual work required) and over time science puts a rational explanation forward which eventually is accepted by most.

Imagine a world where scientists didn't bother, and everything was God's will (ie. intellectual apathy and laziness).

What a boring and dangerous world that would be for anyone with a curious and scientific mind.

Why do trees wobble from side to side sometimes? God told them to.
Why do apples always fall down not up from the tree? God commands them to.
Why does the sun go up and down every day? God told it to.
.
.
.
How could humans come from a situation where there were no humans before? God did it.
.
.
.
Why does X Y Z happen? God God God.
.
.
God is responsible for everything, so I can stop asking and go back to bible? Not yet, first God commands me to stone you now for blasphemous behaviour.

 

[nate895]

Well over time as I've said the abiogenesis field is closing in on specific mechanisms, already many interesting theories exist.

If you have specific scientific queries you would have to speak to scientists who are actually involved in this field of research, who could give you much more information than I could.

It's the same as it always has been, some aspect is granted to an invisible maker deity by default (because that's the easiest explanation with the least amount of intellectual work required) and over time science puts a rational explanation forward which eventually is accepted by everyone.

Imagine a world where scientists didn't bother, and everything was God's will (ie. intellectual apathy and laziness).

What a boring and dangerous world that would be for anyone with a curious and scientific mind.

Why do trees wobble from side to side sometimes? God told them to.
Why do apples always fall down not up from the tree? God commands them to.
Why does the sun go up and down every day? God told it to.
Why does X Y Z happen? God God God.

I've had enough of your questions, God commands me to stone you now for blasphemous behaviour.

You know the reason why scientific facts are called "law" is because the scientists in the Renaissance and up until recent times believed that the reason why it was fact is that it was a law that God commanded to be? Science was originally dedicated to finding out God's laws for the universe, it has since become a field where theorists postulate hypotheses based on some outlandish assumptions. The reason why the Big Bang Theory is out there is because scientists observed that stellar bodies were slowly, but steadily, drifting apart, and then postulated that the universe must have started as one atom that went boom, causing a force that continues to push the matter that was once within to the edges of the universe (if there is one). That is one big assumption, especially based on Occum's Razor.

We even have that theory in miniature based on our moon continuously drifting away from the Earth, where the moon was originally part of the Earth and split off due to rapid spinning of the Earth. Is that necessarily true? No, in fact, I believe that theory isn't given as much credence as other theories on the moon's origins.

 

[mczerone]

How is my position any more "illogical" than your blind faith that there is nothing beyond chemical reactions? I never said it was absolutely impossible for that to be, I just find it to leave more questions than answers. There is no absolutely doubtless proof either way.

As far as it being "comforting," think it is "comforting" to believe that the world will eventually end as described in Revelations, quite possibly in our lifetime if our course does not change? If you think that is "comforting," then I don't what is uncomfortable.

I don't have these arguments anymore, because I've recognized that I can't change your faith anymore than you can change mine: I have FAITH that there is no god. I've taken all the evidence presented to me, and made a decision that cannot be proved, but seems like the best answer for the available inputs. So did you, but you came up with God existing and playing some role.

I might be wrong, but the entire argument is meaningless unless/until we can stop the government from persecuting us because of our beliefs (both groups get many burdens with a few benefits, depending on who is in charge at the time). We need to get the government out of our lives and be free to be atheists or Christians or Muslims or Xenophiles or Flying Spaghetti Monster disciples.

Peace, brother.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

You know the reason why scientific facts are called "law" is because the scientists in the Renaissance and up until recent times believed that the reason why it was fact is that it was a law that God commanded to be? Science was originally dedicated to finding out God's laws for the universe, it has since become a field where theorists postulate hypotheses based on some outlandish assumptions.

The assumption that we are finding out rules set by some super-being is the most outlandish of all in my opinion. There is nothing whatsoever to support it.

The reason why the Big Bang Theory is out there is because scientists observed that stellar bodies were slowly, but steadily, drifting apart, and then postulated that the universe must have started as one atom that went boom, causing a force that continues to push the matter that was once within to the edges of the universe (if there is one). That is one big assumption, especially based on Occum's Razor.

If a theory explains what is observed, than unless you can produce a theory that explains it even better, than that's the best theory we have.

Now as tempting as it is to fall back to the all-encompassing "God did it" theory, real scientific work has to proceed forward.

"God did it" is not even a theory, it's like saying the reason why everything is the way it is, is because one plus one equals two.

It is true because it is true.

Meaningless.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Exactly.

To add, perhaps people think that way after a life time of being raped by government and thus forced into a situation of dependency. It is in the back of my mind and my values are hard core Libertarian - Conservative.

For example my year after year income over the last 10 years look like an EKG with highs and lows depending on the year. The low years are particularly hard but would not be if I did not get raped so bad in taxes in the previous high earning year. Last year was a good year but the federal government thieves stole a significant amount of my hard earned income that I could have used now in this rough patch which looks to be a low income year.

If this continues in my life time there will not be any savings or retirement. It comes to a point where I feel like I am always swimming against the current and losing out (to the fed). Perhaps one day putting me in a situation to be dependent on government because the year after year continual rape of my hard labor that I could have saved for my future and rough patches if they did not steal a significant amount of it from me.

How many people get to this point and give up to welcome the government particularly after a life time of this. I just wish people were as angry as I am that we can work together and really do something about it now while I still have some working years left in me.

It is heartening to see the Tea Parties and the efforts here but it is just not enough. I think allot of people feel the same way but give in to the government.

LOL sorry, not to take this off topic but;

Most everybody here knows that I basically gave up my life in Sept 2007 to go volunteering; and have been doing just that up until today.

On account of this, I did not work very much in 2008.

When I went to file my taxes, lo and behold I earned less than $5000 during 2008.

I figured no problem, I'll just file and be done with it.

No such luck. Apparently I owe $500 that I simply do not have.

I really hate the IRS and FedGov

 

[nate895]

The assumption that we are finding out rules set by some super-being is the most outlandish of all in my opinion. There is nothing whatsoever to support it.



If a theory explains what is observed, than unless you can produce a theory (testable) that explains it even better, than that's the best theory we have.

When it comes to physical world's laws of interaction if you think you can skip from your private thoughts to an absolute truth without testing any theories, that's as outlandish a behaviour as any.

You have to admit that creating an untestable theory based on planetary drifts about the origins of the universe is pretty outlandish. I can just easily say that there is a repellent force of some variety at the center of the universe that the stellar bodies are racing away from. It is even more testable than the Big Bang Theory, at least we can travel to the center of the universe to see if there is one.

 

[nate895]

LOL sorry, not to take this off topic but;

Most everybody here knows that I basically gave up my life in Sept 2007 to go volunteering; and have been doing just that up until today.

On account of this, I did not work very much in 2008.

When I went to file my taxes, lo and behold I earned less than $5000 during 2008.

I figured no problem, I'll just file and be done with it.

No such luck. Apparently I owe $500 that I simply do not have.

I really hate the IRS and FedGov

I thought you got all your money back if you were that poor. You should never have filed, they would never go after a $500 chump, and they won't do that now. Few juries would convict you.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

It is even more testable than the Big Bang Theory, at least we can travel to the center of the universe to see if there is one.

Now you talking like a scientist.

You allow for the possibility of testing of your new theory, and that's a good start.

When we develop means of travelling such distances, I'm sure we could test your theory out in the way you would like to see it tested.

As far as Big Bang goes, it's apparently one of the main theories within the limitations of what we can currently observe
and test for (it's obviously not the only theory in existence), if somehow we later find there is an active repellant in the middle, certainly it would find its way into a better theory.

Scientific theories get refined over time as I mentioned earlier.

This is an interesting theory:

Big Bounce Theory

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Model_Suggests_Pre_Big_Bang_Physics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang reminds me of the study of origins of life.

Both can be explained scientifically in any case.

 

[nate895]

Now you talking like a scientist.

You allow for the possibility of testing of your new theory, and that's a good start.

When we develop means of travelling such distances, I'm sure we could test your theory out in the way you would like to see it tested.

As far as Big Bang goes, it's apparently (and seems logical to me) the best theory within the limitations of what we can currently observe
and test for, if somehow we later find there is an active repellant in the middle, certainly it would find its way into a better theory.

Scientific theories get refined over time as I mentioned earlier.

I know. Darwin's theory of evolution is different than the one we know today (though, having never read the details of either, I cannot say in what ways and to what degree). A theory is, according to the definition that has been used in my textbooks, "a hypothesis that is consistent with known scientific facts." In other words, there is at least some truth to the story. The reason why the Big Bang Theory attained that level is because it is a logical explanation for the phenomenon with some truth to the story (i.e., the stellar bodies are indeed drifting apart). Now, I am no lover of science because it bores the hell out of me. I much favor social sciences because I am fascinated with people and history, so I will defer to the rocket scientists to make an engine to travel to the center of the universe, if we could find such a place.