VincentRJ

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Just as well I don't subscribe to any religion then.

 

As for the rest, I've had the opinion in the past decade or so that humans have outstayed our welcome ( overpopulation ) on this planet and Gaia ( God of the planet ) is going to eliminate us, which does seem to be happening. IMO the real crisis to come will be lack of drinking water and drought in arable areas, and the numbers of dead from covid will seem like a drop in the bucket in comparison. However, I doubt I'll be around long enough to see it happen.

I certainly believe that humans are not the primary cause of climate change, but rather feedback mechanisms built into climate to respond to triggers, such as pollution ( of any sort- not CO2 which is not a pollutant ), and where did such feedback mechanisms originate? IMO from God, when the universe was designed.

People often say that if we don't scrap fossil fuels, the planet will die, which is of course a nonsense. The planet will do just fine without us. God's creation is truly wondrous.

One thing about which the IPCC is confident, is that warming will increase rainfall, globally. This should make sense to most people who have only a basic understanding of science. A warmer climate causes more evaporation of the oceans and lakes. The evaporated water does not leave the atmosphere to outer space. It comes back as rain. However, whilst some areas might get wetter, other areas might get drier. Changes in climate are not uniform over the entire planet. 

Fortunately, we have the technology to distribute the water from where the rain falls in excess, to where it doesn't fall, by building dams and long-distance water pipes. Increased rain and increased atmospheric CO2, plus a warmer climate, are all excellent for increased plant growth.

On the issue of over-population, a friend who was an architect made the comment, a few years ago, that the entire world population, then around 7 billion, could be accommodated on an area of land the size of Tasmania.

I thought at the time that was rather fanciful, so I did some calculations. The area of Tasmania is 68,403 square Km. One square Km is one million square metres, so 68.4 thousand square km translates to 68.4 billion square metres.

Using a figure of 8 billion for the current population would mean that each person on the planet, (man, woman and child) would be allocated a space of 8.55 square metres at ground level. That's the size of a very small bedroom. A reasonable living area would be, say, 6x that area, which is around 50 square metres. That means a family of four would have more than 200 sqare metres of living area, which is equivalent to a large house.

To achieve that allocation would require 6 storey buildings covering the entire area of Tasmania, but that excludes walls and roads, and many other requirements. To create space for these other requirements, one would have to increase the number of storeys. To create room for all the walls, corridors and lifts within each building, the height would be raised to, say, 7 storeys.

But of course, one needs a lot of areas for roads, and also parks and recreational areas, otherwise living there would be awful. Thankfully, as a result of modern science and technology we can build 100 storey buildings. If we multiply the 7 storeys by 8, we get 56 storeys. In other words, the total area covered by buildings is just 1/8th of the area of Tasmania if all the buildings are 56 storeys. That leaves plenty of room for roads and parks.

However, we still need to create room for shops, supermarkets, warehouses, maintenance areas, manufacturing areas, offices, and so on, so let's add another 10 storeys. We now have 65 storey buildings covering 1/8th of the area of Tasmania, all connected with roads which occupy, say, another 1/8th of the total area of Tasmania. That leaves 3/4ths of the total area for parks and forests.

I'd say that any city which allocates 3/4ths of its area to parks and nature is acceptable. I should also add that I'm talking about the application of modern technology. All these skyscrapers would be located in different areas which are interconnected with sophisticaed railway networks. Wherever you live, you could travel quickly to any destination by taking the lift, and/or escalator, to the nearest railway station. Personal cars and electric vehicles would be obsolete in this situation.

Also, in this situation where 8 billion people live in an area the size of Tasmania, there would probably be another 8 billion people, or more, living in the rest of the world, who are producing most of the food and various other products. The energy supplies for this vision of the future would have to come from nuclear power. Solar power and wind would not pass muster. ????

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

As to scientists who spend their entire careers on particular subject matter it may very well be meaningless.  Imagine spending an entire career studying the theory of evolution only to find in the end that it's based on false premises.  An education, a degree, and an entire lifelong career may amount to nothing if what you've been taught and what you've studied is, in essence, so much junk.
 

I get the impression that you don't really understand the 'methodology of science'. 'Science' is never settled. There's always some degree of uncertainty, however small that uncertainty is. If a scientist were to spend his entire career studying 'evolution' and discovered that the theory was based on false premises, then he would probably become as famous as Charles Darwin, and would probably be nominated for a Nobel prize, provided, of course that he was able to demonstrate, in accordance with the Methodology of Science, that the premises were false.

A very important part of the Methodology of Science, is the process of Falsification, that is, devising an experiment that shows that a particular theory is false. A very basic example of this process of 'Falsification', is the Galileo experiment which falsified the Aristotelian concept that heavy objects seek their natural place faster than light ones, ie., that heavy objects fall faster.

Gilileo supposedly dropped, at the same time, two iron balls of significantly different weights, from the leaning Tower of Pisa, and found they both hit the ground at approximately the same time. Of course, there was a slight difference due to the air resistance. A feather would fall at a much slower rate. However, astronaut David Scott performed a version of the experiment on the Moon during the Apollo 15 mission in 1971, dropping a feather and a hammer from his hands. Because of the negligible lunar atmosphere, there was no drag on the feather, which hit the ground at the same time as the hammer.

Although the Galileo experiment was very simple, Aristotle apparently never did it. Aristotle’s fame was such that no one seriously challenged his assertions for over 2,000 years. Galileo’s experiment shows us the utility of gathering accurate observational data and comparing it to the predictions of scientific models. This is the very mechanism through which science corrects its own errors.

Unfortunately, appeal to authority and apparent scientific consensus on an issue, is quite common. Scientists can also be flawed human beings, just like politicians, journalists, plumbers, electricians, and so on, and some are willing to remain silent on any doubts they have if the expression of such doubts would annoy their bosses and damage their career.
 

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

"For a start, no-one gets to choose whether or not they will be born, so the reality of their own existence is created by someone else."

I know this question is becoming repetitive but no matter how many times I ask this question, no matter the poster, everyone so far as avoided answering it.

Who creates your experience if not you?  Can you name the agency?  Can you validate that agency's existence?.

It seems clear to me that I answered the question. I think your confusion is a result of your being trapped into the 'either/or' situation. That is, something's either right or wrong, good or bad, hot or cold, and so on.

You can create your own reality to some extent, and that extent is very variable, depending upon your inheritance characteristics and the many experiences in your mother's womb and in early childhood which you can't remember. Such experiences are buried in the subconscious, which means you have no control over them, unless you specifically engage in certain processes that might help you to understand or be aware of at least some of those subconscious influences.
Psychology and Psychiatry deal with such issues, but also Buddhism and Yoga-type practices. 

"As to your statement, which is a belief, knowing what I know it's false.  We do choose to enter this earthly existence.  In fact, the entity to be chooses it's parents and the parents choose this soon to be born entity."

I'm sorry.This sounds like complete nonsense to me. The entity to be, chooses it's parents, and the parents choose the characteristics of the 'soon to be born entity'?? Crikey!! I didn't realize you were into so much mumbo jumbo. ????

However, I apologize if I've offended you.

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You're right.  My question left room for too much ambiguity.  So I'll rephrase with unambiguous clarity.  Since most of the science folk here have made the claim that it is within science's ability, using the scientific method only, or the methodology of science as that is your preferential terminology, to positively establish the truth of every aspect of the nature of reality, in other words discover and prove it's functioning, then my question to Hummin is whether or not he believes that to be true.  Let me know if that rephrasing makes sense to you.

 

I'll give an example of what I was driving at with that question.  If I were to make the claim, which I have, that we create our own reality using ideas - the physical universe as idea construction - then science would brush that claim off as mere unfounded belief with no proof as to the truth of that claim.  Am I correct so far?

I'll have to refer here to one of my earlier posts.

  

 

Well, thanks for admitting your ambiguity, but I still  think you're muddling things up. For a start, no-one gets to choose whether or not they will be born, so the reality of their own existence is created by someone else.

After the fetus in the mother's womb has developed to a certain stage, it begins to experience certain effects associated with the feelings and experiences of the mother. For example, if the mother likes listening to the music of Mozart, the baby in the womb, after it has developed its hearing capacity, will be able to hear the music and experience, in some way, the mother's joy which is associated with the music.

After the baby is born, the young child will also show pleasure whenever the music of Mozart is played. Scientific studies have confirmed this. However, if the reverse were to occur, and the mother were to experience anger and displeasure when hearing a particular type of music, then these reactions would also be felt by the unborn infant in the womb, and the young child after birth would most likely show displeasure whenever that music is played.

There are many other experiences that occur in the early stages of life, which become embedded in our subconscious, and which influence our behaviour and choices in life. If these 'unknown influences' become a major problem, then the scientific disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry might help.

Another common example is a phobia of snakes and spiders. Do people create their own phobias, or are they just embedded in the subconscious? The following study provides some evidence that such phobias are inherited.
https://www.cbs.mpg.de/Fear-of-spiders-and-snakes-is-deeply-embedded-in-us

"Snakes and spiders evoke fear and disgust in many people. Even in developed countries lots of people are frightened of these animals although hardly anybody comes into contact with them. Until now, there has been debate about whether this aversion is innate or learnt. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (MPI CBS) in Leipzig and the Uppsala University have recently discovered that it is hereditary: Babies as young as six months old feel stressed when seeing these creatures—long before they could have learnt this reaction."

In summary, I would say that we can create our own realty to the extent that we can control our own thoughts, ideas, emotions, and motivations. However, most people can't even control their own weight because they are addicted to tasty and sugary foods. ????
 

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You still didn't give a yes or no answer to the simple question of whether or not science is capable of proving everything in existence. 

Your question is not clear. What do you mean by "proving everything in existence"? Do you mean "observing or detecting everything in existence"?

Science is a process that involves observation and experimentation. Scientific theories and hypotheses are based upon obervations and experimentation. When there's a lack of sufficient observation, for whatever reason, and/or a difficulty to conduct experimentation because of the complexity of the situation and/or the long time scales involved, then uncertainty prevails.

The complexity of the universe as a whole is enormous. So far, the total sum of scientific knowledge cannot even tell us how many different species of life-forms exist on our planet. There is a general estimate of 8.7 million, but such an estimate probably doesn't include all insects and the millions of different microbes, bacteria and parasites.

The following article addresses the problem.
 

"Part of the problem is that we cannot simply count the number of life forms. Many live in inaccessible habitats (such as the deep sea), are too small to see, are hard to find, or live inside other living things. So, instead of counting, scientists try to estimate the total number of species by looking for patterns in biodiversity.

But most estimates of global biodiversity overlook microorganisms such as bacteria because many of these organisms can only be identified to species level by sequencing their DNA.
After compiling and analysing a database of DNA sequences from 5 million microbe species from 35,000 sites around the world, researchers concluded that there are a staggering 1 trillion species on Earth. That’s more species than the estimated number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy."

https://theconversation.com/how-many-species-on-earth-why-thats-a-simple-question-but-hard-to-answer-114909

To rephrase your question. Are human beings able to observe or detect everything in the entire universe using the Methodology of Science?  That would take an awful long time. ????

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

but they don't actually know, do they?

 

We can't even see how big the universe is.

 

We don't know, so God can't be discounted.

 

I don't care what anyone else believes. That is their business, but I wish the anti God folk would stop telling me that God doesn't exist, when there is no way they can prove it. It's just an opinion. I'd never claim to have proof as there is no way I can describe what happened to me to believe. I used to be agnostic, but now I'm a believer.

Here's an interesting quote from that famous Physicist, Richard Feynman, which also describes my situation quite well.

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.” —Richard Feynman (1981) 
 

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

My theory is that we don't have a clue about the origin of life. 

The scientists should admit that they don't know,  that way, both them and science itself, could regain some of the credibility they have lost.

On the contrary, it's the people who believe that 'God createrd the universe', who don't have a clue. The explanation that there is a Creator God or an Intelligent Designer, is a cop out.

Scientific inquiry begines with a clue, that is, at least some evidence that supports a 'hypothesis' or a rational explanation which is related to the clues. After continuing investigation and experimentation, the hypothesis will most likely be either debunked or confirmed to some degree, eventually.

However, certain hypotheses, such as the origins of the first forms of life, are extremely difficult to confirm because of the complexity of the environment and the huge time-scales involved, such as millions of years of constantly changing conditions within huge volumes of soupy seas.

Nevertheless, despite the enormous difficulties, scientists continue to investigate the issue. Below is an interesting, recent hypothesis from a brilliant, young scientist.

"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity.

The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life."
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/
 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To believe that there is no God, IMO implies that one believes everything in the universe just appeared, as if by magic, from nothing at all. I doubt science claims that something can come from nothing.

You are quite right to disbelieve that something can be created from nothing. 'Nothing', using a literal definition, cannot possibly exist.

The singularity of the Big Bang is not described as 'nothing'. It's an infinitely dense and hot quantity of matter compressed into a very tiny area.

In ordinary language, we tend to use words sloppily, from the scientific perspective. We walk into a room and declare 'it's empty'. From the scientific perspective, it's definitely not empty. It's full of trillions and gazillions of air molecules and photons of various wave lengths.

We tend to think that a 'vacuum' might be an example of empty space, because we've removed all the air molecules. But that's not true. A vacuum is bustling with many sorts of particles and waves that science is continuing to discover.

The following article migh provide some insights for you.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/what-keeps-space-empty/#:~:text=Space is not empty.,and neutrinos from nuclear reactions.

"Space is not empty. A point in outer space is filled with gas, dust, a wind of charged particles from the stars, light from stars, cosmic rays, radiation left over from the Big Bang, gravity, electric and magnetic fields, and neutrinos from nuclear reactions. 

Even a "perfect" vacuum would still hold vacuum energy, the Higgs field, and spacetime curvature. Space seems empty to humans because we can't see most of the stuff there, and because there is much less air than we are used to."
 

35 minutes ago, Hummin said:

It took me a long way before I understood I was depressed, and even a longer road to realise I could fix it. But it was worth it, and it made more grounded, and teached me to appreciate more simple things in life. Things that you loose when living in a to materialistic world with to many materialistic friends. 
 

It was a relief to finely jump off the wagon, retire early, go back to my roots, and start digging in the dirt, be more out in the nature, not only using the nature for adrenaline fun, but be in the nature with a life partner who also appreciate the same things as me. 
 

Todays fresh picked berries in my yoghourt, priceless. 
 

 

I think a major problem with modern society is that most people live in cities, or concrete jungles, isolated from nature. This is not a natural situation. I live in a rural (or semi-rural) area), and whenever I have to drive into the nearest city and experience the sudden increase in traffic congestion and noise, I feel awful. What the heck am I doing here??

Living in natural surroundings, and engaging directly with nature, feels so much better for me.

18 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

The biggest problem with modern "science" is that it really isn't.  The purported results of the majority of peer-reviewed, published studies are non-reproducible.  The authors have, for various reasons, reached untenable conclusions, yet their math and statistical analyses make them appear valid.  An excellent treatise on the problem, by William A. Wilson (May 2016), is to be found here: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress

Thanks for the link to the article by William A. Wilson. That's an interesting read. He highlights some very significant issues and problems within the various organizations of scientific inquiry. However, it would be a mistake to smear and cast doubt on the true and ideal 'methodology' of science just because of certain human failings which don't measure up to those ideal standards of the Methodology of Science.

To quote from the article:  "The best scientists know that they must practice a sort of mortification of the ego and cultivate a dispassion that allows them to report their findings, even when those findings might mean the dashing of hopes, the drying up of financial resources, and the loss of professional prestige." 

People, including scientists, have careers, families to support, mortgages to pay off, and most people have a lust for some degree of power and fame to satisfy their ego and vanity. This is the problem. Attacking 'science' is not addressing the problem.

Whilst it might be shocking to read in the article that as many as 65% of published studies in Psychology showed positive results which could not later be replicated, it was the application of the 'methodology of science' which revealed that those 65% of published studies were at least questionable, if not false.

Also, research in the 'soft sciences', such as psychology, sociology, medical research, and 'climate change', is very challenging, and sometimes impossible to verify because of the numerous interacting forces which cannot always be identified and controlled during experimentation. Ideally, this lack of certainty should always be revealed, and it often is in the scientific papers, but revealing such uncertainty to the public can sometimes have undesirable effects, such as reducing the 'placebo' effect which is important during medical treatment. 

The 'cult' of science is another important issue, that should not be confused with 'true' science. To quote from the article:

"The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as “scientism”; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. 
The greatest friends of the Cult of Science are the worst enemies of science’s actual practice."

In my opinion, the 'Climate Change' issue is an excellent example of this 'cult', where a 97% consensus is concocted, for political purposes, and a simple solution offered to make the climate benign and reduce the occurrence of extreme weather events.

Stop burning fossil fuels and reduce our CO2 emissions. What could be simpler? ????

In summary, the discovery and development of the 'Methodology of Science' has been the greatest boon to humanity since the beginning of civilization. Whilst there are many places in the world where people are suffering from disasters, conflicts, famines, diseases, extreme poverty, and so on, these problems are mainly due to the lack of the application of science, as well as the corruption and incompetence of those in power.

Those who are in denial about the over-all benefits of science like to give examples of the devastation cause by modern wars using sophisticated weapons based upon scientific discoveries, such as the atomic bombs that ended the war in Japan in September 1945. However, wars have always occurred throughout human history, and in terms of the percentages of the world population that have been killed during such wars, the percentages were much greater in the past.

For example, it is estimated that the Mongol conquests in the 13th century resulted in the deaths of about 11% of the world population, and as high as 60 million people in Eurasia.
The Hundred Years' Wars between England and France resulted in the killing of half the population of France and also resulted in a pandemic which killed up to an estimated 200 million.

WWI by comparison, when the world population was much higher, has an estimated 20 million deaths of soldiers and civilians, followed by another 50 million deaths caused by the 'Spanish Flu' which began and was spreading during the war.

Thanks to science, the current number of Covid-19 deaths, world-wide, is only 6,487,445.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

I hope I have demolished this silly idea that Science is not the greatest boon to humanity. ????

58 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., . . . "

 

That statement is so fantastically unbelievable that I truly don't know how to respond.
 

I'll advise you how you can respond. Use your imagination and give me some examples of concepts that you think I might believe in, that can't be validated by science. I can't think of any, but maybe I'm missing something. Maybe you can enlighten me by providing an example of a belief I hold, that I missed. ????

23 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The sky is blue.  That statement is not a statement rooted in bias.  It's a statement which accurately reflects current reality. 

This is an excellent example of the imprecision in the use of common words. I'm sure you've heard the expression, 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

This is especially true for the perception of colour, which is always in the eye of the beholder. All objects absorb and reflect certain 'wave/particles' of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, of which light is a part. Each clolour is associated with a specific wave length, ranging from the human experience of 'red', which is associated with a comparatively long wave, to violet, which is associated with a comparatively short wave, within the visible spectrum.

Most people would agree that a leaf is green. However, in reality the leaf has no colour. The leaf simply reflects a particular wave length of light which produces a sensation in the human mind that we describe as 'green'.

The sky appears blue during the day when the sun is higher in the sky because the shorter wavelenths of light get scattered the most by the air molecules. However, when the sun is low on the horizon, the light takes a longer path through the atmosphere to the observer, and much of the shorter waves are scattered out of sight, resulting in the longer waves, which we experience as red and orange, becoming more prominent.

Got it? ????
 

10 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

  In other words, would it be fair to say that, in practicality, there is much that you have an opinion or belief about as to it's truth despite the fact that science has yet to prove it?
 

I can't think of anything I believe that is true that cannot be confirmed by science., which is why I am an Atheist. However, there are certain basic issues that don't require scientific confirmation. For example, humans have understood for ages, before the scientific method evolved, that sticking one's hand in a fire would cause extreme pain and damage. There are many other examples, such as jumping off a tall cliff onto the hard ground below, as opposed to jumping onto an ocean or lake.

"My point is that everyone harbours as-yet-unproven-by-science beliefs about most everything; with many of those beliefs personally accepted as being true." 

Not everyone.

"Would you agree that there are things you say you believe you know for sure?" 

I'm not sure 'believe' is the best word. I'd say there are things that I accept are true, with a high level of confidence. For example, if I were to drink a whole 750 ml bottle of whisky, I'm very confident I would get drunk. However, I wouldn't be totally, 100% sure, because there's a remote possibility that the bottle of whisky could be a fake with a very low alcohol content. ????
 

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Okay, I'll stop beating the dead horse over definitions and try a different tact.

From my understanding, based on what you wrote and your offered definitions, you are saying that you believe there is a cause for all things.  Can we take that further to say you also believe there is a reason for or purpose behind any cause?

Say you were in a hypothetical automobile accident.  You slid into the vehicle in front of you due to an icy patch in the road.  The technical cause would obviously be the ice, thereby neutering your braking system.  Would you be able to identify and assign a reason or purpose for the accident?

The concepts of 'reason' and 'purpose' are human constructs and thought processes.  We use our capacity for 'reason' to determine what was the cause of an accident, for example, or the causes of 'changes in climate'.

'Purpose' is a quality that is fundamental to all life, even plants and trees.. The inanimate asteroid that hit the Earth about 65 million years ago and destroyed the dinosaurs, according to the application of science and reason, did not have a purpose. An asteroid is not a living organism.

Regarding your example of the car sliding on an icy road into another car. The application of reason determines that the cause of the accident was a patch of ice on the road which prevented the brakes from being effective.. Perhaps the car in front had stopped at traffic lights and the car behind was going too fast for the conditions and wasn't able to stop quickly enough because of the ice.

However, accidents have a cause, but not a purpose. If you want to attribute a purpose to the accident then you would have to describe it as an 'apparent' accident that was done intentionally. Perhaps the driver of the car behind was following the car in front and intended to smash into the car, using the icy road as an excuse.
 

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I don't disagree with what you say, from a purely materialistic point of view it makes sense.

However, it will be difficult for you to explain how conflicting spiritual forces like 'survival ' and 'cohabitation ' and the various combinations between those 2 may arise from a big bang or a small ball of compressed energy. 

Of course it's difficult. The fundamental principle is that every effect has a cause, but it's never just one cause that's involved. There's a continuous flow of interacting causes and effects, and the further back in time you go, to analyse the cause of a particular event, the more related causes you discover.

Consider a simple example of a car accident. An inquiry concludes that the driver fell asleep at the wheel. That's the cause of the accident. But why did the driver fall asleep? An inquiry concludes that he went to bed late the previous night, did not sleep well, and had to get up early. 

But why did he go to bed late, and have to get up early, and why did he not sleep well? An inquiry concludes that he'd had a late-night party, with quite a lot of drinking, which affected his sleeping, and he had to get up early to attend a work project he had signed up to.

But why did he have a late-night party, and why did he sgn up to a work project that began so early in the day? An inquiry concludes that he was celebrating the day he got married to his wife, and the contract he signed up to was a well-paid job and he needed the money.

But why did he marry the lady who is now his wife? Do you get the drift? If we keep going back in time to discover all the causes, we'll get to the point of asking why the driver, who fell asleep at the wheel, was born. An inquiry might reveal that he was born 'accidentally' because his father was wearing an inadequate condom that didn't do its job. If the condom had not been faulty, the driver would not have been born and the accident would not have occurred.

If we go back further, we could then ask, 'What were the causes of the faulty condom?' Perhaps a factory worker had not done his job properly and a batch of leaking condoms was sent to the market. But why did the factory worker not do hid job properly, and why were the defects in the condom not discovered? And so on, and so on.

Is it not plausible that the origins of life could have first appeared in a very complex and changing environment, sometimes called a soupy sea, with trillions of various molecules and chemicals bumping into each other during a period of millions of years?
 

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I disagree.

I'll try to explain why.

The assumption that everything is random, that life has no purpose, is not a deterrent for evil, but quite the opposite. 

The assumption that there's no purpose, implies that moral behavior is useless. 

On the contrary, the absence of moral behavior is likely to create conflicts not among nations, as in the past, but among individuals.

 

Where do you get the assumption that some people think that everything is random? As I've tried to explain before, randomness, chance, and accidents do occur. They are a part of human reality. It would be foolish to deny that. 

However, if everything were to happen randomly it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to survive. Our civilzations progress and develop through a process of reducing randomness by understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the forces involved in any outcome.

However, many processes are so complex, involving so many interacting forces, it's impossible to have complete control or make an accurate prediction, and the best we can do is calculate a 'percentage chance' of a particular event occurring. An example would be the weather forecast.

Another example would be the tossing of a coin and predicting whether is would land heads-up, or tails-up. We can calculate the chance of heads or tails is 50% either way because we understand there are only two possible outcomes. If we were to create a situation where we could control every force that is applied to the coin, from its initial flipping to the turbulence of the air as the coin smashes through billions of molecules, then we could predict with certainty whether the coin would land heads-up or tails-up, with each flip.

As regards 'purpose', I can appreciate that some individuals might 'feel' there is no purpose in life, because they are depressed, and suffering, and think they have insurmountable problems. However, human activity in general is full of a multitude of purposes at various levels.

If one is referring to the fundamental purpose of all life, then the obvious answer is 'reproduction'. The quality of 'reproduction' is what distinguishes life from inanimate matter. 'Moral behaviour' is an attempt to reduce the suffering and conflict which results from the competitive actions which are instincively involved in the general purpose of reproduction. 

Got it? ????

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll buy your edited version of Twain's quote as being more technically correct.  I think Twain wrote it as such to put the emphasis on the second part of his observation.

I think we're all capable of thinking of examples for either part of the statement.  That's easy enough.  But what about answering the point I was making with that Twain quote?

  

"Ask yourself how much you think you know to be true but it "just ain't so."  How convinced are you that everything you think you know is indeed true? "

As I've tried to explain, I believe in the 'Methodology of Science' which begins with a Hypothesis and can gradually develop into a Theory, if and when calculations and sound experiments, which must also allow a falsification process, eventually support the Hypothesis.

Both Hypotheses and Theories can be shown to be wrong as new evidence and data become available, so it's quite possible I might be wrong about many issues. However, I tend not to change my mind until I become aware of new evidence that meets my own standards, based on my own interpretation of the 'Methodology of Science'.

Regarding 'how much I know', I accept that I know very, very, very little, compared to the whole of human knowledge, and the whole of human knowledge is very, very little compared to what remains to be known.

Okay? ????
 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I'd like to see you honestly address my contention that you do believe in "chance" and "accidents."  First you tried to pull the "let's redefine the terms."  That didn't fly.  Your next attempt was to pass it off as a common and innocent misuse of terminology.  That didn't pass muster either.  So you now just ignore it entirely in the hope that I won't pursue it any longer and let it fade away.  No such chance (excuse the pun).
 

Of course I believe that accidents and unpredictable events occur. I also believe in rationality, common sense, logic, the process of cause and effect, good behaviour, compassion, and so on and on.

Whatever you believe in has to be clearly defined in order to have a rational discussion. I've just searched for some dictionary definitions of 'chance', on the internet. The following 4 definitions are the most common. I've highlighted the crucial words in each definition that supports my understanding of the concept of 'chance'.

(1) a possibility of something happening.
(2) the occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause.
(3) something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
(4) the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence

In summary, I use the word chance to describe any event when the causes are unpredictable, unobservable, indiscernable and/or incalculable.

If we had the ability to continuously monitor all activities in our environment, at the atomic, molecular and photonic level, (which is impossible) then probably nothing would occur by chance. I say 'probably', because in Quantum Mechanics even the act of observation itself might cause some unpredictable behaviour of photons.
 

13 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I can't quote Mark Twain enough.

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”

That statement is only a half truth. If Mark Twain had my wisdom  ???? he would have said:

"What get's us into trouble is not only what we don't know. It's also what we know for sure that just ain't so."

An example of what we don't know that could get us into trouble, would be the approval of a new housing estate in a beautiful, remote area near a river. The people who authorize the construction do not do any research on past weather events in the area, and the buyers of the homes assume that the area is safe, otherwise the authorities would not have approved the housing constructions.

Unfortunately, the historical evidence shows that the area has been subjected to extreme flooding every 20 or 30 years, on average. 10 years after the houses have been sold, and the occupants have settled down and filled their rooms with expensive furniture, computers, TVs, family photos, and so on, the next major flood arrives and destroys everything, as well as taking a few lives. ????
 

41 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

The same misunderstanding over and over.

I tell you again, and next time I'll do a drawing ????

I love good science, and I try to avoid nonsense (although it can be funny, like the theory of the magic ball coming out from nowhere 13,8 millions of years ago)????

Well, if you love good science, please explain what your alternative theory is, based upon good science. An Intelligent Designer, perhaps, or some sort of God who came out from nowhere? ????

40 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, of course there are other scientific theories that leave me perplexed. 

However, it's our personal choice what we take for certain, likely, unlikely or nonsense.

So, I'd rather stick to vedic philosophy or Steiner's anthroposophic teachings. 

In our stage of evolution, whether we are scientists or not, we just cannot comprehend the origin of the visible universe, let alone the invisible ones, so the story of the little ball creating the big bang is as credible as santa claus etc ????

 

Really?? You think that the explanations from thousands of scientists who have spent decades studying these issues, are no more credible than a 'Fairy Tale'?  Crikey! You must have a terrible grudge against science.

What I suggest you do is give up your current life-style, which is dependent upon past scientific research and discoveries, and go and live for a few years in a remote forest without any modern products and appliances. Sleep on the forest floor, and eat berries and fruit from the surrounding trees. Then get back to us, and tell us how wonderful it was. ????
 

16 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Are they serious?

"At that time"... "a small ball".. " with infinite density and intense heat"..

Did it fall from some airplane? ????

 

So I take it you don't belief that Black Holes exist either. Black Holes are huge amounts of matter, the equivalent of several suns, which are packed into a very small area about the size of a city. The gravitational field is so strong that nothing can escape.

From Wikipedia:

"Gravitational singularities are mainly considered in the context of general relativity, where density apparently becomes infinite at the center of a black hole, and within astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during the Big Bang/White Hole. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

However, there are obviously different interpretations of the available data and different hypotheses favoured by different scientists. This is not 'settled science' like Anthropogenic Climate Change. ????

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I care not for the degrees of certainty with which science declares a theory or hypothesis to be "fact."  I care only whether or not it makes sense; whether or not there exist flawed logic in any given determination; whether or not there exist gaps that must be filled in with guesswork or otherwise to give a theory or hypothesis continuity in logic that otherwise doesn't hold without the application of band aides or duct tape to tie a theory or hypothesis together.
 

Okay! I'll address the point I've highlighted in your above comment. I also care whether or not any claim makes sense. The whole of scientific enquiry is based upon 'making sense of things'. However, scientists are also humans with flaws and biases and sometimes assume a degree of certainty about a theory which doesn't warrant such certainty without the true methodology of science having been applied.

Many issues remain uncertain, which places them in the category of 'hypothesis', because it's often not possible to apply the full 'methodology of science', due to the long time scales involved for results to be observed, and also due to the complexity of the situation with so many interacting forces, many of which might be unknown.

When discussing such issues which have a degree of uncertainty, there is also the problem of the exaggerated and distorted reporting of the science by journalists.

For example, I've seen it repeated many times in this thread that The Big Bang 'hypothesis/theory' is nonsense because something cannot be created from nothing. Therefore, there must be something, such as a Creator God, or Intelligent Designer.

However, the Big Bang hypothesis/theory does not state that the universe was created from nothing. I'll quote again from the Phys.org news article I linked to earlier.
"The Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity."

Infinite density and intense heat is not nothing. It might be difficult for some people to imagine how the entire universe could be compressed into such a small particle as a singularity, but a good analogy would be to hold a large block of polystyrene foam in one hand, and compare the weight with a very small block of lead held in the other hand, then imagine if those difference in 'weight per volume' were extrapolated trillions upon trillions upon trillions of times.

"As far as the search for the answer to the origins of life my contention, which I cannot overemphasise, is this:  that in their search science is necessarily relying on many assumptions to be true; and which I deem to be false.  Perhaps foremost is the assumption that physical reality is the one and only reality in all of existence.
Your cherished scientific method is wholly dependent on a reality which is physical in nature.  If it is true that other realities exist and that not all are physical then in those realms which are not physically based the scientific method would be quite meaningless.  This should be quite logical."

Addressing another of your points that I've highlighted above, 'what do you mean by a physical reality'?
Do you agree with the following definition of a physical property?

"A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system."

Isn't it obvious that no-one can be aware of anything that cannot be measured in some manner or to some degree, whether they are a scientist or not? Science not only specialises in a great precision of measurement, but also the measurement of 'things' that are invisible and undetectable to anyone without the appropriate scientific instrument.

Do you believe that a Guru, whilst sitting down meditating on a universal consciousness, is aware of the multitude of radio waves, and other electro-magnetic waves of various frequencies, that are passing through his body?

I've not seen any research that shows any human can feel or detect Radio Waves, X-rays, or Gamma Rays that are passing through his body and head, yet we are expected to believe that certain Gurus can detect a universal consciousness beyond the capabilities of current science. ????

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against anyone hypothesising that there might exist some sort of universal consciousness, as a result of personal feelings experienced whilst meditating, or even as a result of intellectual speculation. However, such claims can be no more than a hypothesis, or a belief, or a Quale, until they are verified using the 'methodology of science'.

For the sake of clarity, I'll also point out that Science is of the general opinion that the photons that make up the electromagnetic spectrum, have no mass and no weight. They are therefore not 'matter'. But those non-material photons are essential for all life as we know it. Even if some creatures appear to thrive in total darkness, the food they eat needs photons to grow. This process is called 'photosynthesis'. In other words, life is dependent on non-material sources. ????

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The crux of my point is that science, in general, does not believe that there is a reason or purpose to existence.  It all came about by chance.  No reason for any of it appearing.  The Big Bang and all that followed, and follows to this day, is due to an impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings.

 

Sure, science can uncover the processes.  And it does an excellent job doing that.  Kudos and many thanks for science's great contributions.  But science cannot uncover the reasons for the processes existence in the first place.  Those reasons apparently don't exist.  Or science refuses to deal with them.

And again, the methodologies of science have naught to do with uncovering the mystery of life.

A major problem in discussing such complex issues as the 'origins of life' and the 'origins of the universe', is the precise definition of the common words we use to discuss the issues.

For example, in science there is a distinction between the meaning of 'theory' and 'hypothesis', but the distiction is not clear-cut. It's not an 'either/or' distinction. The words or often used interchangeably.
Here's a quote from a Physics journal describing the Big Bang, where the two words are used as though they have the same meaning.

"The basics of the theory are fairly simple. In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began."
https://phys.org/news/2015-12-big-theory.html

As I've mentioned before, there's a wide range of degrees of certainty in science, ranging from, say, 0.1% to 99.9%. It is not reasonable to state what the 'percentage point of certainty' is, when a hypothesis changes to a theory, because the calculation of certainty can itself be uncertain.

Your comment that "the methodologies of science have naught to do with uncovering the mystery of life" seems absurd to me. There's been a huge amount of research in many scientific disciplines attempting to understand how the first forms of life evolved. Since this event is estimated to have occurred around 3.5 to 4 billion years ago (on planet Earth), it's not surprising that the issue is not settled, and great uncertainty still prevails, with many competing hypotheses.

The following scientific article provides a good overview of the problems.
 

"Understanding the origin of life (OoL) is one of the major unsolved scientific problems of the century. It starts with the lack of a commonly accepted definition of the phenomenon of life itself, but difficulties go far beyond merely that obstacle. OoL research involves a large number of diffuse concepts cornering several natural sciences and philosophy, such as entropy, information and complexity. Despite evidence that untangling this knot will require a concerted and collaborative effort between different disciplines, technologies, individuals and groups, division in OoL research is still marked, concerning both theories (e.g., RNA world vs. metabolism-first) and approaches (e.g., bottom-up vs. top-down). What causes these on-going divisions, and how can heated debates be moderated?"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151616/