Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Sorry, VincenRJ, but I've gotta harp on this ridiculous notion of chance and accident you put forth as "fact."

 

You laugh at faith and then quickly turn around and castigate people for refusing to believe in chance and accident.  Yet you can't prove that what these terms represent is indeed a functioning mechanism of the workings of reality.  You yourself operate wholly on faith that chance, accidents, or other such synonyms used to describe unexplained events are real.

I'll challenge you to prove me wrong on any of the above.

Okay! I'll try to explain it to you. The words 'chance' and 'accident' are human constructs which describe events that have causes that are too complicated for humans to precisely understand and control.

 

When we say 'something happened by chance', it means 'we don't understand in sufficient detail all the causes of the event and therefore cannot control the outcome', as in the example of tossing a coin and predicting the outcome of 'heads' or 'tails'.

 

Science is based upon a general understanding that every effect has a cause, and scientists do their best to understand those causes.  Engineers and technologists use that understanding to create the products that contribute to our safety and prosperity, and during the past couple of hundred years or so, they've done a remarkable job, wouldn't you agree?

 

However, whether it's a confirmed scientific theory, or a new technological project, scientists understand that nothing is 100% certain. Everything lies within a range of probabilities, and accurately assessing those probabilities is sometimes very challenging and often impossible.

 

The problem is that most of the population don't seem to understand the 'methodology of science', which requires repeated testing under controlled conditions in order to reach a high level of confidence that a particular outcome can be predicted as a result of a sufficient understanding of the causes involved.

 

The degree of certainty about many issues are therefore exaggerated for political, personal, and economic purposes, and some scientists go along with that exaggeration for various personal reasons, probably associated with career opportunities, wealth and fame.

Attributing a cause to 'God' is probably the most extreme exaggeration. However, some people probably benefit from the 'placebo effect', which is very prevalent throughout society.

 

When people are prescribed pharmaceutical drugs by their doctor, part of the efficacy of those drugs is due to the placebo effect, that is, a belief in the doctor and the medical industry. The placebo effect is estimated to be around 30 to 35%, according to many studies.

 

Got it? ????
 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hubris.

Exactly, that's a real poison, and very rare on this planet are the humans who are immune. 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The placebo effect is estimated to be around 30 to 35%, according to many studies.

 

Got it? ????

This may apply to any blind follower of any doctrine. 

It's quite possible that the placebo effect is underrated for commercial reasons as well.

Many scientists are well aware of an intelligent design which creates the laws of the universe, so to say that "science " has showed that God and gods don't exist is a lie.

[Sunmaster]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay! I'll try to explain it to you. The words 'chance' and 'accident' are human constructs which describe events that have causes that are too complicated for humans to precisely understand and control.

 

When we say 'something happened by chance', it means 'we don't understand in sufficient detail all the causes of the event and therefore cannot control the outcome', as in the example of tossing a coin and predicting the outcome of 'heads' or 'tails'.

 

Science is based upon a general understanding that every effect has a cause, and scientists do their best to understand those causes.  Engineers and technologists use that understanding to create the products that contribute to our safety and prosperity, and during the past couple of hundred years or so, they've done a remarkable job, wouldn't you agree?

 

However, whether it's a confirmed scientific theory, or a new technological project, scientists understand that nothing is 100% certain. Everything lies within a range of probabilities, and accurately assessing those probabilities is sometimes very challenging and often impossible.

 

The problem is that most of the population don't seem to understand the 'methodology of science', which requires repeated testing under controlled conditions in order to reach a high level of confidence that a particular outcome can be predicted as a result of a sufficient understanding of the causes involved.

 

The degree of certainty about many issues are therefore exaggerated for political, personal, and economic purposes, and some scientists go along with that exaggeration for various personal reasons, probably associated with career opportunities, wealth and fame.

Attributing a cause to 'God' is probably the most extreme exaggeration. However, some people probably benefit from the 'placebo effect', which is very prevalent throughout society.

 

When people are prescribed pharmaceutical drugs by their doctor, part of the efficacy of those drugs is due to the placebo effect, that is, a belief in the doctor and the medical industry. The placebo effect is estimated to be around 30 to 35%, according to many studies.

 

Got it? ????
 

Good post.

From what I understand of it and your other posts, you ask people to differentiate between the ideal of science (the incorruptible and pure methodology of science) from the more mundane, mainstream aspect of it (science corrupted by politics, business, more or less involuntary human error, lack of knowledge and understanding, would be scientists on forums), whereby the first aspires to reveal an absolute truth (or close to it), and the second is more fallible because influenced by other, less ideal factors. Some scientific interpretations (theories) are shared by millions and bundled in broad belief systems ("the material reality is the only one"), others stand out for their uniqueness (Tesla, Rupert Sheldrake).

We are then asked to ignore the "impure" science and rather focus on the ideal of science, because that's where unbiased knowledge comes from.

I'd be all for that, but I'd like for you and all other materialists to have the same consideration when it comes to matters of belief. There is an Ideal and Absolute Truth, and then there are countless interpretations of that truth. Some interpretations are shared by millions and bundled in broad belief systems (religions), others stand out for their uniqueness (David Icke, A. Crowley). The problem is that materialists look at the interpretations and see flaws in them or perhaps don't understand them, criticize, ridicule and dismiss them. By doing that they think that they also "debunked" the Ideal, when all they did was to attack an interpretation of it.

So for me, philosophically speaking, the pure methodology of science is closely related to the Ideal of spirituality. Both aspire to reveal the ultimate truth.  Both aspire to focus on the white light and not at the rainbow after the prism of the ego.

[Sunmaster]

And there it is.....

------------------------------------

The Big Bang didn't happen

What do the James Webb images really show?

"The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
[...]

"Too old and too many galaxies mean the same thing. The JWST uses many different filters to take its images in the infrared part of the spectrum. Thus, it can see the colors of the distant galaxies. This in turn allows astronomers to estimate the age of the stars in these galaxies because young, hot stars are blue in color and older, cooler stars, like our sun, are yellow or red in color. According to Big Bang theory, the most distant galaxies in the JWST images are seen as they were only 400-500 million years after the origin of the universe. Yet already some of the galaxies have shown stellar populations that are over a billion years old. Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur."

[...]

"While Big Bang theorists were shocked and panicked by these new results, Riccardo and I (and a few others) were not. In fact, a week before the JWST images were released we published online a paper that detailed accurately what the images would show. We could do this with confidence because more and more data of all kinds has been contradicting the Big Bang hypothesis for years."

[...]
"Readers may well be wondering at this point why they have not read of this collapse of the Big Bang hypothesis in major media outlets by now and why the authors of so many recent papers have not pointed to this collapse themselves. The answer lies in what I term the “Emperor’s New Clothes Effect”—if anyone questions the Big Bang, they are labeled stupid and unfit for their jobs. Unfortunately, funding for cosmology comes from a very few government sources controlled by a handful of committees that are dominated by Big Bang theorists. These theorists have spent their lives building the Big Bang theory. Those who openly question the theory simply don’t get funded."

source: https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215?fbclid=IwAR34Oe_RTJjCNA8_Mgs5z_pj188NrQzkGWGECRpBnbMyak7Q08sMvDjwz_0

[Woof999]

6 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur.

Even if that were proven to be true, it doesn't add any weight to the existence of any supernatural being. God of the gaps isn't any more of an intelligent "proof" today than it was 1000 years ago.

 

To paraphrase Ricky Gervais, years ago people believed in many gods. Today, most religions believe in one (although not the same one). They are getting closer and closer to the real answer with each passing day.

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Even if that were proven to be true, it doesn't add any weight to the existence of any supernatural being. God of the gaps isn't any more of an intelligent "proof" today than it was 1000 years ago.

 

To paraphrase Ricky Gervais, years ago people believed in many gods. Today, most religions believe in one (although not the same one). They are getting closer and closer to the real answer with each passing day.

According to ancient scriptures,  every single atom is an image of God, you can count them if you wish, pls send a postcard when you're done ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

29 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

And there it is.....

------------------------------------

The Big Bang didn't happen

What do the James Webb images really show?

"The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
[...]

"Too old and too many galaxies mean the same thing. The JWST uses many different filters to take its images in the infrared part of the spectrum. Thus, it can see the colors of the distant galaxies. This in turn allows astronomers to estimate the age of the stars in these galaxies because young, hot stars are blue in color and older, cooler stars, like our sun, are yellow or red in color. According to Big Bang theory, the most distant galaxies in the JWST images are seen as they were only 400-500 million years after the origin of the universe. Yet already some of the galaxies have shown stellar populations that are over a billion years old. Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur."

[...]

"While Big Bang theorists were shocked and panicked by these new results, Riccardo and I (and a few others) were not. In fact, a week before the JWST images were released we published online a paper that detailed accurately what the images would show. We could do this with confidence because more and more data of all kinds has been contradicting the Big Bang hypothesis for years."

[...]
"Readers may well be wondering at this point why they have not read of this collapse of the Big Bang hypothesis in major media outlets by now and why the authors of so many recent papers have not pointed to this collapse themselves. The answer lies in what I term the “Emperor’s New Clothes Effect”—if anyone questions the Big Bang, they are labeled stupid and unfit for their jobs. Unfortunately, funding for cosmology comes from a very few government sources controlled by a handful of committees that are dominated by Big Bang theorists. These theorists have spent their lives building the Big Bang theory. Those who openly question the theory simply don’t get funded."

source: https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215?fbclid=IwAR34Oe_RTJjCNA8_Mgs5z_pj188NrQzkGWGECRpBnbMyak7Q08sMvDjwz_0

You have shown the wonder of science but also shown your bias or the bias of those you read. This is new news and no one is hiding or dismissing the issues you raise. NASA are telling the same story as you.

The issue is that these are new findings that have not been peer reviewed. To rewrite history give it time. Science and scientists are on your side in terms of finding the truth. There is probably some out there who will be peeved if it's proven wrong but too bad for them.

[Sunmaster]

50 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You have shown the wonder of science but also shown your bias or the bias of those you read. This is new news and no one is hiding or dismissing the issues you raise. NASA are telling the same story as you.

The issue is that these are new findings that have not been peer reviewed. To rewrite history give it time. Science and scientists are on your side in terms of finding the truth. There is probably some out there who will be peeved if it's proven wrong but too bad for them.

The thing is that this theory has been proclaimed as the ultimate truth by oh so many on this thread as late as a couple of weeks ago, and whoever dared to raise any doubts or God forbid, offer an alternative theory, has been flat out declared insane.

 

Now, how many other unshakable truths are built on similar shaky grounds?

Edited August 17, 2022 by Sunmaster

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, Woof999 said:

.

 

To paraphrase Ricky Gervais, years ago people believed in many gods. Today, most religions believe in one (although not the same one). They are getting closer and closer to the real answer with each passing day.

People believe in many universes and many repeated big bangs. Galaxy's collide with each other, could universes collide,,,,,

 

Who came first? God or space, and who created ,,,,,,, That's the ,,,,,

 

Happy to see the thread woke up again.

 

Still I'm firm in my belief, we will (humans) create life in space one day by science and infest another planet. Will that make humans a creator? A god?

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, Woof999 said:

Even if that were proven to be true, it doesn't add any weight to the existence of any supernatural being. God of the gaps isn't any more of an intelligent "proof" today than it was 1000 years ago.

That was not my intention at all. I didn't say "Hey look, I was right about the Big Bang, therefore I'm right about everything else." There are things I know, things I don't know yet, and things I will never know. Just like everyone else. 

 

The only thing I wanted to highlight is that today's scientific theories, which the vast majority of scientific laypeople take for granted and defend to the bitter end as if their lives depended on it, are not facts set in stone at all and can change at any time with new discoveries.

 

That's why it would be wise to remember that what we believe to be true today, might not be true tomorrow, which in turn would make us a bit more humble and open to other explanations/beliefs.

It's always good to question one's most deep seated beliefs. That applies to everyone.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay! I'll try to explain it to you. The words 'chance' and 'accident' are human constructs which describe events that have causes that are too complicated for humans to precisely understand and control.

 

When we say 'something happened by chance', it means 'we don't understand in sufficient detail all the causes of the event and therefore cannot control the outcome', as in the example of tossing a coin and predicting the outcome of 'heads' or 'tails'.

 

Science is based upon a general understanding that every effect has a cause, and scientists do their best to understand those causes.  Engineers and technologists use that understanding to create the products that contribute to our safety and prosperity, and during the past couple of hundred years or so, they've done a remarkable job, wouldn't you agree?

 

However, whether it's a confirmed scientific theory, or a new technological project, scientists understand that nothing is 100% certain. Everything lies within a range of probabilities, and accurately assessing those probabilities is sometimes very challenging and often impossible.

 

The problem is that most of the population don't seem to understand the 'methodology of science', which requires repeated testing under controlled conditions in order to reach a high level of confidence that a particular outcome can be predicted as a result of a sufficient understanding of the causes involved.

 

The degree of certainty about many issues are therefore exaggerated for political, personal, and economic purposes, and some scientists go along with that exaggeration for various personal reasons, probably associated with career opportunities, wealth and fame.

Attributing a cause to 'God' is probably the most extreme exaggeration. However, some people probably benefit from the 'placebo effect', which is very prevalent throughout society.

 

When people are prescribed pharmaceutical drugs by their doctor, part of the efficacy of those drugs is due to the placebo effect, that is, a belief in the doctor and the medical industry. The placebo effect is estimated to be around 30 to 35%, according to many studies.

 

Got it? ????

Are we redefining words now?

 

Chance:  noun
a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
b : the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings
c : the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence

 

18 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

19 hours ago, Nemises said:

Great to see that you are agreeing with science in the evolution of man. So much for God creating man!

Don't you know that nothing occurs by chance or accident? ????

I don't buy that what you meant in the above is what you are now attempting to redefine.  Especially within the context of what you were replying to.  I would say that b: fits what you were suggesting.  I would argue also that that is how most people would define "chance."  The operative word in that definition is "purposeless."  In other words, for no reason.

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.

[Woof999]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Or science refuses to deal with them.

Science cannot refuse to deal with anything any more than "blue" can. There might not yet be the knowledge or tools available to answer every question, but scientists want answers to everything more than most.

 

Another point many miss here is that science MUST redefine reality with new discovery. That is the very nature of science. I'm not sure that the same can be said of our religious friends.

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

<snip>

 

That's why it would be wise to remember that what we believe to be true today, might not be true tomorrow, which in turn would make us a bit more humble and open to other explanations/beliefs.

It's always good to question one's most deep seated beliefs. That applies to everyone.

Great advice.  Most difficult to expect to be taken to heart when the overbearing mantra is "proof, proof, proof" and nothing else can be accepted as existing without it.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Woof999 said:

Science cannot refuse to deal with anything any more than "blue" can. There might not yet be the knowledge or tools available to answer every question, but scientists want answers to everything more than most.

 

Another point many miss here is that science MUST redefine reality with new discovery. That is the very nature of science. I'm not sure that the same can be said of our religious friends.

The tool to answer every question is yourself.

I hope you don't assume I'm religious.  Not at all.

[VincentRJ]

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/

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

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/

When science uses "chance" or "accident" in their explanations - theories or hypotheses  - they either 1) believe in the existence of these concepts and thus use the correct terminology or 2) they are entirely sloppy in their choice of verbiage thereby creating unnecessary confusion.  You are arguing 2).  I'm arguing that they indeed intend 1); they do believe in the existence of "chance" and "accident."

Again, I reject your argument that you were using the wrong terminology.  I believe you are trying to walk back what you truly believe, which would be that "chance" and "accident" are actual mechanisms that are determinative forces in life.  That you truly believe in some invisible God of Chance.  I rely on the evidence of your response to Nemises in which you clearly jokingly and sarcastically stated, with emoticon for emphasis, "Don't you know that nothing occurs by chance or accident?" ????

"We all know that life is like a roll of the dice."  Shear nonsense, which I reject wholeheartedly . . . and with plenty of solid reasoning and logic to back up my stance.  Again, faith in a creator is to be laughed at and ridiculed but the creator being "chance" is to be "scientifically" accepted.  Also on pure faith.  Now this is to @Fat is a type of crazy:  do you now see the plain, in-your-face hypocrisy?

New Scientist

New Scientist, the world's leading science & technology weekly magazine, was launched in 1956 "for all those men and women who are interested in scientific discovery, and in its industrial, commercial and social consequences".
 

The title of the book is "Chance" but the image is too large to post.  Here's the back cover.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Tippaporn

[mauGR1]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

they are entirely sloppy in their choice of verbiage thereby creating unnecessary confusion.  

I'd bet that creating confusion is sometimes intentional ????

 

 

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

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/

I'm busting up my response due to the images I provided.  There's more I'd like to add pertaining to the rest of your post.

I've covered your explanation regarding "chance" and "accident" being terms that are simply and innocently used improperly.   So let's move on.

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.

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.  And the assumption that if any other realities do indeed exist (the theory of parallel universes, for instance) that they, too, are all physically based.  Those are huge assumptions which would, if proven false, utterly destroy current scientific thinking as to the origins of life (among much else, obviously).  I am in the camp that recognises that there exist other realities and not all realities are physically based.  So you can see that given the disparity in thought between you and I that we can never hope to agree.

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.

In my most honest and sincere opinion I believe that science, in their effort to understand the origins of life in particular, will forever chase their tails as long as they rely on their current assumptions as being true.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

When science uses "chance" or "accident" in their explanations - theories or hypotheses  - they either 1) believe in the existence of these concepts and thus use the correct terminology or 2) they are entirely sloppy in their choice of verbiage thereby creating unnecessary confusion.  You are arguing 2).  I'm arguing that they indeed intend 1); they do believe in the existence of "chance" and "accident."

Again, I reject your argument that you were using the wrong terminology.  I believe you are trying to walk back what you truly believe, which would be that "chance" and "accident" are actual mechanisms that are determinative forces in life.  That you truly believe in some invisible God of Chance.  I rely on the evidence of your response to Nemises in which you clearly jokingly and sarcastically stated, with emoticon for emphasis, "Don't you know that nothing occurs by chance or accident?" ????

"We all know that life is like a roll of the dice."  Shear nonsense, which I reject wholeheartedly . . . and with plenty of solid reasoning and logic to back up my stance.  Again, faith in a creator is to be laughed at and ridiculed but the creator being "chance" is to be "scientifically" accepted.  Also on pure faith.  Now this is to @Fat is a type of crazy:  do you now see the plain, in-your-face hypocrisy?

New Scientist

New Scientist, the world's leading science & technology weekly magazine, was launched in 1956 "for all those men and women who are interested in scientific discovery, and in its industrial, commercial and social consequences".
 

The title of the book is "Chance" but the image is too large to post.  Here's the back cover.

 

 

You know this, but the science and secrets of  chance is based on statistics, using the base of science and mathematics. On Australian 60 minutes this week they had a story about a guy in a small town in the United States who noted a flaw in a lottery, and how prizes were paid, and was able to make a small fortune. It's going to be a movie with Bryan Cranston. No luck which is a human construct. Accident is a human construct too i.e. it is based on our expectations. He couldn't be sure he'd win but increased his chances. Chance not being a mechanism or thing but simply a construct with a margin of error  based on scientific and mathematical knowledge.

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Tippaporn]

21 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay! I'll try to explain it to you. The words 'chance' and 'accident' are human constructs which describe events that have causes that are too complicated for humans to precisely understand and control. <snip>

I'd like to comment that much of what is considered "chance" or "accident" is not at all too complicated for humans to understand.  It is more a matter that the underlying assumptions being used are erroneous.  An explanation of why, for example, one got into a car "accident" can be unraveled more easily than is supposed.  Or why one person's house was robbed rather than their neighbor's.  Or why one person gets sick and another does not.  The "causes" are not so complex to understand.  Any chance of understanding, though, requires not just new knowledge but even more so the relinquishing of knowledge thought to be true.  Learning is easy.  Unlearning . . . not so much.

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.”

Think about the implications of that statement.  The vast extent of the implications.  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?  Do you believe that it's only a matter of acquiring more knowledge?  Do you believe that Twain's astute observation does not apply to you?  Do you truly believe there is no chance that you subscribe to faulty ideas?  Do you sincerely believe that science has cornered the market on "truth?"  That sans science it's an impossibility that truth can ascertained?

I'm not trying to beat you down, VincentRJ.  I simply want you to think.  And rethink if necessary.  The greatest human fault, in my humble opinion, is to never examine the beliefs one holds once a belief is accepted as true.

[Tippaporn]

48 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You know this, but the science and secrets of  chance is based on statistics, using the base of science and mathematics. On Australian 60 minutes this week they had a story about a guy in a small town in the United States who noted a flaw in a lottery, and how prizes were paid, and was able to make a small fortune. It's going to be a movie with Bryan Cranston. No luck which is a human construct. Accident is a human construct too i.e. it is based on our expectations. He couldn't be sure he'd win but increased his chances. Chance not being a mechanism or thing but simply a construct with a margin of error  based on scientific and mathematical knowledge.

It's good to see that you understand that chance, accident, and luck are human conceptual constructs.

Now, allow me to throw you a curve ball, Fat is a type of crazy, with a simple question.  Or a boomerang in your case.  Do you believe in freedom?  More to the point, absolute freedom?  I doubt anyone would be in disagreement with the idea that freedom exists.  The only debatable question is the extent of freedom we possess.  None, some, or full - full meaning 100%.  Three choices.

The correct answer to that question would answer the question of the existence of chance.  Whether chance exists outright as a determative force in life or whether chance merely has the appearance of reality. 

So, what is your belief as to the extent of our (and every other living thing's) freedom?

[VincentRJ]

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. ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It's good to see that you understand that chance, accident, and luck are human conceptual constructs.

Now, allow me to throw you a curve ball, Fat is a type of crazy, with a simple question.  Or a boomerang in your case.  Do you believe in freedom?  More to the point, absolute freedom?  I doubt anyone would be in disagreement with the idea that freedom exists.  The only debatable question is the extent of freedom we possess.  None, some, or full - full meaning 100%.  Three choices.

The correct answer to that question would answer the question of the existence of chance.  Whether chance exists outright as a determative force in life or whether chance merely has the appearance of reality. 

So, what is your belief as to the extent of our (and every other living thing's) freedom?

Freedom to me is a bit like accidents and luck - it is a subjective experience or feeling. I don't label what I am after. I  keep life simple and do what needs to be done and take it easy and see what's next.

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

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."

Are they serious?

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

Did it fall from some airplane? ????

 

[VincentRJ]

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. ????

 

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

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. ????

 

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 ????

 

[VincentRJ]

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. ????
 

[mauGR1]

22 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You must have a terrible grudge against science.

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)????

[jayboy]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:29 PM, Odysseus123 said:

I don't think it will be a fascinating thread..just the usual..

 

 

Surely you are mistaken.I would have thought Thai Visa was the perfect forum to get answers on the great philosophical questions of the universe and our very existence.After all who better to provide illumination on these age old issues than a bunch of middle aged/elderly ex-blue collar retirees?