[Guest]

First, let me state some facts: (I'm sure their facts.)

1) We only use a certain amount of percentage of our brain.

2) Our brain functioning consists of neurons moving between nerve endings, correct?

3) Before we came to this earth, we where spirits, (like a glove, hand is the spirit, glove is the body, body can't move without the spirit) when we die our spirits leave. Don't argue, its fact.

4) Our body is controlled by the nerves which is controlled by the brain.

Now, depending if you believe in Christ, the Atonement, and the Resurrection, when Christ returns our spirits will be reunited with our bodies and be made perfect like Christ.

Now the questions.

What is controlling the brain and telling it to fire those neurons and how?

My theory is this:

We control our brain through a certain degree of telepathy, so with that you have to wonder: what else can we do when we are made perfect like Christ?

Personaly, I think we can fly.

Feel free to drop a line if you have any questions, comments, concerns.

Please nothing vulgar, profain, perverted, or rude. This is for fun.

-5dollers

[Guest]

Well, again, I don't want to argue, so I'll just state my belief and you can feel free to rip it apart as you feel, but MY belief, and I believe that this is shared, is that it's not like God is sitting wherever he chooses and playing the Universe like a video game. There's no flinch reactions, or sudden changes to point to and go "this is where God interfered, and made X happen." Rather, it's the opposite. The common belief is that God is everywhere, and at every time, so these things aren't necessary. After all, if I've built something correctly, I won't be stepping in very often to make repairs, or adjust things so they travel on the right course, and even if I do, it will be very rare, and my intent will be to make it very subtle. Rather, it's that structure that we see in what would otherwise be randomness that makes me believe. It's hard to look at those consistencies, and that level of order, and NOT see some sort of overarching design, which I choose to call God.

I used to not call myself an atheist on the basis that if you call what structure exists "God", then God exists. Though eventually I decided that this was just lending undue credibility to theism. But you seem to be going a step further and suggesting universal structure as evidence of design. If God has created a universe he doesn't need to interfere with, that renders religion a bit pointless, though it seems you are not religious in the sense of believing in a Biblical-style interfering God. The question of structure itself being evidence of design is an interesting one.

As far as mathematical structure is concerned, I would classify mathematics as the study of universal truth which is based on nothing but pure reasoning. Structure within mathematics could not possibly be anything different, and therefore could not have been created. Although there is much in mathematics to surprise and delight, I contend that even God would be unable to change this, and therefore could not have made it that way.

Physical structure is more arbitrary, and seems fine-tuned to the requirements of life. The laws of physics are balanced just right and level of complexity in our physical systems are just enough to support life. If you assume that our universe exists, and no other universe does, that would seem to be evidence of design. If you do not make that assumption, it implies nothing. Since it requires a life form to make these observations, and any universes with life forms would have to be fine-tuned to support life, what else could you expect to see?

Although multiple universes may seem far fetched and more complex than observations support, this isn't so. In fact it's a simpler way of looking at things. Considering a universe to be a system with various properties (such as the position of various objects at a particular point in time), there is an additional property to consider: existence. If you say that one possible universe exists and others do not, you are postulating the presence of this additional property. If you remove the property of existence from that model you've simplified it and done away with the question of why some things might exist and others not. And this is still just as consistent with observation. Our little bubble of observability contains a very small subset of all that is possible*. To believe that this little bubble exists and nothing else does, ask ourselves why it was selected for existence, and conclude that it demonstrates divine design, is pure assumption.

There's a very understandable reason why we would make that assumption. Because our observable universe does contain a tiny subset of all that is logically possible, it serves our needs to distinguish between what that subset contains (what "exists") and what it does not. The notion of "existence" is so useful and fundamental to our perception, it is tempting to apply it in a wider sense (and equate it with what is observable). But that would be to take it beyond its sphere of relevance. Abandon that idea and what you are left with is beautifully simple. Logical consistency is the only important concept that remains. Because our universe is logically consistent, it has structure. We are part of that structure, as is our perception, as is the fact that we perceive our universe to "exist". These things are inevitably true as a direct consequence of being possible. We are just a little subset of all that is possible, and insofar as we exist, so do all possible things. It's all mathematics.

*possible = logically consistent

[Guest]

I thought you weren't going to get sucked in...

It's hard to look at those consistencies, and that level of order, and NOT see some sort of overarching design, which I choose to call God.

It may be difficult for you, but not for everybody. I'm not saying that physics and other sciences have answered my every question to complete satisfaction. It is also unlikely that they will do so within my lifetime, if ever. But I'm OK with that. It appears, to me anyway, that God is for people who are not OK with that. The [insert name of holy book here] provides comforting answers to all of life's questions, and if there's anything you don't understand, it's because you weren't meant to. I know that's not everybody's idea of God, but it appear to be the majority view.

After all, Mathematics and Science did not create these things[...]

Science and mathematics are human concepts, invented to help us better understand the universe. Religion, another human invention, did not "create these things" either. The universe knows nothing of our science, nor does it need to in order to function. You don't need to explain combustion to the log to make a fire...

I freely acknowledge that science and mathematics are not "truth". However, they also do not pretend to be the truth, nor do they claim to have all the answers. In fact, if we are to believe the current consensus among physicists, it is impossible for us to learn everything about the universe. Science and mathematics are models, a language we invented to express our observations and understanding of natural phenomena. It happens to be a language that allows us to do a much better job of predicting future outcomes than anything that preceded it, which gives our ideas credibility, and puts trust in the scientific method we use. This gives us hope that someday we may attain a better understanding of the origins of the universe through scientific investigation, but science alone does not give us any answers. Science is not a religion.

(otherwise pi would likely be a more rational number)

Why should pi be a (more?) rational number? The universe does not know about numbers, or even circles for that matter. They are just two more things we've invented. Besides, there are infinitely many more irrational numbers than rational ones, so it really is no surprise that they crop up frequently. Why should we look for divine meaning in the completely unremarkable values of mathematical and physical constants of our own invention?

[Guest]

You're quoting me out of context, and it's leading to your misunderstanding. Had science and mathematics created something like the area of a circle, then we surely wouldn't have picked such an irrational number to take the spot of pi. That was pretty much it. Honestly, d3k3, you picked the strongest part of my argument and gave it the weakest counterargument, and then essentially made a strawman for the rest by breaking up the quote. You disagree with me, as do most of the people here. I'm okay with that. I admittedly should have responded less to ADParker than I did, as the only reason I DID respond at all was to point out the inherent hypocrisy in his statement at the end there, so yeah, I got sucked back in, and then asked to elaborate further, at which point it left the realm of fact behind, and entered the realm of belief. So, everything there is arguable. And it will be arguable until the world ends, whether that happens by some form of cataclysmic doomsday, or the sun eventually exploding and devouring the Earth. So, there you have it.

Edited March 11, 2009 by SomeGuy

[unreality]

SomeGuy: I don't think you're understanding mathematics. We didn't just make math up - we discovered it. Or at least that's my belief. Well, more specifically, you start with a few axioms that you define in the beginning (the Successor function, or the parallel postulate) which give rise to complex, discovered features (the Successor function leads to addition, then multiplication, then exponentation, etc; the parallel postulate and some other geometric axioms lead into Euclidean geometry).

All we did was define the initial axioms based on the world we observed, laying the bedrock for basic logical system. After that we discovered the rest. We didn't make up the value of pi - we learned it

[Guest]

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. I must be saying it poorly. I am saying that this level of order and structure is there, and that we didn't put it there. Obviously we didn't put it there. Math didn't create anything, it's an observation technique. Anyways.

[Guest]

Well, I think the only thing we can all agree on is that this topic has officially been hijacked.

Honestly, d3k3, you picked the strongest part of my argument and gave it the weakest counterargument, and then essentially made a strawman for the rest by breaking up the quote.

I only picked on that part because you assert that "it's hard to look at those consistencies, and that level of order, and NOT see some sort of overarching design[...]". These words imply you believe this to be self-evident to any reasonably intelligent being. However, whether you choose to call it God, nature, or something else, this concept is not obvious to everybody, nor is it universally accepted. I have personally witnessed instances where an intelligent design was produced without an intelligent designer. I have also, on occasion, been the idiot whose dumb mistake serendipitously improved some creation in a completely unexpected way, and in complete absence of any guidance or intent.

SomeGuy: I don't think you're understanding mathematics. We didn't just make math up - we discovered it. Or at least that's my belief. Well, more specifically, you start with a few axioms that you define in the beginning (the Successor function, or the parallel postulate) which give rise to complex, discovered features (the Successor function leads to addition, then multiplication, then exponentation, etc; the parallel postulate and some other geometric axioms lead into Euclidean geometry).

Actually, I was the one who said that. To me, mathematics is simply a language, and saying that it was discovered is the same as saying that the English language, it's entire vocabulary and grammar, somehow has existed for all eternity, waiting for us to stumble upon it.

I also have no clue what the "Successor function" is, but I can still add. In fact, the majority of what are considered the most fundamental axioms of mathematics are fairly recent inventions. This did not prevent people throughout ancient times and prehistory from counting and adding things.

[Guest]

I only picked on that part because you assert that "it's hard to look at those consistencies, and that level of order, and NOT see some sort of overarching design[...]". These words imply you believe this to be self-evident to any reasonably intelligent being. However, whether you choose to call it God, nature, or something else, this concept is not obvious to everybody, nor is it universally accepted.

That... was far deeper than I thought one could possibly read into that statement. Would you feel better if I said it was hard for me to look at those consistencies, and that level of order, and NOT see some sort of overarching design? And what do you consider to be "universally accepted?" I'm not really asking to quibble, but rather because I don't think, by your definition, the fact that these parallels exist is universally accepted, purely because most people don't know. And I'd be careful how you define it, because with a loose enough definition the existance of a God is a pretty popular belief.

[Guest]

First, let me state some facts: (I'm sure their facts.)

1) We only use a certain amount of percentage of our brain.

2) Our brain functioning consists of neurons moving between nerve endings, correct?

3) Before we came to this earth, we where spirits, (like a glove, hand is the spirit, glove is the body, body can't move without the spirit) when we die our spirits leave. Don't argue, its fact.

4) Our body is controlled by the nerves which is controlled by the brain.

Now, depending if you believe in Christ, the Atonement, and the Resurrection, when Christ returns our spirits will be reunited with our bodies and be made perfect like Christ.

Now the questions.

What is controlling the brain and telling it to fire those neurons and how?

My theory is this:

We control our brain through a certain degree of telepathy, so with that you have to wonder: what else can we do when we are made perfect like Christ?

Personaly, I think we can fly.

Feel free to drop a line if you have any questions, comments, concerns.

Please nothing vulgar, profain, perverted, or rude. This is for fun.

-5dollers

Well, that's pretty religous. You would have to choose between DNA, organic molecules and other sciency things, and religon. No offense, I'm all for science. I mean, Gallileo was placed under house-arrest by the catholic church, and 300 years later (woah) they pardoned him. Not the same people, of course, but the catholic church in general. Same with Copernicus and other blokes. And I'm not Austrailian, I just felt like saying "blokes".

Blokes. Blokes. Try saying it, it soothes the mind.

Sorry. Got carried away there.

[Izzy]

SomeGuy, I'm still not seeing your reason for saying the universe is ordered. Is it because there's a bunch of complex beings running around, or something more profound?

Edit: color

Edited March 12, 2009 by Izzy

[Guest]

I read it all and thought it was brilliant. Damn on the power loss. I wrote out a fairly long post too (not now, before), and my internet died twice, without it being recovered. I'll bet nearly anything he uses another fallacy next, which unfortunately I can't remember the name of. (Taking two somewhat related events, putting them together, and saying god did it?) Oh, and I'm female.

Cool. Sucks when that happens eh?

I will probably forget your gender (who can keep track? I spend a great deal [far too much, my wife complains] on Internet forums, too many to remember such details) so don't take offence if I refer to you as "he" again. I tend to use that as a gender neutral thing, although sometimes I mix it up and refer to unspecified or hypothetical people as "her" as well.

[Guest]

I actually responded to a couple things in your quote (though I hadn't intended to).

Which is kind of a pain, with the way this forum edits posts for reply. But no worries, I'm a big boy and can handle the jandal. (why did I just say that? I NEVER say that )

My intent isn't really to argue any of your points, for reasons mentioned above, but rather to answer your pet interest with my pet peeve, and possibly point you towards some interesting research.

Okay, let's see here:

Go read a dictionary. There are clear and common definitions that you can simply look up, rather than trying to coax someone into defining it without one in a rather underhanded attempt to make someone seem foolish.

Oh, I've done that, and delved into the Biblical definitions, as well as examined a couple of definitions given by theists. Not to mention the indoctrination I was given in being taught that "Faith is a Virtue" back in my misspent Christian youth.

But for some reason most are unwilling to say precisely what they mean by "Faith."

And it's not an attempt to ridicule, really it's not. I can't help that every such assessment to date has lead me to the same definition:

Faith: Belief through the (wilful) abandonment of Reason.

It just ALWAYS comes out that way. And that is why I ask; with the hope that someone will offer an explanation or definition that works and includes something more than this. I mean they almost always claim to "use Faith" as if it was something extra, not merely the choice to use less than all of one's mental faculties. Yes, I have come to strongly suspect that this IS all it is, but I ask because I am genuinely interested in being proven wrong.

And who better to ask than those who claim to use it? They would know right?

Actually, since you seem to follow science a great deal, it's remarkable how much we once saw as chaos has later appeared to be structured, if in a way that does not make sense to us. How often are the same constants used in unrelated fields? How often do evolved, and seemingly random events in nature or life seem to be designed using geometry on closer inspection? It's certainly not proof, but it IS cool.

I do follow science quite a bit, now. Used to be more philosophy, now it's both.

And you are right, there is an impressive wealth of data and evidence etc. out there, and much of it finds connections and structures. The "constants" thing is kind of beside the point here, but it is fascinating stuff anyway. And of course the thing about that is that relatively recently it has been accepted that those fields are not as "unrelated" as was assumed for far too long.

"Life and Nature" relates to the Earth alone, which is a tiny tiny local point in the universe, so that goes to my "local order" point. Which of course was relating to the impression that "he whom I was talking to" was looking at just that and seeing this order, ignoring the lightyears of the universe beyond that single "Pale Blue Dot" (Gratuitous Carl Sagan reference ) and that's why I gave the Cosmic radiation background image.

The evidence of course best fits a natural evolution model than a "Design" one. Although I do like Daniel Dennett's description of what I call the "Design sans Designer" concept (It's basically explaining evolution as a self-design building process.)

Oh and I kind of get the impression that you are conflating these "structures" - the fundamental forces (Gravity etc.) and the set of particles and energy forms - with "order" somewhat. They are not the same at all; all of hose ware present in systems of total order, total chaos and every state in between.

And yes, my oh my is it cool!

The POINT of my post was:

Yes, thank you 5dollers; when in trouble in a rational discussion go ahead and resort to thinly veiled insults. That is always likely to impress.

Wisdom from ADParker: Why bother with veils?

Um, what?

[Guest]

I like where SomeGuy is going with this, and in a lot of ways I agree. There is definitely an order-out-of-chaos thing going on in the universe - but we diverge when you decide to call this balance 'God'. Why? <- I'm not asking that incriminatingly but I am genuinely curious: what prompted you to use the God label for the balance and order in the universe?

Although the standard models currently suggest that at the time of the Big Bang, it was near perfect Order, and since we have had the general trend of entropy to disorder. With little pockets of 'negative entropy' as you would fully expect.

[Guest]

I admittedly should have responded less to ADParker than I did, as the only reason I DID respond at all was to point out the inherent hypocrisy in his statement at the end there,

That's what that was?! (You do mean the statement at the end of YOUR post, right, not the end of mine?)

What hypocrisy?!

[Guest]

SomeGuy, I'm still not seeing your reason for saying the universe is ordered. Is it because there's a bunch of complex beings running around, or something more profound?

Edit: color

Seems to be nothing but "Looks that way to me." Which has no actual rational value whatsoever.

And am I getting a whiff of the Equivocation fallacy of equating Natural laws (Descriptive) with imposed laws (Prescriptive)?

[Guest]

That... was far deeper than I thought one could possibly read into that statement. Would you feel better if I said it was hard for me to look at those consistencies, and that level of order, and NOT see some sort of overarching design?

Yes, I would. You don't have to be pissy about it.

And what do you consider to be "universally accepted?" I'm not really asking to quibble, but rather because I don't think, by your definition, the fact that these parallels exist is universally accepted, purely because most people don't know. And I'd be careful how you define it, because with a loose enough definition the existance of a God is a pretty popular belief.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to flame, you could at least make sense...