Evolution.
The most simple design, which was created by the God, is atom of hydrogen.
The most complex design, which was created by the God, is the Man.
The Man is alive essence.
Animals, bird, fish are alive essences.
And an atom?
And atom is also alive design.
The atom of hydrogen lives 12 minutes.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he will turn into Man.
Therefore, the one, who creates a general picture of Life,
must consider development of evolution of Life from atom up to the Man.
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was one "single point " accidentally.
Then it has caught a cold accidentally and has blown up: Big Bang " has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some hundreds
(thousands) kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then stars were formed accidentally.
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally.
Then atom of hydrogen was accidentally formed.
Then complex atom was accidentally formed.
Then was accidentally formed vegetative and fauna.
Then the man was created accidentally.
And this man can accidentally think logically.
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
What was one "single point " surrounded with?
EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING
In common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING
in the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
From only this simple physical parameter I create a general picture of Genesis.
Best wishes.
Socratus
Evoloution is the best theory we have. Nothing else comes close i.e Lamarckism, creationism etc… Believing that God exists who ever he/she/they/it may be solves nothing as it it assumes the very thing we want to explain, complicated life.
Not one but an infinite amount of them, we don’t know how many created life . Accidents happen, look at us
lol, your sole purpose must be the mocking of scientifical theories i found that quite amusing.
Many christians make a huge mistake thinking that science is just another thing to be belived rather than investigated.
christian logics: “Ok, i have a god which takes care of me, which looks after me etc…etc… and another man just like myself telling me how the universe works. Lets see… which one should i belive ?”
For these people, probably like you science is just another matter of faith, which is clearly not the way it is desired to be. You dont need faith to understand Science, exept the most extreme theories which cannon be proven.
P.S. There will always be something which we cannot reach with our minds, its called “infinity” and it is present here in the sense that christians will always have a quiestion to put above science → “Why ?” Because this question has no end in sight it will always be the fuel, the driving force for people like you i guess.
However if you take it one step further, admiting the existance of god doesnt answer anything, because everything cannot be answered. Does god have another god ? and that god another god and so on ? What gives meaning to god’s life ? etc…
Not to mention that there are sentances in your post which are not correct from a scientifical point of view or at least they are not explained in a correct way.
And the way you use the word “accidentaly” makes me sick.
It is just another thing to be believed. I went through all this on threads about Richard Dawkins and the Scientific Method but I suppose I can rehash the main arguments if you are genuinely interested.
(not that I’m a Christian) - Scientist logic: “Okay, I assume that nature behaves in a uniform way according to laws that are physical in nature but can only be discovered through metaphysics and then I assume that my method is valid for finding this out”
You need faith to believe in the something that science is meant to be investigating - the thing in itself, the world as such…
Well technically speaking, it’s you who believes it’s just another thing to be believed and following your own argument no-one has to believe you The rest of us are fine with the Scientific method and its obvious merits above myths and storytales as it is, ta very much!
Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with…Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and, therefore, part of the mystery that we are trying to solve…And if we did not have faith, we should have no science…because science would lose the cornerstone of its own structure, which is the direct perception by consciousness of the existence of external reality. As Einstein has said, you could not be a scientist if you did not know that the external world existed in reality, but that knowledge is not gained by any process of reasoning. It is a direct perception and, therefore, in its nature akin to what we call Faith. It is a metaphysical belief.
well quantum theories are just one of those things i excluded… and somehow i see you have extracted the atribute of “faith” from its initial meaning in my first post as something other than religious belief.
Sure you need “faith”, faith that you will succed in your efforts, faith that they are not all in vain etc… However this is not to be confused with the religious perception of faith. Which is something that must be taken for granted, above any mans power to understand.
Almost every religion does its best to stop anyone from “searching” or “experimenting” the way life works. It kinda adds a note of hipocrisy on the extreme fundamentalists who preech the way they do and after a hard day “at work” they go home and use a TV or a microwave oven. If they’re so “in touch” with god they should live the way the amish do.
So i see it as a matter of understanding the concept of faith, and i meant it as “religious faith”.
The kind which asks of you to believe that dissease is a manifestation of “gods will” because we are all sinners and moreover forbids anyone from investigating…
First of all hydrogen atoms formed from intense energy, then gravity brought those atoms together which under the colapse of gravity were forced to combine in Helium, from there on Stars were born. (We know stars use nuclear reaction much like a hydrogen bomb). So you see it was not “accidentaly”
Then when all the hydrogen in the star is converted into helium the star dies, either becomes a super nova, or a white dwarf or a black hole. (these processes are dramaticly affected by gravity)
When a star explodes all its “matter” disperses into space, mostly the 4 most basic elements which can be “made” in a star. Afther that again gravity binds the elements together to form planets and/or stars (in star nurseries) etc…
So you see how atoms are formed because of gravity and huge mass which forces everything to colapse on itself forcing atoms to combine and form other. more complex atoms.
If you had studied a little chemestry you would know that the only difference between atoms is the number of protons, electrons and nucleons they posses, NOTHING more.
Also if the nucleus of an atom would be the size of a coin than the outer shell would strech out as much as a football stadium, thus we can say without a doubt that there is a great deal of emptyness allaround us.
There is nothing accidental about Evolution, thats just the way the universe works.
Ofcourse you could always go one step back and ask: But why is the universe like this and not another way ? but sincerely this question is infinite and you dont solve the problem by adding a creator.
Put simply, a scientist is a philosopher who doesn’t understand what reasoning is…
Science believes in the myth of the thing in itself. It’s as simple as that. No amount of waving your hand at non-existent unicorns will render synthetic a priori truth a possibility…
Planck was not just referring to quantum theories, but rather to science generally.
Speaking of generalities, do you think, just maybe, you’ve painted religion with a pretty big brush here?
Can you give me some examples of mainstream religions that actually believe “disease is a manifestation of ‘god’s will’ because we are all sinners and moreover forbids anyone from investigating”?
I’m curious as to what you mean when you say “religion.” I don’t recognize much of what you’re claiming religion is.
Well frankly spreaking the proof to what i said is out there; you just need to look for it.
And btw christian religions thinks god is punishing us for our sins everyday thorough accidents and disseases; just go to any church, you’ll see the priest give reasons for random events etc…
Not only that but the bible, god “himself” says: “believe and dont investigate”; i dont know exactly how that saying translates into english but that is the basic meaning.
jesus told everyone he met to forget everything, house, family , wife kids and fortune and follow him in the name of “the lord”. The term “sheppard” is seen more literaly by christians.
Another example is how christian missioanaries in poor african countries give food to the starving people only if they “accept christ as their saviour” and moreover they force them to read from the bible daily etc… its abolutely horrific.
You are probably reffering to the intelectual side of religion, the kind perceived by people with brains.
Or… what do you understand by religion ?
I see religion as a superstitious belief materialized in the “church”, seen here as an institution, with laws and political agenda.
if you have FireFox open that website and push CTRL+F and search for words like Hell, Sinner or Punishment. Just try and count how many times each of them has been mentioned among other such “incriminating” words.
I once received a little “jesus flyer” who had words like God, Jesus, Lord etc… un such a high number that you could see them just by looking at the overall text, no reading required.
I understand that words like religion, faith, belief etc… can be understood in many ways. We should all strive to reach a common understanding so that we may confrunt our ideas on the same matter.
So your interpretation of Biblical verse (whatever verses you are referring to, I have the feeling you don’t really know yourself) tells you that God’s will is to produce disease because we are sinners and for us to not investigate things scientifically. Or at least that’s the way you think this “translates into English.†Moreover, Christ’s admonition (I’m guessing you’re somewhere around Matthew 16 here) means – somehow (?) – roughly the same thing. Hmm. Interesting interpretations. But I think I’ll let Biblical experts provide me with the interpretations. Let’s just move on to this:
Well this certainly does sound horrific. Missionaries withholding food from starving people and forcing people to read from the Bible. I’m wondering if you’d be so kind as to maybe provide me with a link or something that shows this actually happening somewhere. I’d be very interested.
My understanding of religion is as a means by which to experience something of our Creator, to contemplate the mysteries of existence and consider our place in the universe, through ritual and prayer and reading of holy texts rich with beautiful symbolism and metaphor, and fellowship with others, immersing ourselves in the traditions of our fathers and grandfathers, and their fathers and grandfathers, bridging the gap between past and present and connecting with humanity down through the ages.
Because truth is best ascertained by the enumeration of comfort?
Is this not also, in itself, simply another belief?
It seemed like, for the longest time, only Imp and myself were the ones at ILP that harped on this, though I suppose SIATD has come around to the dark side (or has taken to pointing this out more and more often)… either way belief alone cannot validate itself. There is nothing that is absolutely certain in Science, as there is nothing absolutely certain in metaphysics/religion or Epistemology, and so on.
For many who feel as I do, this leads, almost inevitably, to a kind of cynicism or nihilism, which rejects even the possibility of truth. For myself, I believe truth is as much anything as it is found in doing, as such, truth intails values, and a direct connection between the subject and object, such that certainty is the result of being.
My problem with science then, beyond what I just mentioned, is the artificial divorce between the scientist and the world. This is the thinking that says Science provides the very best means for understanding the universe because Science is entirely and completely objective. This is, of course, false, as no one can be entirely and completely objective. Furthermore, the scientist is very much part of the world in which he or she studies. To pretend one has removed one’s self such that one exists merely as an observer is to lie to one’s self.
So, not only is science mistaken, it is dishonest. It imagines a division that does not exist and then argues that, from said division, truth can be discovered. It requires an active intent, thus, the first person the scientist must always deceive is himself.
ha, i have to dissagree; for example i belive mathematic is absolute, i sincerely dont believe god would be able to make it so that 1+2=17 etc… thus mathematics is either part of god or it is above him.
…except for the fact that you at least believe there is something that can be “certain,” which science, epistemology, metaphysics, etc., cannot reach, or else you wouldn’t have called it an impossibility. You are also affirming a negative; “nothing” is absolutely certain…etc." Of course not, that’s nonsense. “Nothing” can’t exist. So you must reconfigure the proposition like this: “there is something that is absolutely uncertain to science, metaphysics, etc.,” in which case you can now claim that truth exists but cannot be known.
Unfortunately this won’t work either. Now there is another negative. It is impossible to know that truth can exist but not be known because it must be known to be posited as existing.
I’ve got it. “Truth” is certain but it is not in the form of a statement about a fact, but rather the neccesity of the dialectic through which propositions have the potential to be either true or false. The law of the excluded middle is a manifestation of this.
The truth is neither: “the cat is” or “the cat is not.” Right, because what is a cat and what kind of time is involved in being…in having the quality of “is-ness?” The space/time preconditions for such an event are relative to a perspective and I would assume that if I passed a cat at light speed I would percieve “it” differently.
What holds true regardless of these conditions? The necessity of space/time for perception. Although relative to perspective it must be necessary for perspective.
I cannot deny the perception of an object although I can deny its identity in so far as it consists of particular facts and events, which are dependent on space and time and which are trying to be represented in propositional form.
What’s left? I dunno, but certainly not language. Kant stands hovering above Wittgenstein’s ladder like Yoda over the marsh.
Oh come on. If I notice that water reaches a freezing point at temperature X 99 times in a row, and I predict that it will do so one more time, even though it is theoretical and inductive, if it happens again I don’t need to understand how water is composed to understand that water behaves a certain way usually. Science isn’t an attempt to find “objective” facts but rather tendencies which occur in uniform conditions. In science laws are guilty until proven innocent; if something keeps happening it is called a “law” until it is either no longer possible or modified by a greater law in which its exceptions are accounted for. The day that a rock falls up into the sky is the day we need to reconsider the law of gravity. Until then, rocks that lie on the earth are victims of gravity, the guilty.
And yes, the earth was flat before they discovered that it was spherical because the results of the current theory at that time were not violated by the soon to be discovery. That’s what I mean by “modification.” All science theory is in the first place is a set of coresponding sub-theories and trials. If, for example, next year gravity ceases to exist for fifteen seconds and all bodies in space push other bodies away, we have to change our conception of “gravity” because the tendencies are no longer uniform…but this doesn’t mean that for the last gazillion years rocks didn’t fly up into the air uneccessarily…it only means that we mistook a tendency for a constant. We still have “gravity” but its not what we previously thought it was. It is a manifestation of a law which is only a smaller part of a bigger law, since those fifteen seconds of anti-gravity were determined and of causal necessity.
There can be, as Hawking put it, absolute laws governing the universe…only either without the possibility of being discovered or not yet discovered.
In the former God’s playing dice with the universe, throwing them where we can’t see them, but the roll is rigged because there are only so many sides to the dice. In the latter, he isn’t playing dice with the universe and we haven’t yet found the rigid rules of the game.
which leads one to the perposterous position proclaiming that “I and I alone am the only thing that exists in the universe” “but why am I talking to you? you don’t exist!” “of course I know that you don’t exist because I am the only thing that exists because he (that guy over there) told me so…” (because we understand the contradiction of being a self identified solipsist ) “it doesn’t matter that his existence is as tenuous as yours.” “what-da-ya-mean I’m nuts?!? you don’t exist! only I exist! he said so!!” “but he doesn’t exist either… damn…”
I have made this very same argument here many times.
As of late I have felt that this argument is mistaken, in a sense. That “nothing”, that is described one way as what “can not be”. Whereas, in another sense, it is used as that which “is not”. To assume that “nothing” is a negation requires something to be negated, which in turn negates nothingness, which in turn… you get the picture. This is why I put “nothing” in italics in my post.
That stated, given this
in particular, with the rest of my post, I leave it to you to decide which “nothing” I meant or, should I say, could not mean.
It would seem to me that it is impossible to “know” anything with certainty without truth. We cannot know truth, and without truth, we cannot really know.
I agree, to an extent.
remember Dunamis. Always going on and on about this, that, or another. Whatever the disparate element, he always tried, if not successfully, to incorporate a particular into something much broader. or, as a much better example of his talents, how something much broader fit into any particular. I asked him once if he was okay with me calling his arguments a Hollistic approach. He seemed fine with it.
I have gotten over the wonder of disjunctions a while ago. It died hard though. It died harder than the law of Identity.
I wonder, seriously, what someone going various stages of insanity would say to this? It would seem, however, that Kant is limited to particular kinds of perceptions for particular kinds of minds. Even then, it requires an assumed division between perceiver and perceived, ala our fine Western Tradition, which may, or may not, be the case (to paraphrase a famous line from Wittgenstein).
This is almost exactly what I meant. A fine example indeed. the above listed experiment has as much to do with the scientist and where he chooses to mark his thermometer, as it does with the nature of water. Science assumes that, by making instruments and methods uniform, it eliminates the subject from the experiment. The “truth” is that, first and foremost, the observation requires an observer. Assuming, of course, scientific observations don’t just float around in space landing on unsuspecting victims.
If this, itself, was all Science did this might not seem so bad however
The theory of gravity is a mighty fine one. It is mighty fine because it doesnt require excessive additional phenemona or theories ex hypothesi. It isn’t gravity or the rock flying upward that decides what is and isn’t ex hypothesi, it is the human mind.
I could say that what we assume is gravity is actually invisible angels tugging at our feet. Alas, Science cannot test for invisible angels, so my explanation is excluded from Science, that is ok, I wasn’t very attached to my invisible angels, har har.
As mentioned before, the illusion of objectivity arises, in part, from uniformity. Science assumes, outright, that the valueless is substantive.
This is to say, in effect, that Science is pragmatic. I agree. the question you should ask, then, is whether the “objective” truth is also pragmatic. It would seem to me that a pragmatic science contradicts even the idea of “objective” truth.
By objective I mean two things at the same time
Not influenced by one’s subjective opinions
and
2)derived completely from study of some object or phenomena apart from the observer himself.
two very basic assumptions which, I believe, are invalid.
Does this disqualify Science from anything? No, of course not. But it is no more an avenue to truth than reading a bible or dropping LSD.
i found that quite amusing.
The rest of us are fine with the Scientific method and its obvious merits above myths and storytales as it is, ta very much!