| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: September 23 2009 at 13:18 |
 Negoba wrote:
Thanks so much for joining the conversation visioner.
My original idea that made at least one other poster uncomfortable was talking about cosmology, origin mythology, and personal ideas about philosophy and / or spirituality and lumping both religious and scientific contributions in one discussion.
But given that religion and science are the two major sources we currently use to base those three things, I feel like they must be discussed together. Origin theories based on scientific observation are still very limited and a product of imagination / creative synthesis. What's on the other side of the big bang? As a singularity, it is likely impossible to know. To us it's a dead end in terms of our ability to gather data. But it doesn't mean nothing happened prior to that. Certainly the idea of wave like expansion and contraction of the universe seems very plausible. But even if it consistent with scientific information, it is likely that we will never be able to have data to confirm or deny that. Kind of like Santa Claus? And we are firmly in the territory of current scientific cosmological thought. |
Religions address the whole picture and regard it as a single event because they need to - in a single story they can encompass everything and convey it in a form that is easily digested and does not require further thought. In one simple story you get the creation of the cosmos, life, morality and a belief-system. Science can address the whole picture, but the resulting story will be less condensed and manageable, not only in terms of the amount of information that needs to be understood, but in the depth of prerequisite knowledge that is needed to process that information. What I don't get, or understand, is where philosophy, spirituality and religion fits into that - I cannot see how any of those existed before sentient life evolved so would have no bearing on cosmology or evolution prior to that..
What's on the other side of the big-bang? The same thing that the Universe is expanding into. 
|
|
What?
|
 |
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 13:59 |
Dean wrote:
....
What I don't get, or understand, is where philosophy, spirituality and religion fits into that - I cannot see how any of those existed before sentient life evolved so would have no bearing on cosmology or evolution prior to that..
What's on the other side of the big-bang? The same thing that the Universe is expanding into. |
Assuming their is objective truth without an observer...a tricky question both in quantum mechanics and philosophy...you're right, however the world came to be is what it is no matter what our conceptualization of it.
But science, philosophy, spirituality, and religion are all attempts for human brains to understand as much of those things as we can. I personally believe they all have truths to tell.
At the same time, I respect that the domains they cover or at least should cover, are separate. One deals with measurable or observable phenomenon, the other mainly deals with the relationship of conscious beings with the world we inhabit. Those interact but carry quite a distance betwen them.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Visioner
Forum Newbie
Joined: September 21 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 10
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 14:21 |
Negoba wrote:
Thanks so much for joining the conversation visioner.
My original idea that made at least one other poster uncomfortable was talking about cosmology, origin mythology, and personal ideas about philosophy and / or spirituality and lumping both religious and scientific contributions in one discussion.
But given that religion and science are the two major sources we currently use to base those three things, I feel like they must be discussed together. Origin theories based on scientific observation are still very limited and a product of imagination / creative synthesis. What's on the other side of the big bang? As a singularity, it is likely impossible to know. To us it's a dead end in terms of our ability to gather data. But it doesn't mean nothing happened prior to that. Certainly the idea of wave like expansion and contraction of the universe seems very plausible. But even if it consistent with scientific information, it is likely that we will never be able to have data to confirm or deny that. Kind of like Santa Claus? And we are firmly in the territory of current scientific cosmological thought. |
Thank you for the welcome, Negoba. It has been a most interesting discussion indeed.
I liked your observations about “what’s on the other side of the big bang.” If we can accept the incomprehensible power of a big bang leading to every bit of life, why is it so difficult for some to accept the concept of a being of greater power than a human causing the big bang to happen? If we cannot prove either by science, as you so eloquently point out, then incorporating other judgment processes beyond measurable science seems to me to be quite reasonable. Empirical evidence is still valid evidence. In fact, the scientific community relies on it.
I am intrigued by people who want to base absolutely everything on observable, measurable science, yet find it perfectly plausible to accept "everyday miracles” —intricate processes like birth, growth, rejuvenation in nature, remarkable human intelligence on display— without observing the origin of such. Is the likelihood of a superior being that much more of a leap than the incredible workings of the mind, which they value?
I wish atheists would try to experience that which they cannot see but can only touch through spirituality. How regrettable that they lock themselves out of that portion of reality, which could add enlightenment, then consider themselves wiser than those who have experienced it.
Denying a spiritual connection can only be done by those who have not experienced it. Those who have experienced the spiritual realm know it to exist, even if they do not fully understand it. I am amazed at people who consider themselves experts on philosophy and cosmology and yet have rejected the idea of God without ever having studied in depth the very concepts and scriptures they reject. I am always trying to understand why they do that. 
So, thank you for originating such a thought provoking and respectful thread. And thank you, all, for so graciously accepting this newbie into the discussion.
|
|
Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 15:23 |
What goes on in my mind is basically unmeasurable. And yet the course of natural history in this time on this planet has been drastically shaped by other human minds and their thoughts and choices. The extinction of entire species and the survival of others all within the ephemeral realm of thought. Small pox still exists because of the decisions of a few, and its weaponized or accidental release could alter the course of human history drastically. (The same virus drastically affected the course of history in the New World already, after all)
Responsible scientists are quick to point out the limits of their methods. The said follow-up is too often "But it's all we got." This is so very wrong. Luckily many are willing to use science as a tool but are still open to complimentarily rely on personal spiritual tools as well.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 18:08 |
Being part of the natural history of this planet allows us to do whatever damage we do, that is the ecology of the system. However artificial and unnatural what we do may seem when compared to the the so-called natural world, it is no different to any other natural cataclysmic "event" that happens on earth or the shaping of the environment by any dominant species of that locality. (Any farmer will tell you that you cannot put sheep and cows in the same field - the sheep cut the grass too short for the cows to feed - from the cow's point of view the sheep have damaged the environment). That we could wilfully or accidentally cause a global catastrophe is no different or unnatural as a plague, a meteor impact or the detonation of Krakatau. The difference is that we know it is wrong, that it is preventable, that by choice we could take another route - some put that knowledge of right and wrong down to some spiritual explanation or a taught morality - I see it as no different to the pet dog that steals food from the diner table - it knows it is wrong and that there will be consequences - it is simply the instinctive and natural behavioural action of a pack animal, and humans are a pack animal.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 20:01 |
Visioner wrote:
I liked your observations about “what’s on the other side of the big bang.” If we can accept the incomprehensible power of a big bang leading to every bit of life, why is it so difficult for some to accept the concept of a being of greater power than a human causing the big bang to happen? If we cannot prove either by science, as you so eloquently point out, then incorporating other judgment processes beyond measurable science seems to me to be quite reasonable. Empirical evidence is still valid evidence. In fact, the scientific community relies on it. |
Now you puzzle me... Why do you need a "greater power than a human" to cause the big bang?
There are numerous different theories regarding the one fact we do know, which is that the universe is expanding - every object in the universe is moving away from every other object in the universe, that is the space between them is expanding. Some of the theories are concerned with what happens in the future, and some are to do with what happened in the past. The big-bang theory comes about by mentally rewinding this expanding universe back in time, so that it contracts to a single point (a singularity) of infinite density and temperature. From general relativity we know (and have observed) that space/time is distorted by gravity, that gravity is proptional to mass, and that the distortion of space time by gravity has the effect of slowing time. Therefore the closer we get to the moment of the big bang then the slower time runs, until at the point of the big-bang, time stops.... that's it.
No more time.
There is no "before the big bang" because time does not exist; there is nothing "on the other side of the big bang", the same nothing that the universe is currently expanding into. So if there was nothing before the big bang, and time did not exist before then, what started it? If not a supreme being then what?
Quantum physics provides an answer - at the point of singulariy, with infinite mass and infinite density the normal laws of physics break down, what we are left with is quantum physics - or more accurately quantum cosmology, and in quantum physics we have observed spontaneous "creation" - subatomic particles behave in unpredictable ways, there is inherrent uncertainty in everything, that particles have duality, they change direction without external forces, they spontaneously appear and disapear, that the three dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time are switching places at random, that there is uncertaintly as to what is space and what is time. So, given the infinitesimally small size of the "big-bang" singularity (ie that it contains the whole cosmos at that moment, all three dimensions of space compressed to a single dimensionless point), quantum effects such as that can happen on an apparent cosmic scale, and the one that "kicks off" the big bang is the creation of time from one of the compressed dimensions of space.
Of course, there is enough "uncertainty" in all that to still see the finger-prints of a greater power if you wish, but quantum mechanics is a science of uncertainty.
Visioner wrote:
I am intrigued by people who want to base absolutely everything on observable, measurable science, yet find it perfectly plausible to accept "everyday miracles” —intricate processes like birth, growth, rejuvenation in nature, remarkable human intelligence on display— without observing the origin of such. Is the likelihood of a superior being that much more of a leap than the incredible workings of the mind, which they value? |
I don't accept these as "everyday miracles" as miracles would be the most obvious explanation. That they are self-perpetuating and self-sustaining doesn't cause me to go looking for a superior being, they all are created from living things by living things without the need for some external force to "give them life". Now if one of those was created from something inert and lifeless, from something that had never been a living thing in the first place, then I would then be looking over my shoulder.
The working of the mind is a remarkable thing, capable of many many things, like the invention of a superior being and all the mythology to support it.  In nature we can observe how brains smaller than ours operate and function, how they apply reason and logic, how the owners of those brains can be self-aware and how they inter-relate, how they can conceptualise, analyse and solve a problem. It is not such a leap to see that a brain with a surfeit of processing power (ie more than is required to simply survive) can produce "intelligence" on a human scale, and given enough time, we will probably work out how that happens.
Visioner wrote:
I wish atheists would try to experience that which they cannot see but can only touch through spirituality. How regrettable that they lock themselves out of that portion of reality, which could add enlightenment, then consider themselves wiser than those who have experienced it.
Denying a spiritual connection can only be done by those who have not experienced it. Those who have experienced the spiritual realm know it to exist, even if they do not fully understand it. I am amazed at people who consider themselves experts on philosophy and cosmology and yet have rejected the idea of God without ever having studied in depth the very concepts and scriptures they reject. I am always trying to understand why they do that. |
...like, wow! Where did that come from?!?!
Edited by Dean - September 23 2009 at 20:02
|
|
What?
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:29 |
|
Well, I do believe in Evolution and a higher power, (god, spirituality, grand architect of the universe whatever you'd like)
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:39 |
|
I think we follow too much and think too deeply. If that makes sense?
I try not follow any tenets and just live my life as I see fit.
I will maybe one day read some Philosophical works but I will try not to label myself as anything after reading them. My views seems to agree with non-religious Existentialism but I won't label myself as that because that then makes Philosophies a kind of religion in their own right. That is not what I personally want.
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:46 |
James wrote:
I think we follow too much and think too deeply. If that makes sense?
I try not follow any tenets and just live my life as I see fit.
I will maybe one day read some Philosophical works but I will try not to label myself as anything after reading them. My views seems to agree with non-religious Existentialism but I won't label myself as that because that then makes Philosophies a kind of religion in their own right. That is not what I personally want.
|
You can't avoid labels, James. If you read something and agree fully with it's worldview, then it's yours. Subconsciously, at least.
|
|
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:56 |
stonebeard wrote:
James wrote:
I think we follow too much and think too deeply. If that makes sense?
I try not follow any tenets and just live my life as I see fit.
I will maybe one day read some Philosophical works but I will try not to label myself as anything after reading them. My views seems to agree with non-religious Existentialism but I won't label myself as that because that then makes Philosophies a kind of religion in their own right. That is not what I personally want.
|
You can't avoid labels, James. If you read something and agree fully with it's worldview, then it's yours. Subconsciously, at least.
|
I know. I'm not avoiding labels. I just try not to endorse them into my daily thoughts. I do not need a book on Existentialism to tell me I'm an Existentialist thinker (gosh, I do not even want to be an Existentialist thinker; I just want to be me!). Indeed, I have my own philosophies and do not really need others.
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 23:01 |
|
Mostly common sense on my part. Really.
I've barely read any Philosophy of any kind and when I have tried, I usually have trouble understand it.
|
|
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: September 24 2009 at 03:45 |
Tony R wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
stonebeard mentioned that he as an atheist does not see how spirituality enters. that is a very interesting remark indeed; it seems to mean that what atheists really deny is the existence of spirit, not the existence of God. atheists indeed are usually materialists; the believe there is nothing but "solid matter". they could not be more wrong.
Stonebeard does not speak for all atheists. Atheists by definition do not believe in God. Your assertion that "atheists are usually materialists etc" is a wild generalisation with nothing to substantiate it whatsoever.
Therefore the following is irrelevant...
first of all, the so-called "solid matter" is not so solid at all. an atom is mostly empty space, through which lots of virtual particles run this way and that. an atom is a process, and indeed all of matter is nothing but that: a process. a process, however, is not material at all. everything in the world is a process.
As for the following
so is our consciousness, of course, or our spirit, to let that word enter the discussion. this spirit is, due to its nature as a process, not material at all.
will the spirit somehow survive after we are dead? I don't believe so, since many of the sub-processes which are responsible for its creation end with death. but that does by no means mean the spirit does not exist. it is indeed a stranger notion to say so; how could you utter that statement if it did not exist?
one might as well speculate as to how Santa Claus gets all the presents for all the children in the world onto his sleigh...
|
|
the main argument of atheists usually is: "can you show me God? can I see him, hear him, touch him?" this is the materialist position as well; anything that can't be seen, touched or heard is being denied. so it is not at all a wild generalization
|
 A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: September 24 2009 at 04:38 |
|
Maybe we're all Gods/Goddesses ourselves and we all structure the way of the Earth and the Cosmos.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: September 24 2009 at 12:19 |
Events occuring in a timeless reality is a little too difficult for me to fathom. Of course, anything approaching infinity is beyond human understanding. We can point to it, say "yeah it's kind of like that," but you it's a concept completely outside the realm of our experience.
What is the link between complex molecules and something we'd call life? What forces started the process?
None of the things we observe prove the existence of a higher power, but some of them certainly make you wonder. The biggest problem is that "higher power" can mean alot of things. Whether that power is conscious, or benevolent, or within or without our realm of existence, all impossible to know. Reasonable hunches are possible.
I am very interested in a field of study called complexity which involves "Self-organizing systems," or properties of groups that tend to lead to increased complexity over time. It is possible that this field could actually bolster atheist though by explaining phenomena which just don't make sense mechanistically. Unfortunately, it's very hard to mathematically model well, and some people think it's too "out there." At the same time, little bits and pieces of the field are getting assumed into current scientific thought all the time.
The higher power may still be math at some level.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: September 29 2009 at 08:42 |
|
Although only slightly related, I want to ask a question or two.
I was watching a rather fascinating 3 part series about Cells last night and the general idea, as you are all likely aware, is that all lifeforms have evolved from just one cell.
Well, what I want to ask is this: is it not possible that there could have been more than one identical cell and different life forms have formed from each one and then evolved, rather than one just evolving into whatever it evolved into first (such as an Amoeba) and then eventually evolving into all life that has ever existed on earth.
I realise that that one cell's initial creation was indeed just pure luck and depended on the correct chemicals but is not possible for several to have been formed at the same time?
I am not really scientifically minded, so if this is easily answered, then I do apologise.
My other question is:
If therefore this one cell created all life on earth, what are the possibilities of such a cell forming on other planets? Could there have been a cell created millions of years before the one that created life on earth, or could it be the case it hasn't happened yet. Will it ever happen?
Or maybe cells are made by different chemicals on other planets?
Apologies if I have got some basic facts wrong and please feel free to correct them, if that is indeed the case.
Your insight is much welcomed.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: September 29 2009 at 09:17 |
James,
These are fundamental questions that I don't think have been answered. It is virtually impossible that a cell was the first living thing as it's too complicated to happen de novo. Let me place this firmly out there. Life would never have occurred "by chance" as we conceive of it. All life involves self-sustaining systems and self-organizing systems. But life is not the only thing that does this. Simpler systems can still exhibit these properties and it from one of those simpler systems that life literally evolved as simply a progressively more and more complex self-organizing system.
This idea does not require any kind of divine intervention, but neither does it disprove any such thing either. It's just another example of how elegant and complex the universe we live in is.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 29 2009 at 09:33 |
I'll have a stab at the second question James.
Yes - the laws of physics are the same on every planetary body in the Universe, and the scale of the Universe is so large that statistically it is possible for the chemistry (and thus biology) of single cell life to have emerged. Assuming that this can only occur on planets of a given age, then it could have happened on planets that are older than ours (since our Sun and thus our planet is not specifically unique, nor was it the first or the oldest) and it could happen again by the same logic. Our body chemistry is carbon-based by virtue of the environment we emerged into - from a physics point of view other elements have similar properties as carbon - the most obvious being silicon - here on Earth life is carbon and computers are silicon (we have the technology to make germanium computers but silicon is better, cheaper and easily available in it's crystalline form, we could make carbon computers, but crystalline carbon is a little pricey and difficult to work ), so under different circumstances (pressure heat chemistry) silicon-based lifeforms are feasible. |
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 29 2009 at 09:40 |
Negoba wrote:
James,
These are fundamental questions that I don't think have been answered. It is virtually impossible that a cell was the first living thing as it's too complicated to happen de novo. Let me place this firmly out there. Life would never have occurred "by chance" as we conceive of it. All life involves self-sustaining systems and self-organizing systems. But life is not the only thing that does this. Simpler systems can still exhibit these properties and it from one of those simpler systems that life literally evolved as simply a progressively more and more complex self-organizing system.
This idea does not require any kind of divine intervention, but neither does it disprove any such thing either. It's just another example of how elegant and complex the universe we live in is.
|
I agree (even though I admit to not knowing much about the subject) but there is a huge gap (in terms of geological time) between the "primordial soup" (random collection of amino acids) and the first single-celled lifeform.
|
|
What?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Evolution and Spirituality Thread
