Collins: Why this scientist believes in God

[scavenger]

Source: cnn

"What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?"

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

---

I've believed in these points for a long time. The only difference between his view and mine is I believe there is a possibility of more then one God, being there is not just one of anything else that exist in the universe. So why only one God?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Not LBN

[scavenger]

2. You're right, my bad, the possibility of the Gods or God is old news/nt

[Warren Stupidity]

4. No an editorial or commentary on any subject is not news.

If you would like to have a discussion about religion might I suggest the religion forum?

"1. Do not post opinion pieces, editorials, or other stories that are not news."

[DemBones DemBones]

5. It's a current story about a particular scientist's view of God, though,

and the mods will sort it out. Don't sweat it! :hi:

[DemBones DemBones]

3. I'm another scientist who believes in God.

God's existence cannot be proven but neither can it be proven that God does not exist.

Probably not technically LBN, but a worthy story all the same.

Right wingers tend to believe that all scientists, and all liberals, all Democrats are atheists who "hate God."

I faced this attitude with my students many times; they resented having to take science courses because they thought I must be an atheist and that science teaches that there is no God, neither of which is true.

Democrats really need to make it clear that our Party includes theists of many sorts and nontheists of many sorts.

[katsy]

6. deleted - dupe

[katsy]

7. IMO, Democrats need to make it very clear that

that their job is to run the country not people's religion. If this doesn't get nipped in the bud, we're going to see politicians kowtow to every religious nutjob out there. The republics use these people to get their money/votes and to foster bigotry on their behalf. They drive discontent and intolerance by addressing religion.

Democrats need to tell people to elect them to run their country not their religion.

[callous taoboy]

29. But isn't peer-review science empirically driven?

Isn't it a scientific fallacy to say that because it can't be proven that something doesn't occur or exist then it is possible that it could exist? Can a scientist, for example, state with any authority that life exists on other planets somewhere in the universe without having any observable proof just because it can't be proven that life doesn't exist elsewhere?

I'm reading a great book right now called "Defending Evolution" and it speaks to this issue.

[Bill McBlueState]

34. this is a great point

Collins' best argument is that because you can't prove a negative, you can't prove there are no gods. But the simple fact that one or more gods could possibly exist is no reason to believe the very specific claims of Christianity, or any particular religion.

It's just like you said: we can't prove there isn't life on other planets. But that's no proof that there is life on other planets.

[callous taoboy]

59. "Defending Evolution" is a great book:

Creationism should not be taught in science class because it is not science. There is abundant, empirical, peer-reviewed proof that substantiates evolution while creationism depends on faith and is not backed up by any empirical proof. Creationism does not show up in a single peer-reviewed science paper.

The authors use a criminal justice analogy to drive the point home: Say a defendant's lawyer in a robbery case tries to persuade the jury that his client could not possibly have been the robber because he had stepped into a closet at the time of the robbery and had been transported through time and space to a location thousands of miles away from the scene of the crime. What juror is going to seriously entertain this as a remote possibility? Even if the defendant's lawyer tries to sway the jury by stating that it can't be proven that the defendant didn't enjoy space / time travel at the time of the crime, no juror would entertain such an absurd notion.

[cyborg_jim]

47. Somebody would have to give a consistent definition of 'god' first

Until then whatever people think 'god' is most certainly does not exist.

[Leopolds Ghost]

148. Actually, no, in cosmological science and metaphysics, the best evidence something probably exists:

Is the possibility or likelihood that it may exist.

This is the reasoning many scientists use to say that aliens almost definitely exist. (including both theists, and atheists like Dawkins who think that they've somehow disproven god by proving that aliens evolved).

So your point has been addressed. In fact, this is a corollary of the humanist principle Dawkins leans on so heavily.

Why does this corollary work? Compared to a formation the size of a planet, the universe is nearly infinite. If something is possible, however unlikely, then the probability that it DOES exist somewhere in the universe approaches 1.

Moreover, contra Dawkins, multiverse theory (which he also leans on
heavily in order to claim that the humanist principle disproves God)
actually means that this corollary is also applicable to the probability
God exists. Why is this?

Dawkins claims that the humanist principle by itself refutes the notion that the elegance of creation is PROOF of God, which is a fair enough argument. Most people have probably read about the humanist principle and cosmology. It's the same theory used to explain why life exists on Earth despite the rarity of conditions on Earth.

However, Dawkins goes on to assert that multiverse theory combined with the Humanist principle actually DISPROVES God, because, Dawkins claims, an infinite number of universes will include an infinite number of "broken universes" in which there is no order, only chaos, and life cannot exist. Therefore, per Dawkins, God does not exist because the order and fabric of existence in this universe is merely one possible outcome of an infinite number of possible worlds in which the laws of the universe are entirely different.

There are a whole number of problems with Dawkins' theory, but I will stick to the subject at hand, which is the corollary of the humanist principle that, if something is possible, than over a near-infinity of instances the probability of that something occurring equals 1.

In the case of God, if God is possible, i.e. concievable within a metaphysical framework epistemology of physics, as a conscious entity from which the universe was created, then over an infinity of possible universes which may have been created by God (none of which, per quantum relativity, exist, or they would be a part of this universe) the probability of God's existence approaches 1.

In layman's terms, not only does the probability approach 1 of an alternate universe in which God's existence is directly attested, but moreover: if a framework exists in which an infinity of universes could exist, then that framework is God, because that framework includes the entire scope of human imagination about what is or could be. If you can imagine a world with, say, tangerine trees and marmalade skies, then in terms of the multiverse, that world EXISTS. (In terms of our universe of course it does not exist.) Remember the infinite improbability device from Hitchhiker's Guide? If Dawkin's notion of broken universes is correct, then his theory breaks down because The Multiverse IS that device!

In short:

Narrow Humanist Principle:

Life exists on Earth because we are here to observe it.

Universal Humanist Principle:

The conditions for life on Earth exist because, within our universe, the probability of an Earth-like planet, however small, approaches 1.

Humanist Corollary (The Alien World Argument):

The probability that something possible exists somewhere within the universe (or multiverse, if all worlds within that multiverse operate under the same laws) approaches 1.

Multiversal Humanist Principle: (Dawkins' Weak Postulate)

The conditions described as God and the laws of nature, which permit everything to exist, exist because we are here to observe it. The implication is that other universes (a multiverse) with divergent laws are possible, otherwise this statement is a tautology.

Dawkins' Strong Postulate:

That God cannot exist because an infinite possible universes includes an infinity of universes in which the existence of God is inconcievable. The weak postulate thus explains why God seems to exist in this one.

Leopolds' Rebuttal (Multiversal Humanist Corollary):

(a) An infinity of universes means that the existence of God as the creator of any one universe in which God's existence may be made manifest, if the existence of God is concievable in any such universe, approaches 1, by extension of the Humanist Corollary (Alien Worlds Hypothesis). These universes therefore form a set O (order) of universes that could have been created by God. The larger set O, the more likely that any such universe was created by God (or what would essentially be a God in terms of the universe. The Broken Universes form a set C (chaos) of universes in which God's existence is not obvious. In some of these universes, God's existence can be disproven and therefore, if there is a God, He is not manifest within those alternate universes.

(b) The implication that a framework exists under which an infinity of divergent universes could possibly be said to "exist" on some higher plane outside of our universe, implies that God IS that framework, because descriptions of the two are synonymous. This is true only if such a multi-nomian multiverse exists. Therefore Dawkin's theory breaks down.

Yes, I enjoy the study of metaphysics :evilgrin:

[Jester_11218]

8. Interesting...BUT...

A scientist should know that the lack of understanding does not mean that there is a mystical answer. We are a relatively young life form. Perhaps in time these answers will emerge. Until then people continue to provide the universal answer all...God. An in the mean time they kill and hate others because of their beliefs. It does not seem to be a good formula to me.

[scavenger]

11. You're talking about organized religion. There're like gangs.

such as Christians, Jews and Moslems. Thats what's causing problems in this world.

You're talking about organized religion. There're like gangs.

[Ian David]

9. "The God of The Gaps," aka "The Incredible Shrinking God." n/t

[xchrom]

12. i'm a believer -- but that was hysterical!

i love it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Unity within diversity

You may be right about multiple Gods--it really depends upon your God concept. In the Upanishads, they talk of the One behind all--Bramin. In Lakota spirituality, they talk of the many guiding spirits, the Grandfathers, the Thunder Beings, but behind it all, and included within all, is Great Mystery.

Perhaps we are talking of the same thing--after all, the Dalai Lama once told a group of visiting Sufis: "In Sufism, everthing is. In Buddhism, nothing is. Same thing, no difference."

[bluerum]

13. Why I don't give a flying tater tot.

People are certainly entitled to their beliefs. But why god and bible believers continually climb on the rooftops to shout about why and how their god is/are THE god(s) is beyond me.

Watching the endless stream of these performances makes you start to wonder if their god leaves them with a need to have their beliefs continually validated by others because their own faith is so weak. It seems they reason that after explaining their beliefs so reasonably and sensibly everyone will see the irrefutable truth. Then we can all sit around and bask our souls in the glowing warmth of understanding and belief.

Barf.

edit for grammar.

[scavenger]

15. Yes they are

but how can you sit back in your chair and not even consider what is here with out any reasoning of you're own to back it up with. You're belief of no Gods or God is a belief in itself.

Explain to me how the complex structure of life and the universe came to exist without guidance. I have an experiment for you. Walk outside in you back yard and grab a hand full of dirt and let it fall freely out of your hand onto a table and see what creation it becomes.

[bluerum]

19. I have an experiment for you - try to "pro-create" with yourself.

Your pomposity sickens me.

Because I do not believe as you do, you presume that I have never had deep thoughts and wondered how it all began.

[Odin2005]

21. Read some damn books on the subject before you start your creationist screed

Your ignorance sickens me.

[trotsky]

24. How about an experiment for you?

Take that handful of dirt and pray to your god asking him to make it into new life.

Get back to me with the results, mmkay?

[Goblinmonger]

30. "without any reaonsing of you're (sic) own"

And what reasoning, of your own, do you have for everything. Sounds to me like you have subscribed to the same old god created things bullshit. Hardly "you're own." And how would "there is a mystical god that just created anything" even come close to being reasoning.

You're going to have to pony up a little more if you are going to make it in R/T

[scavenger]

38. I gave you reasoning, you're just to afraid or ignorant to deal with it./nt

[Goblinmonger]

39. But your "reasoning"

just leads to the conclusion that god was created. If the universe is too complex to have just come about, then the god that creates that complex universe would have to be more comples than the universe. Which would DEMAND, based on your "reasoning," that that god was created by an even more complex being, which leads us to an infinite regression.

Please explain your way out of that one with something more stunning and logical than "god just always has been."

[scavenger]

44. It's your choice to come to any conclusion you want .

But by not being specific with your reasoning, and disreguarding mine , it looks to me that you're just trying to convince yourself.

[cyborg_jim]

51. You reasoning is flawed - it's special pleading

To whit:

All complex things require creation by more complex things.
Except god - the most complex thing in existence.
Which didn't require creation.
It's just there.
And that's perfectly fine.
Because god's special.
So ignore my previous inductive argument that says complex things need more complex things to create them.
Unless it's not about god.
Because god's special.
Because I say so.

[cyborg_jim]

48. Ah yes, argument from 'I don't really have a goddamn clue what science says, but I love god!'

Explain to me how the complex structure of life and the universe came to exist without guidance. I have an experiment for you. Walk outside in you back yard and grab a hand full of dirt and let it fall freely out of your hand onto a table and see what creation it becomes.

Thanks Captain Strawman! Now why don't you go pray for the Iraq War to end and see how effective that is!

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cyborg_jim]

64. Well, I never said otherwise

Just pointing out how utterly nonsensical your argument is.

That you thought I was providing an actual counter-point shows how thoroughly off the mark you are when it comes to what constistutes an argument of substance.

[scavenger]

69. Then why waste your time

Have you been appointed to speak for everyone in the forum to decide what constitutes an argument of substance? You think people are to stupid to decide for themselves?

[cyborg_jim]

71. Not at all

Which is why your bullshit has been widely seen as such.

The point is that you are the one who needs to get to grips with this.

[opiate69]

115. "You think people are to stupid to decide for themselves?"

No..only people who are too stupid to know the difference between "Too" and "To", and "You're" and "Your".

[Evoman]

137. Grammer nazi.

Nice criticism, Hitler.

;)

[opiate69]

140. Hehe..

:evilgrin:

"Am I wrong?!?!"

[bowens43]

14. "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?"

This statement alone, "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" is enough to know that this guy has nothing of value to offer.
The universe having a 'beginning' doesn't imply that there was a 'who' to create it. That's typical creationist nonsense.

The god of the gaps argument has never beena winner.

[scavenger]

16. see post #15 /nt

[Goblinmonger]

31. blah, blah, blah

what created god then? Even anything complex must have had a creator, explain god's existence without being infinitely regressive. Hint: you can't.

[scavenger]

45. What do you have?

I never said I could explain The existence of God. It is my belief that the Gods or God have always existed, because of the complexity of life and the universe.

[Evoman]

52. It amuses some of us that you think that you can explain the existence of the universe.

But for some reason, you can't explain the existence of god. How can you be so sure of one, and know nothing about the other?

[Goblinmonger]

76. What do I have?

Well, I will rely on science to answer the questions as to how we got here and not turn to some magical being that just "made it all happen" but does not need a creator because god can be timeless but the world can't.

We are here because everything was exactly right for us to be here. If some very minor things were just a tiny bit different, we would never have come into existance. To me, THAT makes us more special than some god creating us and then treating us like shit. Read The God Delusion for a fantastic take on the requirements for us to come into existence by someone that knows a shitload more than I about science.

[scavenger]

83. You hide behind science.

Give me a scientific example as to how everything could be just right in order for us to be here besides you just saying so without reasoning.

At lease with my belief I gave you some reasoning to back it up with , I'm not going to repeat myself for you because you can't deal with it, its in the thread, take it or leave it, the choice is yours.

[cyborg_jim]

84. Earth

Give me a scientific example as to how everything could be just right in order for us to be here besides you just saying so without reasoning.

You don't really understand what you're talking about so you can't hope to construct sensible questions.

[Goblinmonger]

87. I gave you an example of something to read

that dealt with the matter better than I could. I am not a trained scientist; I am an English teacher. I defer to those that do it for a living. Dawkins gives a good discussion of this in The God Delusion. The book is sitting on my shelf at school (a collegue borrowed it) or I would give you the exact page numbers so you wouldn't have to sort through it.

Your particular "reasoning" does not answer a load of questions. A hell of a lot more than science has, I would imagine. How do you know it was your god and not one of the greek gods that created the earth? How about a Hindu god? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Any one of those is just as valid as your belief. I think that a Keebler Elf created the universe when a new cookie experiment went awry. Mine is just as valid as yours. At least science offers some specific reasons why we have the species we have, how the evolutionary process occurred, why the life forms we have now were the natural outcome of the atmosphere, chemical makeup of the planet etc.

The only person hiding here is you.

[scavenger]

89. What you're saying is that you have no opinion of your own.

so you put your faith in others. Thats your choice.

What makes you believe the God or God I'm talking about have a name? You can ramble off all the names you read about but it means nothing to me.

However I'll take this opportunity to expand on my theory. Have you ever seen a uncontrolled explosion accomplish anything but destruction? Did you know that controlled explosions allow us to fly machines in the air, drive us to and from work and bring us our food to the store, with the combustible engine. The perfect timing that moves the part in the engine is cause by precise controlled explosions created by intelligent beings.

Use that on a larger scale concerning the big boom ant tell me with reasoning of your own as to how a massive uncontrolled explosion could create what we have today without intelligence . Please use reasoning such as I did to backup your views.

[Goblinmonger]

92. So now because

I am not a scientist that has studied the beginnings of life, there must be a god that created the earth? That is your reasoning? I have read the scientific discoveries and discussions of scientists that are trained in the field. They have good reasoning and can explain it in a way that makes sense to me and is logically consistant with observable data. Just because I have not conducted experiments in the big bang does not mean that it is not true.

Can you please explain to me, in your own reasoning, how a jet engine works. Can you please explain the workings of an internal combustion engine and how it powers our vehicles in your own reaonsing, not with something you have read somewhere else? Can you please explain in your own reasoning why rivers flow the way they do. Can you explain how plate tectonics works based on your own reaonsing and not from something you have been taught or read somewhere else? Certainly you can't. That doesn't mean that magic makes jets fly, cars move, rivers flow, and earthquakes happen.

Get a grip. Just because all your buddies in your mom's basement tell you that you are wicked smart at arguments doesn't make it so.

[scavenger]

93. Why don't you go out and buy a cheep fixer upper motorcycle

and you can learn about the combustible engine yourself, first hand.

[Goblinmonger]

94. So just head in there and give it a shot?

That seems like advice to get myself killed. If I know nothing about the combustion engine, how can I possibly make it work? You were the one saying I needed to know about the big bang intimately with my own reasoning and not based on someone else.

[scavenger]

98. I thought you believed in science.

Apply yourself and experiment, or sit back and play stupid, its up to you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. An uncontrolled explosion accomplishing something other than destruction:

Margrit Nitz notes that each plant has its own mechanism for release, which can make harvesting a challenging, but fun, learning experience. She says it is important to pick seed pods before the first frost, while they are still green. (Later they will air-dry to brown.) This is extremely important with jewelweed or spotted touch-me-not, for example. “Once the seed pods show even a little brown, any slight touch – a fingernail or hair – can cause them to explode, making it very difficult to recoup the seeds,” she warns. Similarly, it is difficult to capture seeds of the wild geranium, with its rifle-like trigger mechanism, Nitz says. “The four ends curl up and the seeds explode like 50 feet out.”

http://chicagowildernessmag.org/issues/fall2001/gardeningseeds.html

Now that we've disposed of your red herring about uncontrolled explosions, will you explain why you think it's valid to claim that 'God' had no creator, but that the universe had to have one?

[cyborg_jim]

110. I see fallicious inductive argument is your weapon of choice

[cosmik debris]

112. More pseudo science

"Have you ever seen a uncontrolled explosion accomplish anything but destruction?"

Why yes, I have. You might be familiar with a local uncontrolled nuclear fusion reaction (explosion) commonly known to us Earthlings as the Sun. Not only does it take small atoms and make bigger atoms, but it provides energy to sustain life on our planet.

You really should study science just a little bit before you make such silly analogies.

[charlie]

114. Or more cataclysmically, supernovae

The recipe for terrestrial life looks like something from a Chinese menu: Twice-cooked Organic Surprise. If that's another example of supernaturally guided explosions, then the Creator really, really likes cooking with gunpowder.

[Rabrrrrrr]

121. Oh, man, that's fucking beautiful! A new weapon in the Creationists bag of bullshit.

The "Internal combustion engine ergo God" argument.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

That's just as good as the Peanut Butter argument, or your other piece of pure crap, the "drop a handful of dirt" argument.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh, man, seriously, you're funny.

What's next? Because my kitchen chair isn't evolving into a recliner, God must exist?

Oh, and by the way, my last theory about the chair IS using PRECISELY your kind of reasoning. I hope you see how fucking asinine it is.

[cosmik debris]

124. My kitchen chair evolved into a Lay-Z-Boy

But it took 2.7 Billion years, so I missed the big show. I predict that it will evolve into a settee and then a full-blown sectional sofa in another few hundred million years. I can't wait to see whether it is leather or fabric! :rofl:

[Rabrrrrrr]

146. It'll be portly and maroon either way.

I bet.

:rofl:

[TacticalPeek]

17. Breaking - ontological perplexities abound!

Latest paradoxes and film at 11!

[LiberalFighter]

18. He is not an authority on god

Why does mathematics work?

I'm not so sure that the universe is so finely tuned. If it was then why are their earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, meteorites, why are there so many planets without living beings?

[scavenger]

22. Who claimed to be an authority on God?

All the thing you mention in your post is part of life. The earth is a living planet. The oceans flows, the blood in your body flows. You create winds your self when you inhale and exhale and when you sneeze, consider that a miniature hurricane. , when you piss consider that rain, you will die, and so will the earth, in time.

[Bill McBlueState]

35. the mathematics thing is especially bizarre

If someone made a quantitative statement that didn't work, it wouldn't be mathematics; it would just be wrong.

Mathematics works by definition -- only statements that "work" are part of what we call math.

If a+b didn't equal b+a, it wouldn't say anything about gods; it would just be a sign that we got algebra wrong.

[rcdean]

20. Scientists who don't beieve in a Creative Force (god) amuse me.

I have worked with the NCSE in their worthy battle against creationism, and salute them for it.

But I am amazed at the dogmatic atheism that characterizes so many whose very job is to trace effects to causes and vice versa.

It's also amazing to see these folks argue that order can descend from disorder and that something can come from nothing.

There is a vast difference between:
--Acknowledging the existence of an intelligent power and creative force that formed the universe
VS
--Claiming there is a God "who" intervenes in our lives, knows and cares who we are individually, keeps our innermost thoughts and transgressions in a little black book, demands to be worshipped and spoke to Jewish tribal leaders on mountaintops thousands of years ago.

There is a vast difference between recognizing that humans are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe and claiming that the bible is "the word of god."

Scientists from Spinoza to Einstein, as well as most of our Founding Fathers, believed in a creative force that is intelligent, enormously powerful, and profoundly rational. They did not believe, however, that any of the modern religions reflect reality correctly.

In fact they believed that we are incapable of knowing much at all about this quite awesome force beyond what we can learn from examining the nature of creation. Claims of humans to more knowledge of "god" than that are mere mythology. As the great deist, Tom Paine, wrote: "I believe in god. There the matter rests."

[trotsky]

23. "order can descend from disorder and that something can come from nothing"

Funny. Theologians argue the exact same thing - about their god(s).

[Goblinmonger]

32. Careful

Spinoza, Einstein, a good amount of the founding fathers were more talking about the "creator" in the deist sense at best. Notice they don't use the word "god" but "creative force" or "creator" or sometihing similar. To claim that Einstein believed in god is sketchy at best.

[WhollyHeretic]

42. "It's also amazing to see these folks argue that order can descend from disorder and that something

can come from nothing."

:rofl: :rofl:
Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you speak of a creator? Did it just come from nothing?

[Stuckinthebush]

25. But who created the "god"?

Once we descend into this hole there is no escape. The black hole of causality!

I think most scientists would agree that the question of a "god" is irrelevant to the scientific process. It can't be explored scientifically and it can't be answered. It is a philosophical question. From a scientific standpoint, to say that there has to be a "god" who created it all is akin to throwing one's hands up and saying "I give!"

[scavenger]

28. I believe the Gods or God, always have been, and always will be.

and so are we and other life forms. What was before the big boom and this universe? Another universe and another big boom, and another prior to that and then another,ect...And what is ahead after this universe is gone? Or if you believe the universe always has been and not created, then why can't the same thing be said about the God's or God.

[Stuckinthebush]

37. But my point is that it is a unanswerable question

and in effect, a nonsensical question from a scientific viewpoint. For a scientist to answer "god" to the question of "what began it all" is akin to saying "Hell, I don't know!"

In my opinion science and religion don't mix. They are two separate ways of viewing the universe/world. Religion is a faith based philosophical system whereas science is not. This does not mean one is better or worse, it just means that the two don't mix.

I remember once in a social psychology class in undergraduate school, we were talking about different forms of psychology. I asked about the pseudo-science of parapsychology. The professor laughed and said that indeed it was a form of psychology, but he didn't know how any psychologist could believe that stuff. I noted in front of the class that the professor was a practicing Christian and attended church every Sunday (it was a Presbyterian based college so we knew this). He agreed but didn't see the point. I said, "Well then, how can any psychologist believe that stuff either."

He grinned and said, "Great question! I guess the answer is by partitioning the mind."

[scavenger]

41. I understand your point

but but I also realize from the realities around me that all science isn't perfect.

Let me ask you something. If your sense of self being is here today in the body you are in, why wouldn't it be possible for your sense of self being to be here at another time in the past or future in another life form? Something "has happened once with success, like you being here today, that is scientific proof with results in my opinion

Keep in mind when living things die they don't stop to exist, they recycle themselves within the earth to create other life forms. Why would your sense of self being be any different?

[cyborg_jim]

53. Um, because the sense of self requires a complex *living* organism to manifest?

[scavenger]

55. Many complex living organism are born on the earth everyday/NT

[cyborg_jim]

56. And how does that allow the sense of self to achieve your reincarnation scenario precisely?

[scavenger]

60. If you want an exact blueprint, I don't have it. Never the less, how does that kill my theory./nt

[cyborg_jim]

63. Your hypothesis has nothing but idle speculation

Who gives a crap - any fool can idly speculate all day long.

[scavenger]

65. Its more then what you have

If you don't give a crap, then why even bother posting? No one's stopping you from moving on.

[cyborg_jim]

67. I have science on my side

What have you got? Can you even give a precise articulation of what 'self' is? I bet not. I doubt you've even really tried very hard to think about your proposal beyond that fact it sounds very nice - to you at least.

[scavenger]

70. How does your science prove me wrong? Please be specific. /nt

[cyborg_jim]

72. It does not 'prove you wrong' per se

It is more the case that your proposed hypothesis has no evidence for it and has no established possible known mechanism for its execution. As such it is upon you to show it is true, not for anyone else to show it is false.

But you are still going to have to be more precise about your terms before a more full explanation can be provided. Start with a cogent definition of 'self'.

[scavenger]

74. I have more to suport it, then you do to defeat it.

The only thing I can comprehend from what you're saying is ...I don't believe you no matter what you say.


I have no problem with that.

[cyborg_jim]

75. You have more to support it than I do to defeat it?

Then please, go ahead. Provide something more cogent. Start with a cogent definition of 'self'.

The only thing I can comprehend from what you're saying is ...I don't believe you no matter what you say.

Pretty much. What you say is irrelevant. It's what you can demonstrate that is important.

[scavenger]

77. I have no problem with your opinion of me or my views

and I have no problem letting the thread speak for itself. I believe most people that come here are intelligent enough to decide as to what makes an argument or not.Why should it be up to you, or anyone else?

Im not forcing anything down anyone's throat, you are.

[cyborg_jim]

78. It's a matter of what is valid and what is not valid

People make invalid arguments all the time without recognising as such - intelligent or not.

Now, are you going to stop going round the tangential issues and get to the meat of this - what have you got to support your idea that the 'self' can 'reincarnate'.

[scavenger]

90. You can only dictate what is valid or not, only to yourself./nt

[Evoman]

91. There a magical genie lamp orbitting Uranus, and Hilter is slowly

making his way to words it with a bicycle spaceship pedelled by Mark Fuhrman and Nicholas Cage (and directed by Mel Gibson). As soon as they reach it, they will wish for the extermination of all Jews.

Valid belief or Crazy-as-fucking-shit belief?

[Goblinmonger]

95. You said "Uranus"

[Evoman]

96. Grow up Goblinmonger, and quit making fun of my valid beliefs.

I had hope for awhile...after I saw Nicholas Cage's head on fire. But it turns out it was a movie. Get ready to pray to our new genie-powered Hitler god.

[cyborg_jim]

108. So that's a no, you aren't going to get to the point any time soon

*Sigh* I was so looking forward to having my ass kicked in this debate too.

[scavenger]

123. Debates are nothing more then a exchange of opinion

No one gets their ass kicked in a dabate, However if you're looking for an ass kicking, I suggest a vacation in Iraq.

[cyborg_jim]

128. Ooh zing!

So you've still got fuck all then?

[Stuckinthebush]

73. Sense of being is purely biological

I have a sense of being because I have a well developed brain that allows me to sense the world in such a way.

Does a plankton have the similar sense of being. I'd say absolutely not, but that plankton does have a sense of being enough to have survival mechanisms.

Yes, all life is recycled. This makes the universe a fantastic place. The recycling of matter doesn't automatically mean that thought and "sense of being" is recycled as well. When my body dies, then the firing of millions of neurons ceases as well. That interconnectedness of neurons makes me who I am...not some intangible soul force that can't be measured or observed. My neurons and my body will be recycled, but not the exact energy produced between the firing of neurons.

I contend that what we humans have with religion is so uniquely human in that it is our narcissistic nature that makes us disbelieve that WE could cease to exist in our present form. It is undeniable that our bodies cease to be, so we invent a "soul" and a "god" to insure that our essence will be preserved.

So to answer your ultimate question of "why would your sense of self being be any different" in terms of recycling, then I'd say that your sense of self being is wholly dependent upon the vessel...your body. Once that vessel goes then the sense of self being goes as well. We have no proof of anything differently, we have no way to scientifically examine it. It can't be verified or denied so it belongs in the realm of philosophy. Scientists don't work in that world.

[cyborg_jim]

80. Science is philosophy with results!

[Stuckinthebush]

102. LOL!

OK...good point!

[scavenger]

103. What kind of reasoning is that?

The only thing you're saying here is .. the less intelligence you have , the less self being you have.

It shouldn't have taking you all those key strokes to make that opinion.

How do you know a plankton doesn't have a equal self being as you? There are people born every day with brain disorders so I guess you feel that you have more of a sense of self being then a retarded child does.
Many people with brain disorders would not be able to survive at all without help from others, so with your reasoning a plankton has more of a sense of self being then they do.

I do not agree.

[Stuckinthebush]

104. Surely you aren't saying that a plankton has as much sense of being

as you?

That might be nice as a pot-induced naval gazing exercise in a college dorm, but it doesn't fly in other circumstances.

Clearly, you have a much more developed brain which affords you the opportunity to "sense" your being in a fashion that a plankton can not. Do I think you have a greater sense of being than a dog? Yes. A rabbit? Sure. Even an ape.

Sense of being in this context is the ability to introspect about one's existence and her place in the universe. While it is fun to say that we don't know if a plankton can do that it isn't realistic to really believe that.

The point I was trying to make in the earlier post was that we humans, due to our evolved brain, have the ability and luxury of thinking about such things as "sense of being" and that we have to come up with stories which assist us in continuing to feel special. Hence, god and gods are born!

[Goblinmonger]

88. Because my "sense of self being"

is a result of electrical activity in my brain. When I die, so does my brain, hence so does my "sense of self being."

You're up.

[scavenger]

97. You will live forever one way or another

Electricity is energy that can travel. The brain is used to control the body and store memory and your self being. Your self being can be a form of energy that we can not yet understand, when the brain can not support it, it moves on.

I can not prove this, its just my opinion. But I'd love to see you try to disprove it .

[cyborg_jim]

100. Despite what popular opinion might say

We are chemical electrical machines. Saying out 'being' can move on means nothing in the face of any definitive definition of being.

[Goblinmonger]

106. So now you've moved on to another fallacy.

It isn't up to me to prove a negative. It is my opinion that Hitler is alive and orbiting our planet as an invisible being. I cannot prove this, it's just my opinion. But I'd love to see you try to disprove it. See the absurdity of your argument?

Show me a time where your "self being" has passed on electrically. I'm sure you have only anecdotal evidence that is not verifiable. That might be enough for you, but stop acting like you are basing your beliefs on reasoning and rationality, because you aren't.

[Evoman]

113. Where does Nicholas Cage fit into your beliefs?

I think we are pretty similar, in that we believe Hitler is in space...but I believe in the universel genie lamp as well.

[scavenger]

118. The fact is you proved my point with your own reasoning .

You said that sence of self being is the combination of living organism and electricity . We all know that electricity moves and dead organisms are recycled into the earth to be reused in creating new born organisms.

If the to examples that YOU use "(organism and electricity) that makes self being possible, doesn't stop to exist at death, then neither would your sence of self Being, based on your own reasoning.

[cosmik debris]

120. If you are going to talk about electricity

You really should know something about it. You lack of understanding of the basic concepts of bio-electricity is appalling by itself, but your pretense of speaking authoritatively is flabbergasting!

[scavenger]

126. What about you?

bio-electricity Is energy that is generated and stored by the body and is movable, don't believe me? Try taking a bath with an electric eel and see for yourself.

[cyborg_jim]

129. LOL

You really need to understand the fact you don't know what you are talking about - namely you don't seem to have the first clue what electricity is.

[cosmik debris]

130. More silly comparisons

The human body can't produce more than about 5 millivolts. Nothing in the range of an eel. It is like comparing a Vespa to a Diesel locomotive.

Yes that type of electricity is movable through conductors with little or no Resistance. But 5 millivolts can't travel without severe voltage drops. Dry skin will stop all electrical signals dead in their tracks. Next time you are in the hospital, check out the ECG electrodes. They REQUIRE a conductive gel because the skin prevents transmission of the electricity.

You obviously know nothing about electricity. And even less about biology.

[scavenger]

136. They use the conductive jell using the electric chair too.

ECG electrodes REQUIRE a conductive gel because instruments used with the jell need it to get the best possible reading it to get the best possible results.

I assumed you would know this, being you know so much about electricity.

[cosmik debris]

141. close, but no cigar.

They require a conductive gel because the voltage drop across the resistant skin is so great that no signal can penetrate. certainly not a signal of less than 5 millivolts. It goes back to V=IR remember?

[scavenger]

143. close is good enough for me.

I thought you said the skin stopped electricity dead in its tracks in your previous post. Anyway it doesn't matter because conductivity isn't the only way electricity can travel. Dust particles can carry electrical charges, even lower then the voltage that you said the human body has. And dust travels.

It doesn't look like any of us are going to change our views concerning the existence of the God or Gods and I'm getting bored with the topic so I'll just move on and let this be my last post, but I will come back and read your response.

Thanks for the debate and the electricity lesson.

[cyborg_jim]

144. You like to confuse everything together into a big mish-mash don't you?

Dust particles can carry electrical charges, even lower then the voltage that you said the human body has. And dust travels.

Statically charged dust? Sure. Now, where's the signal? Oh that's right - there is none.

That's not electrical conduction. Sorry.

[cosmik debris]

145. You are still confused

static electricity on dust particles is NOT the same as current electricity in the body. Once again you show your lack of education and you do it so proudly.

keep digging.

[Goblinmonger]

133. I think the realities about electricity

were clearly covered by cosmik. YOU tend to disregard the electrical facts. That is not my fallacy but your deliberate ignorace.

[scavenger]

139. What ever makes you feel good is fine with me ./nt

[cosmik debris]

107. What a load of crap

The electricity in the brain ranges from 0 to 5 millivolts. it can't travel through any conductor with a Resistance over about 5 ohms. So if you die in air or in a vacuum, that energy can't travel. Period.

Furthermore, that chemical energy in the brain is created when a Calcium/Sodium/Potassium imbalance is greater on one side of a cell membrane as a result of the mitochondria creating electrical charges inside the cell. Once the mitochondria stops producing those charges, the imbalance reaches equilibrium and the electrical charges are neutralized.

There is your Biology/Chemistry lesson for the day. Now quit sounding so ignorant.

[scavenger]

119. Not true

Your brain is grounded to the body and the body can store enough of electricity in it to give you a shock and even create a spark when grounded. I don't believe there is anyone alive that has not felt the effect of a static electrical shock as it is leaving to body.

And how much electricity does it take to make a sense of self being possible?

[cosmik debris]

122. Static electricity exists on the SURFACE of the body

NOT the interior. If it is not discharged to ground it will dissipate (reach equilibrium) within a few seconds.

You really should pick up a book sometime so that you won't look so silly when you try to blow smoke at other people.

[scavenger]

125. Its a stationary electric charge built up on an insulating material

The body consist of around 90 percent water and water is a conductor of electricity.

[cosmik debris]

127. ABOUT FACE!

First you say it moves, now you say it is stationary. Have you even been to school?

FYI Pure water is an insulator, not a conductor.

Dry skin has a Resistance measured in Mega-Ohms.

Keep digging!

[scavenger]

131. The water you drink is not pure.

Don't think its a conductor. Take a bath with a pluged in radio in the tub with you.

[cosmik debris]

132. Ok, you're not making sense

Do you think AC current is the same as DC current?

Do you really believe that the body can produce 110V AC?

Do you know what V=IR means?

Do you have any knowledge or experience with bio-chemistry or electricity besides what you have read about toasters and eels?

Keep digging. I'm really enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself.

[scavenger]

138. You're grabbing for straws.

[cosmik debris]

142. Oh Come On,

You can do better than that. Say something else silly. I'm depending on you for my amusement this afternoon. Don't let me down.

Keep digging.

[cyborg_jim]

134. What is the conductor in water?

Come on - this is basic shit - what is required for an electric current to flow?

[cosmik debris]

135. God's will of course!

:rofl: :thumbsup:

The Father, The Son, and the Holy Volts! :)

[WhollyHeretic]

43. Why add the extra complexity to the equation?

There is no evidence for it.

[poorinnaples]

26. Does it matter???

Maybe, in a more practical sense, as a taxpayer, I think we spend far too much, under the guise of science, simply trying to prove one side of the equation. What does it matter if "God" does or doesn't exist?

I tend to lean toward the Jefferson model, & accept his Bible as my own, but whether my neighbor believes as I do, is of absolutely no concern of mine.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Bottom line, I have just as much trouble trying to grasp the concept of "infinity", as I do that there is a God. It has been my experience that there's a beginning & end to all things, & whether it all began with a "Big Bang", or a Creator is a trivial matter. We're here, just the same.

Just as there are so-called "religious leaders" who promote themselves, as people that can explain it all, I believe there's a group of scientists/physicists who try to convince us that they can somehow understand the theory of "infinity", to try to convince people they're somehow the brightest people, on the planet, when in fact, they can no more understand the concept, than you are I. I see the "religious leaders", & the world's "leading scientists/physicists", as cut from the same cloth. They exist simply relying on the idea, that you're too dumb, to consider these things for yourself, & arrive at your own conclusions.

At the end of the day, what does it matter? As with so many things, & since he did found our party, & I believe he was one of the most brilliant Americans, who ever lived, I defer to Jefferson.

As taxpayers, we could save hundreds of billions of dollars, & put it to better use, simply by accepting that we don't know the answer, & doubtfully ever will, & even if we somehow find the solution, what does it gain us?

It's not that I oppose science, not at all, but I just feel it could be put to much more practical use, than trying to prove, or disprove, the ultimate question.

* * * *

"You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819


"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

[Bill McBlueState]

36. a question

You say,

...as a taxpayer, I think we spend far too much, under the guise of science, simply trying to prove one side of the equation.

Can you estimate how much tax money has been spent trying to prove whether god(s) exist? I wasn't aware that this was a big research expenditure.

[poorinnaples]

46. Not a problem...

Actually, I'd rather my tax dollar not be used trying to prove either side of the equation.

But, under the official title of "Trying To Prove God Doesn't Exist", my best guess is zero, but under the guise of attempting to prove "infinity", "the Big Bang", etc. are anything more than unprovable theories, & while so many people seem to accept these "theories" as common knowledge, when, in fact, they've never been proven, & doubtfully ever will be, & as the "research" costs the national Treasury hundreds of billions, in the process.

I honestly doubt most folks can even wrap their minds around the concepts of God, infinity, or "the Big Bang", but as Twain so eloquently portrayed human nature, in his "The Mysterious Stranger", in order "to stand well in his neighbor's eye", too many people say "God", "infinity", "the Big Bang", etc. make perfect logic, when they can no more begin to understand the theories, than they could build a space shuttle.

The point I was attempting to make is, at the end of the day, what does it gain us to even attempt to explain where we came from, especially in light of our burgeoning national deficit & debt? Even if we could disprove God exists, or prove the universe goes on forever, is it worth the costs, & what does it gain us?

Personally, I feel the money could be better used to try to solve problems of the here, & now, like maybe helping take care of our neighbors, who may be unable to provide for themselves, etc.

That's my "theory", & you can take it, or leave it, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

[scavenger]

49. I have no problem with your opinion

I also believe church's should pay taxes .

[poorinnaples]

57. Absolutely...

Considering, by any definition, the vast majority are money making enterprises, as much as anything. If you're pretty much worthless, for anything else, start a church, & claim to be a "preacher".

[Bill McBlueState]

62. WMAP

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP, provided what many consider to be the best data yet in support of current big bang models. The mission has led to over 200 publications in refereed journals.

Know what it cost?

$150 million.

That's 0.03% of the annual defense budget for a better understanding of the universe we live in. Not bad. It's not proving anything about gods, but the evidence in support of current big bang models is right there.

[poorinnaples]

66. And...

What does it gain us? Maybe in some circles $150 million is a trivial amount of cash, but where I come from, it's a lot of money.

As for the defense budget, I oppose the vast majority of that, too. Protecting "the homeland" has nothing to do with imperialist boondoggles, around the globe. "Honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" makes perfectly good sense, as a foreign policy.

And even if you could prove the "big bang" theory, it still wouldn't settle the argument, a "fool's errand". But just because it's so important, to some folks, doesn't mean it's the role of government, & taxpayers, to provide the money.

Is the purported "benefit" worth the costs? Actually, what is the purported benefit?

[cyborg_jim]

68. Is the "benefit" of "god" worth the costs?

What ever happened to the idea that simply increasing our knowledge is reward enough?

[poorinnaples]

79. Someday...

We'll all be able to answer that one for ourselves.

But, whatever happened with having a specific goal in mind, & considering the cost/benefit, before possibly wasting literally billions of dollars, simply for the hell of it?

What are we exactly trying to prove, & does the benefit, justify the expenditure?

Bottom line, the good old USA's at least $9 trillion in the red. In a situation like this, maybe it's time for every American to start considering cost/benefit. If "simply increasing our knowledge is reward enough", then maybe the money would be better spent, trying to explore unanswered questions, on our own planet. It might be interesting to note, that with all our modern brilliance, we still can't even figure out, how the pyramids were built. Obviously, we're not as smart, as some may believe, we are.

[Evoman]

81. Whenever someone complains that science costs too much..I think to myself.

Well...what if we could learn to make replicators, like on Star Trek. Taking garbage and waste, and changing the atomic composition to make things we need...like food, or artifical meat, or homes, etc.

That would solve almost all our resource problems. Now, how do you research a replicator. Well, first you need to learn about other subjects...physical chemistry, physics, organic chemistry, etc. A lot of scientific studies in these fields seem like dead ends, but you never know what one study will lead to, or who will build on your theory.

Pure knowledge is never a waste. Even if you don't like learning for the sake of learning, you can't predict when you will need that knowledge, or where it will lead.

[cyborg_jim]

82. There are many viable hypotheses as to how the pyramids may have been constructed

But we can never really know for sure because we simply don't have any evidence as to how it was actually done. That's not a failure of science - that's a failure of history.

[Bill McBlueState]

86. specific goals?

That's not how research works.

We would never have had TVs if someone had set out in the 19th century saying, "I'm gonna invent a picture tube!" It took decades of weirdos in lab coats experimenting without any clear goal in mind in order to develop the theory of atomic physics that we had to have before anyone could invent modern electronics.

[poorinnaples]

99. Raises a good point?

How much of that research was funded by the taxpayer?

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. Some probably was done through funds ultimately donated by government

For instance, the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge was where the electron was discovered. Much of the initial funding for the colleges that make up the university came from property donated by kings and queens (hence names like "King's" and "Queens'"), or from property that Henry VIII confiscated from the Roman Catholic church, and used to found Trinity College.

[moggie]

105. Many people support your viewpoint

A great many people in Asia and Europe would be delighted to see America cut back on research, so that the financial benefits of future spin-offs can go to countries which continue to believe pure science worth pursuing.

While we're on the topic of waste: I represent the Society for the Conservation of Punctuation, and I'd like to point out that your comma footprint is wildly excessive. Have you considered donating some of your superfluous commas to those DUers who can't afford apostrophes?

[poorinnaples]

117. Last time I checked...

Commas, were, free, last, time, I, checked, but, given, our, current, state, of, affairs, &, with, folks, like, the, "Society, for, the, Conservation, of, Punctuation", lurking, around, I'm, sure, they're, soon, to, be, taxed, &, regulated, or, prohibited, &, it'll, be, done, to, protect, the, children. Don't, want, little, Jack, &, Jill, to, get, hooked, on, that, deadly, punctuation.

And, as, far, as, research, goes, why, would, Asia, need, bother, the, multi-nationals, disguised, as, "American, industry" will, donate, it, to, China, for, free?

[Bill McBlueState]

85. a lot of money compared to what?

Compared to the other things the federal government spends its money on, origins research is a tiny amount.

Clearly, $150 million is a lot to most people. But compared to the federal budget, which is up around a trillion dollars annually, a one-time $150 million expense is almost nothing. It's fifty cents per American.

One of the things that happens in a healthy society is that money gets spent on exploration. Whether that's the exploration of the human condition through art and literature, or the exploration of the natural world through science, a modern society should be able to fund exploration AND meet the basic needs of its citizens. One objective shouldn't have to wait for the other.

The evidence in support of the big bang does settle arguments, by the way. Steady-state cosmology was a legitimate, widely-embraced hypothesis fifty years ago, but thanks to observatories like WMAP, none of those 200+ papers I linked to tries to argue in favor of a steady-state universe. If that's not settling an argument, I don't know what is.

[poorinnaples]

101. Trump, Buffet, Gates, & Soros...

Would all consider $150 million to be a lot of money. It's a lot of cash, anyway you cut it, & "the federal budget's" a financial castrophe, thanks to Bush & his party's raping the American taxpayer, & passing the Treasury along, to his cronies, under the spoils system. Winner takes all, & they did.

[mainer]

27. If there is a god, he sure doesn't give a hoot about us

Considering how much misery he allows mankind to suffer. He would have to be a selfish, uninvolved creature who got things started and then moved on to other things, not caring how badly things turned out. Sorta like George Bush.

Really, though, by saying you BELIEVE means you claim something exists for which there is absolutely no proof. I would think that agnosticism -- allowing that He MIGHT exist, you just want more evidence -- would be more characteristic of a scientist.

[Bill McBlueState]

33. Collins doesn't give us any reasons to believe in a god

At best, he convinces us that we can't prove there isn't a god. Your article quotes him,

...one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

He has to set up a pretty big strawman, that atheists claim there is no God. But many atheists make a claim that's much easier to defend: Gods may exist, but there's no evidence for them, so we're not going to believe in them. It's just like a teacup orbiting Mars. Such a thing may exist, but there's no evidence for it, so we're not going to believe in it.

Collins claims that the existence of one or more gods is plausible. And that's fine; science does not rule out the possibility that something may exist somewhere in the universe that could be labeled "god." Especially since theists all seem to disagree about the properties of any putative gods. But Collins then leaps from that plausibility argument to the specific claim that Christianity is the "right" religion:

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

This leap has no logical basis. He only bought into Christianity because it made him feel better. And any scientist who constructs an argument on such shaky grounds is a pretty poor mascot for the believers.

[More Than A Feeling]

40. I used to believe in those points, too. I changed my mind.

The meaning of life is something that everyone has to choose for themselves, and that is actually a much more reassuring proposition than "the meaning of life has been preordained by a deity." For one, its easier to find out, and easier to change, if the circumstances require that. Otherwise, we're talking about a feudal, hierarchal system where everyone is forced into a role by someone who gave you no say in the matter, and you have no ability to suggest that maybe, just maybe, they made a mistake. How they made the decision is shrouded in mystery. There is no transparency, no accountability, and no appeal.

You are here because your parents made a decision to bring a new person into the world.

I don't know for sure why mathematics works. It's something I've never been overly interested in. Just because I don't know the answer, is no reason to make up an answer to cover that lack of knowledge, then insist that because I don't know it right now, it must be supernatural in origin.

I asked a question about the beginning of the universe, and it was pointed out to me that what came before is currently unknowable, and at any rate, has no effect on what came afterward, because of the nature of the big bang. I was directed to "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking.

The fine-tuning argument was actually the one that convinced me that there was a god in the first place. The implication is that something must have wanted them to be that way, or else it wouldn't have happened. But if physical constants weren't that way, we wouldn't be around to ask the question, and we don't know that life wouldn't have existed in some other fashion. Again, lack of knowledge is not a reason to posit supernatural causes.

A lot of things were once thought to be supernatural, and we later realized that they aren't. That explanation doesn't have a good track record.

[cyborg_jim]

54. There's nothing mystical to it

I don't know for sure why mathematics works. It's something I've never been overly interested in.

I don't see what the big mystery is - it sounds like this guy has never heard of anything other than the standard mathematical system. There are many others. Mathematics is just a set of symbols and rules for manipulating them. One of those sets of rules and symbols happens to be useful for representing our universe. If it weren't then we'd have to be living in an inconsistent universe and all bets would be off - science would be pretty useless. Otherwise one consistent system can represent another one,

[Evoman]

58. Its like people who are mystified by language.

What is their to be mystified about? Language allows us to communicate. There is nothing magical about the word God, the word Universe, or the number 13. Certain words simply describe certain things or experiences.....at least I thought so until I came to DU. Now even common words have become ambigious or meaningless:(

[Evoman]

50. He's full of shit.

Believe whatever you want Collins, but don't use your "scientific cred" to back up your shoddy religious claims. "No proof god doesn't exist" to me is the same fucking thing as saying, "I want to believe in something, but I don't want to examine the belief closely". Seriously...we don't go believing in other shit just because we don't have any proof against it. The teapot orbiting mars, the race of marshmallow people on Tallon V, etc. And god is so anti-Occams razor as an explanation, I'm suprised he takes it seriously.

Why Jesus Christ? Why not Muhammed or the Hindu gods or Zeus?

I think its takes some major fucking cognitive dissonance to be a scientist and to ACTIVELY believe in god (as opposed to weak atheism or agnosticism).

[Silent3]

116. Reporters love tossing out these "feel-good" stories...

Looky here! He's a guy who's a really, really smart scientist, and he's not one of those nasty atheists! If you believe in God (like all Good Americans do!) you can feel smart too! :eyes:

[MistressOverdone]

147. It is nice to have a scientist of repute

who doesn't think believers are naive. I have share this with many friends.