shahz said:
No I'm just saying that purpose exists and arises out of chance from a purely naturalist perspective. Life is purpose biologically. Abiogenesis is still a mystery and yes the means by which it came about set in motion all basic principles in life and as such as basic principles of purpose as we know it.
Fine. One persons mystery is anothers miracle or perfected purpose I suppose. Biopoiesis itself is hardly a mystery, as replication by experimentation can now be performed in any high school chemistry lab. What remains in question is the
catalyst or "spark" that occurred here on Earth to initiate the process. Perhaps cometary/asteroid impact, or maybe billions of generational impacts/interactions of chemical compounds
we may never know.
Whatever you wish to project upon such observable outcomes is yours to peruse and proclaim as principles in life as it suits your own sensibilities. I don't see any natural "purpose" in life, except that is simply "is".
There's a difference between believing in a personal and impersonal god.
Well, duh. *face palm* Thank you.
And yes even geniuses might be wrong which is why your quotes on Hawking putting forth a solid case against God might be as faulty as Newton's case for Deism or Einstein's case for pantheism. It's impossible for verify. By stating you just know you're right implies that you have some sort of proof, which you do not.
Ill be more than pleased to cite the references (a most recent book Hawking wrote, in fact) that presents what
he understands as scientific
disproof of god (it was received with a tad bit of controversy ya know). Do understand that Im far too dull and dim-witted to offer up
his conclusions as
my own, ok?
The fibonacci series is not just a series of numbers that arise through sheer chance in one sector of the universe. It is an additive sequence of numbers, and is dictated through the angle phi. It has order to it. Phi is an angle by which matter seems to be the most efficiently distributed within the systems with Fibonacci numbers. To find that such an angle produces a sequence of numbers which are additive and this sequence is widely distributed within the universe is pretty astounding to me. I don't care if you don't find it interesting or special, but it defintely shows that mathematical constants are fine tuned in our universe.
Oh please. You almost sound like an evolution denier now.
Sheer chance? How absurd! Statistically Impossibobble!
Again, your premise
presumes that the fibonacci series is beyond sheer chance. Your astonishment at the seeming fine tuning of this revelation of discovery is only defined by human understanding and interpretation of mathematics
hardly the stuff of divine origin or evidence of same. Again, Ill note the perfect porridge argument that many point to as some sort of mystical proof of inexplicable (naturally impossible, or divinely set)
order within the cosmos. Ill readily agree that the rules of the cosmos do present fairly well established, predictable, and understood laws as best as we understand today
but its another
enormous leap to conclude that the laws of nature are somehow finely tuned, ie for a purpose. They may suit humankinds purpose in finding the best available explanations of what we can test and observe, but your implication presumes that there must be some Grand Tuning Fork
requisite to the fibonacci series as explanation and empirical evidence. The impossible coincidence that seems to be a conundrum is in fact a product of our own construct. Its a simplistic rationalization. Gee whiz
if I hadnt been low on gas, I wouldnt have stopped at that gas station, and then purchased a winning lottery ticket with my spare change. It was almost like it was designed to happen that way! Impossible to believe, but true!
Another old and tired existential meme... "If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is there to hear it... does it make a sound?"
Yes, of course it does, but no one is there to simply hear it.
Duh. (Technology today affords us opportunity to record such events absent human presence, but that's almost cheating really, and ruins the absurdity of the philosophical question itself).
Of course, you can ask, "If no one is there to hear it, then why does the tree fall or make a sound?" It only matters in answer if you believe that both the hearing and the felling of the tree serve or fulfill some sort "purpose". Yet that too remains within the realm of philosophy (existentially speaking) to answer, not science.
So what makes you so sure that other very same smart people that profess atheism are right? And what makes you know that you are right?
It seems that my confidence and self-assuredness annoys you.
I could readily cite a few thousand reasons why I
know Im correct that superstitions and religious mythologies are bunk. But I dare say they would present no immediate interest to you. But Ill indulge you with some favorites of mine, upon your request
Again you are wrong, I'm not talking about a singularity. What I am stating is actually a theory proposed by Sir Roger Penrose, the mentor of Stephen Hawking. If the law in our universe states that as matter moves from a higher state to a lower state of energy through time, it will revert back to its higher state as we go back in time. Thus as we approach the singularity we are approaching an infinite level of order.
I am familiar with entropy theory. Lets just say that Penrose and Hawking do not agree upon your conclusion that infinite density equates to an order.
This theory is gaining quite a bit of evidence, so wrong again.
I know, but the jury is far from rendering any verdict as yet, especially since even string theory has at least six popular threads of its own
so
lets allow the prosecution more time first, shall we? And, even the most hardened proponents of mTheory readily concede that multi-universes and multi-dimensions may be impossible to verify by any experimentation known, or even imagined today. Such is the awkward barrier between the mathematically speculative (yet no less crucial) and physically testable/experimental.
The hope to unify micro and macro physics into one grand unified theory is indeed the Holy Grail of contemporary understanding/explanation of our cosmos, but if there is arrogance on display here, it is yours in stating that I am wrong, when in fact no credible theoretical physicist today will definitively state what is correct, or right.
Of course it's belief, but your very arrogance at stating that there is no God or designer is a form of belief as well.
No, of course its not.
A confident unbelief/disbelief in claims that suggest/insist that there is/must be such an entity as best or only explanation is not a "belief". Thats quite a difference, and its not just semantical. Its tiresome to constantly correct people that insist that unbelief is its own "belief system". Its not an alternate belief to rationally reject insistent claims of fairies, goblins, or the Great Pumpkin as either empirical fact or philosophical truth.; of any other claimed deity/force/spirit as substitute of the aforementioned.
Hawking has his own set of biases which may lead him to not believe in a God, he has been in a debilitating condition since 21. So his entire proposition, while backed by science, might arise from a sense of anger at his condition.
Wow. Talk about fallacious argumentation now. Discredit or disprove his own presented proofs. Those as such are open to any and all peer review and critique (even you).
Questioning his motives is nothing better than fifth grade sandbox spitballing.
Dr. Carl Sagan also said 'the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence'. Which is what you claim as you know there is no God.
He did, and Sagan died as he lived, a most profound and outspoken atheist,..an unbowed unbeliever. Go figure.
If he returns one day soon to share his accountings of an afterlife, or ruminations upon his newly revealed purpose(s) of existence, Ill be sure to have a listen