Evolution



I see people who have faith and they have a presence about them. Their faith brings them peace, strength and inner calm.

Must be a nice feeling.
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
You've probably not noticed but I actually respect a great deal of what you post so I am sure it is a well written book.

However, simple logic cannot be ignored and Absolute Nothing would have absolutely no potential. So it is undeniable that whatever this "Nothing" was, it had potential for the universe to emerge so cannot have been Absolute Nothing. Does Krauss actually disagree with that?

The issue that arises is that before light had travelled one planck unit of length in the first planck unit of time, then cause and effect had not been separated by the arrow of time. This implies there must have been teleological feedback between effect and cause. Information must have been passed backwards faster than the speed of light which confirmed the laws of physics that had emerged were stable otherwise the universe would have collapsed.

This would indicate the universe was inherently teleological regarding information, and if that is the case then we as part of the universe may have experienced evolution that had a teleological aspect. That the environment shaped our genetics in addition to random mutations occurring that were beneficial for survival.
Click to expand...
The fact that you (or I) don’t understand something doesn’t mean to say it isn’t necessarily true.

When it comes to the origins of the universe we can’t use our own understanding of the world around us and apply our own “simple logic” like we can with answering a question like “why is their dog shit on my lawn?”, because by definition anything that happened at or before the origin is currently outside of our minds’ understanding.

Try reading his book. I don’t understand the details either but he presents a persuasive argument about how something (everything) CAN come from nothing backed up with evidence.
 
Kent_Mackem said:
The fact that you (or I) don’t understand something doesn’t mean to say it isn’t necessarily true.

When it comes to the origins of the universe we can’t use our own understanding of the world around us and apply our own “simple logic” like we can with answering a question like “why is their dog shit on my lawn?”, because by definition anything that happened at or before the origin is currently outside of our minds’ understanding.

Try reading his book. I don’t understand the details either but he presents a persuasive argument about how something (everything) CAN come from nothing backed up with evidence.
Click to expand...

And yet the same simple logic is enough for me to conclude that there is no external creator God. Very few of us are experts on astrophysics on this forum but we don't abandon reason as a consequence.

Certainly, at a microscopic level, so called empty space in a vacuum is anything but. There is no space or time but virtual particles and their opposites are coming in and out of existence all the time. This quantum foam most likely was there before the Big Bang as many astrophysicists believe. In terms of classical physics it is Nothing but it is certainly not Absolute Nothing. Personally, I think this where the explanation will be found. Perhaps quantum entanglement started it all off but it was certainly not a creator God external to reality as reality must be self contained or it would collapse.

Heaven forbid that I should use simple logic to question what the universe (ie space itself) is expanding into. Nothing the astrophysicists tell me, a nothing that is beyond time and space, thus believing that reality is dependent on something outside of reality and is not self-contained. No different to the God concept. A recursive universe makes more sense but heaven forbid we should challenge the logic of these modern astro priests who claim to know truth.

The universe as it proceeds through time does appear to be teleological from the very beginning as each moment all of the infinite potentialities of the quantum universe collapse except for the one we call reality. If the universe is teleological it may be that evolution is also.

The really interesting question is what is causing wave function collapse of the quantum field at a universal level.
 
Big Jeff said:
Why not just believe in something?
Click to expand...
That is a really great question but maybe it is better to ask somebody who does believe something irrational.

Ask a person why they believe in 1 god out of.a list of thousands on the shelf, but dismiss all of the others without a second thought.

Ask somebody who believes in ghosts why they don’t believe in Hobbits.

Ask a believer why they are happy to believe supernatural, irrational and silly things just because they have been told to and without the faintest shred of evidence.. There is a strong argument that people with religious beliefs should not be allowed to do jury service. Of course there would be outcry, and I expect flak on here now I have suggested it. However, before anybody starts crying they should read through this last paragraph and let it digest. Imagine you are wrongly accused of a serious crime. Would you want your future decided by people who make decisions based on evidence? Or the more gullible and easily persuaded people who believe what they are told (...by a talented prosecution barrister)?

But we’re not allowed to mention such things..... religious beliefs must be protected...
 
Last edited:
Kent_Mackem said:
There is a strong argument that people with religious beliefs should not be allowed to do jury service. Of course there would be outcry, and I expect flak on here now I have suggested it.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to give you stick for it but there really isn't. You might believe that there is a strong argument but it isn't really a widely shared belief. Anybody else seriously heard this argument being mooted?

You see belief is a funny thing.
 
JonMc said:
I'm not going to give you stick for it but there really isn't. You might believe that there is a strong argument but it isn't really a widely shared belief. Anybody else seriously heard this argument being mooted?

You see belief is a funny thing.
Click to expand...
I never said it was shared and I’m fully aware I will be in the tiny minority and not for the first time. Perhaps though because everybody just accepts religion. When you actually stop to think what these people believe... without any evidence... I’m not sure I’d want them on my jury if I was wrongly accused in the dock.

I’ve mentioned it before but Sam Harris makes a really good point about this. About when George Bush (for example) starts each day with a prayer to the good lord. “Fair enough... say the majority of the US population. Nothing wrong with that.” The behaviour of talking to a god is accepted. However, if he starts the day speaking to god into a hairdryer people will only then start to question his mental state. The question is: what difference at all does the hair drier make to this madness?
 
Kent_Mackem said:
I never said it was shared and I’m fully aware I will be in the tiny minority and not for the first time. Perhaps though because everybody just accepts religion. When you actually stop to think what these people believe... without any evidence... I’m not sure I’d want them on my jury if I was wrongly accused in the dock.

I’ve mentioned it before but Sam Harris makes a really good point about this. About when George Bush (for example) starts each day with a prayer to the good lord. “Fair enough... say the majority of the US population. Nothing wrong with that.” The behaviour of talking to a god is accepted. However, if he starts the day speaking to god into a hairdryer people will only then start to question his mental state. The question is: what difference at all does the hair drier make to this madness?
Click to expand...
So this is a strong belief shared by a tiny minority now? Sounds a bit like a religious argument.

The answer to the hairdryer argument is the same as anything else in politics. You take your chances talking to both gods and hairdryers and folk vote or don't vote for you.
 
JonMc said:
So this is a strong belief shared by a tiny minority now? Sounds a bit like a religious argument.

The answer to the hairdryer argument is the same as anything else in politics. You take your chances talking to both gods and hairdryers and folk vote or don't vote for you.
Click to expand...
I’m saying I would be uneasy if I was wrongly accused and the jury contained people who believed extraordinary things without requiring evidence. I accept that most people wouldn’t have considered this because religion is so entrenched and accepted in society. However, ask yourself quietly (I’m not expecting an answer) whether you’d feel comfortable being wrongly accused in a crown court and the jury included (let’s insist it’s multi-cultural) people who genuinely believed in Hobbits, Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Not only believed but talked to them on a Sunday morning in a building specially built for the purpose. Knowing your posting style I realise you won’t be able to admit it on here as it kills the argument but I suspect you wouldn’t be too happy if those people were being asked to find joy guilty or not guilty dependent on evidence presented to them. The only difference between those people and others with religious beliefs is that religions are entrenched and accepted in society. That doesn’t make the believers any more rational.

The point about the hairdryer: of course the yanks will vote for who they wish. I think it is staggering and sad that no candidate would ever stand a chance of election unless they declare a belief in the Christian god. In this day and age FFS?! But even the loopy religious yanks would sense something not quite right about a man talking to their god through a hairdryer. The irony is that the presence of the hairdryer makes no difference.... but they can’t see that.
 
Last edited:
Kent_Mackem said:
I’m saying I would be uneasy if I was wrongly accused and the jury contained people who believed extraordinary things without requiring evidence. I accept that most people wouldn’t have considered this because religion is so entrenched and accepted in society. However, ask yourself quietly (I’m not expecting an answer) whether you’d feel comfortable being wrongly accused in a crown court and the jury included (let’s insist it’s multi-cultural) people who genuinely believed in Hobbits, Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Not only believed but talked to them on a Sunday morning in a building specially built for the purpose. Knowing your posting style I realise you won’t be able to admit it on here as it kills the argument but I suspect you wouldn’t be too happy if those people were being asked to find joy guilty or not guilty dependent on evidence presented to them. The only difference between those people and others with religious beliefs is that religions are entrenched and accepted in society. That doesn’t make the believers any more rational.
Click to expand...
If I were on trial in a community where people believed in all of that I would have to judge for myself if their beliefs in Hobbits etc could hold down jobs in the world like anything else. Did I know any professionals who believed in Santa and were they successful in that community. Does the Anaesthetist on that jury who believes in the Tooth Fairy perform in his/her daily professional role as well as anyone who doesn't believe in it?

Then it would be a simple question of extrapolating whether that anaesthetist could pick out the salient points in the trial I was involved in. If he/she had studied for years to perform in that role and he/she kept up their professional qualifications...I would have to come down on the side that yes, I trust him/her as much as the atheist (maybe who works as a bin man) sitting adjacent.
 
Last edited:
JonMc said:
If I were on trial in a community where people believed in all of that I would have to judge for myself if their beliefs in Hobbits etc could hold down jobs in the world like anything else. Did I know any professionals who believed in Santa and were they successful in that community. Does the Anaesthetist on that jury who believes in the Tooth Fairy perform in his/her daily professional role as well as anyone who doesn't believe in it?

Then it would be a simple question of extrapolating whether that anaesthetist could pick out the salient points in the trial I was involved in. If he/she had studied for years to perform in that role and he/she kept up their professional qualifications...I would have to come down on the side that yes, I trust him/her as much as the atheist (maybe who works as a bin man) sitting adjacent.
Click to expand...
Whether the anaesthetist could do their job in the hospital or not isn’t the question though. Regardless of their job expertise I wouldn’t want to have a jury judging real physical evidence if they make their decisions without requiring any evidence.

It’s more than that.... a decision to actively believe in the Tooth Fairy (or a god - there is absolutely no difference, in fact a god is LESS likely to exist!) is a massive thing. It shows the individual is at the very least deluded and also probably struggling with their mental health.

if my liberty depended on it I’d want non-deluded individuals on the jury who understand and accept physical evidence and use it to make their decisions. Those who believe in gods and The Tokth Fairy, by definition, do not do this.

Yet I am the one anticipating being ridiculed for pointing this out. It’s a funny old world.

I need to crack on with work. I’ve made my points but, as ever with you... over to you for your required last word. 😉 (Have a good weekend 🍺)
 
Kent_Mackem said:
Whether the anaesthetist could do their job in the hospital or not isn’t the question though. Regardless of their job expertise I wouldn’t want to have a jury judging real physical evidence if they make their decisions without requiring any evidence.

It’s more than that.... a decision to actively believe in the Tooth Fairy (or a god - there is absolutely no difference, in fact a god is LESS likely to exist!) is a massive thing. It shows the individual is at the very least deluded and also probably struggling with their mental health.

if my liberty depended on it I’d want non-deluded individuals on the jury who understand and accept physical evidence and use it to make their decisions. Those who believe in gods and The Tokth Fairy, by definition, do not do this.

Yet I am the one anticipating being ridiculed for pointing this out. It’s a funny old world.

I need to crack on with work. I’ve made my points but, as ever with you... over to you for your required last word. 😉 (Have a good weekend 🍺)
Click to expand...
You too.

If I can trust the anaesthetist to do the job of keeping me alive and pain free throughout an operation lasting hours, then yes I have the faith that someone with that level of education and used to that level of daily pressure will have the wherewithal to judge me in a criminal trial.
 

Back
Top