Why I lost my faith

[_pashaman]

Thanks. It does! There are about 10^22 planets in our observable universe alone. Our universe is 14 Billion years old. The probability for abiogenesis is pretty high.

I don't mean to be cantankerous, but you seem to be suggesting that given high enough numbers the impossible can happen.

There was a funny theory I read once, that if the universe was infinite (which I doubt) then it wouldn't be a mere possibility but a probability that somewhere out there in space would be an actual Captain Kirk flying around in a Starship Enterprise fighting off Klingons around Uranus.

[_Darth J]

You make it sound like science never made a mistake.

Of course science has never made a mistake. Since science isn't a self-executing system, it isn't capable of either making a mistake or making a correct statement, either.

People make mistakes. The reason the scientific method is a valuable tool to learn about the universe is that people can use it to correct mistakes that other people have made.

The fact that you're reifying science this way is simply another giveaway that you don't have any appreciable familiarity with it. Instead, you see science as a quasi-conscious entity which threatens your identity, because scientific discoveries refute certain factual propositions about the world that are tied to your fundamentalist cherished beliefs: that the Abrahamic God specially created the human race and so on. Since you have decided a priori that a literal reading of the tribal mythology of the ancient Hebrews is an accurate account of human origins and history, necessarily you must reject any system that collects evidence to disprove those beliefs. Essentially, you're doing an elaborate appeal to consequences. If evolution really happened and is happening, and so on, then your interpretation of the Bible and your concept of self are wrong. You don't want those consequences, so you reject not only the evidence, but any any flirtation with literacy about the evidence.

[_Darth J]

On one hand they say that evolution is so slow that you can't see it,

The reason the above isn't a straw man is that you don't know enough to be aware that you're misrepresenting evolutionary theory.

Google results for "watch evolution happen:"

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... n%20happen

[_Darth J]

On one hand they say that evolution is so slow that you can't see it,

The reason the above isn't a straw man is that you don't know enough to be aware that you're misrepresenting evolutionary theory.

Google results for "watch evolution happen:"

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... n%20happen

Although, you would think that just by common experience you would have to know what you're saying here is wrong. Why do you think you need to get a new flu shot every year if evolution is so slow you can't see it?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

. Does anyone ascribe to the Simulated Universe theory, which would basically satisfy both sides of the argument?

what do you mean satisfy both sides? If you mean a non-god example of design, then that is *exactly* what "Intelligent Design" is looking for. Your example is essentially the alien example.

An IDer can say "Look, the designer can be the simulation programmer, it doesn't have to be God, so this is a secular theory that has nothing to do with God".

I suppose, in my own limited way, I'm trying to express that a simulated reality could satisfy living within a construct that is independent of a god, subject to universal rules, and a 'god' (whatever is running the simulation) that exists outside the reality itself (unless it acts upon the simulation in some manner).

This, of course, doesn't absolve of us scientific inquiry nor is it meaningful in any sense, whatsoever. But I guess philosophically I have to wonder if it bridges the gap somewhat between various notions and ideas of our existential reality. A poor man's GUT, more or less.

- Doc

[_Gadianton]

Cam,

Well, Richard Dawkins had a blog post once declaring that if we live in a simulated reality, then Mormonism could shockingly be true.

Yes, there could be a whole chain of realities regressing back, and Christians would say it ends with God, as there must be a first cause.

For IDers, it's more like baiting a hook when they suggest possibility of an intermediate design.

The simulation argument (thanks again tld) would likely be number 1 on my list of cool ideas I've heard in the last 10 years that have only been around that long (13 for this). Of course, virtually every other idea associated with Bostrom's argument is total junk thinking. Like, completely laugh-out-loud stupidity.

Also, you kind of hinted at this, but a philosophical argument for our design, such as this or the ontological argument, or aristotle's metaphysics is totally different than a design argument -- an inductive argument based on observation. As you point out, there is no evidence of a simulation. I am open to evidence for a simulation (standard is so high no one could meet it) or an alien or God, such as in the form of circumstantial evidence.

I am not open to the design argument itself. I think out of the various apologetics, it's low man on the totem pole, the very worst argument.

[Guest]

The simulation argument (thanks again tld) would likely be number 1 on my list of cool ideas I've heard in the last 10 years that have only been around that long (13 for this).

A somewhat different slant on the 'simulation hypothesis' was proposed by Frank Tipler in his book entitled "Physics of Immortality". Although Tipler is a cosmologist, the book was not at all well received in the scientific community - especially in the UK.

To make a very long story short; Tipler tries to make a case that computational power will continue to increase at a rate that will eventually allow everyone who ever lived to be "resurrected" and continue a self aware existence until the end of time as a simulation.

According to Tipler, while there is no magic or need for the supernatural in this future, there are a number of physical constraints, and certain boundary conditions must be imposed (or exist) for this future to come to pass. One major constraint is that the universe must be what he terms an Omega Point type universe - a model for the universe that has become increasingly unlikely, given the advances in theoretical physics and cosmology since 1994 when the book was published.

Nonetheless, reading a serious attempt (at the time) to account for the physics of of a simulation future by a cosmologist does give one a sense of just how difficult (and therefore improbable) simlife would be in a universe that is the age and configuration of the one in which we live.

[Guest]

Funny. I read that book, or part of it anyway. Just checked; still have it. I think for someone with your background it could be entertaining but I remember it covering so much (deep and controversial) material to get to what would ultimately be a fairly short point that time better spent elsewhere.

[_Franktalk]

Although, you would think that just by common experience you would have to know what you're saying here is wrong. Why do you think you need to get a new flu shot every year if evolution is so slow you can't see it?

A flu bug turns into a flu bug. I am so impressed. You can get more change by selective breeding of dogs.

[_Darth J]

Although, you would think that just by common experience you would have to know what you're saying here is wrong. Why do you think you need to get a new flu shot every year if evolution is so slow you can't see it?

A flu bug turns into a flu bug. I am so impressed. You can get more change by selective breeding of dogs.

Up to now, I had been wondering if you had ever taken a single biology class in your life, at any level. Thank you for resolving that question for me.