Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Faith In The Probable

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Phil.o.sofir on September 24, 1999 01:32:24 UTC

: : : : : : *** I would like to hear differing perspectives on the subject of what we are. It is my opinion that we are animals, and that we have developed a very complex mechanism which allows us to multiply our chances of survival. : : : : : : I have found those who belive in a supreame being who also believe that we are still a form of animal, and I have found those who reject the concept of a supreame being but maintain that we are something that could not have developed from any other animal forms. Of course then there is the general we are created as we are by a supreame being, and also the evolutionary theory that explains that we came directly from the first forms of life which branched over and over again, thus making us related to all forms of life on the planet from very recent branches like the primates to the most extreame distant reletives such as single cell life. : : : : : : I tend to agree with Darwins theory of evolution because it has the most physical evidence supporting it, and seems to be the most probable. : : : : : :

: : : : : bzrd here: The probability of a functional protein forming through a random process is one in 10 to the 65th power. There are approximately the same numbers of atoms in the Milky Way Galaxy.

: : : : RD: But bzrd, there are billuons of galaxies like our milky way in which proteins can form. On the other hand, I do not think it was entirely random. There was some intelligent creativity involved. However, it still took a billion or so years to produce the first protein. : : : : Ten to the 65th power is a very large number. Did you create it. If not who did, and do you understand how it was created. Otherwise you are acting on blind faith in science and mathematics.

: : : ***Yes, and billions is just the tip of the iceburg if the universe is infinite. Also, the number of atoms really has no connection with the probability of life, unless it was in the order of a countable amount. for when numbers exceed our capacity to comprehend them as is actually the case with the number that was scientifically noted, then our understanding of probabilities, chaos and game theories... go out the window. : : : Our intelligence only goes so far at this point, we can grasp enough to build theories around what we do know, enough for us to get use out of them for further theory building and practical uses, but to try to apply these to the reality of the universe as a whole is, um, I guess superstisiuos? : : : Like you said, blind faith in science, or anything for that matter. : : : Thanks for the good response, I've missed this place.

: : I think an important issue is raised here in the discussion between : : science and religion. : : Science (in our times) has reached a level where most people simply have to except what : : scientist are claiming, simply because the cannot grasp the underlying theories, let : : alone really grasp numbers like 10 to the 65th. : : Even the worldīs best scientist are only specialists in one area and probably : : donīt understand other areas. Not because they are not intelligent enough, but : : simply because a lifetime is too short to become an expert in all fields : : of expertise.

: : But when we come to a state where we simply have to trust others on : : the scientific claims they make, doesnīt science : : itself become a religion?

: : Gerwin bzrd here: This is a good point, Gerwin. Taking God out of science only serves to make science a god, if you will.

***It seems to me that faith is a product of the most probable, no matter what it applies to. There is always a lag time in the movement of main concepts of a world view when viewed historically such as the dominant view of the earth, as it went from flat and center through the vision we have of it today. The next major shift after the current one of billions of galaxies but still within an enclosed universe of the big bang will be that there is no end to the vastness of space, and that even if the big bang concept is factual, the notion that it has created space as well like a bubble will be disregarded and seen as an ordinary occurance throughout the infinity of this nothingness filled with matter. The question I wonder about is if the nothingness of space can actually be infinite or matter for that matter due to the fact that matter inhabits some of the space. Unless it is viewed as two different dimentions which would mean that the matter does not interfere with the nothingness which the matter seems to inhabit, thus allowing it to be infinite. On the other hand, if the universe within which matter resides is infinite as well, then how could we say that matter itself is not infinite even though it is not a continous mass, due to the fact that we cannot count the nothingness because it is a different dimention than somethingness (matter) and the matter fills only what applies to matter throuhout the distance in all directions of the nothingness. Language Removed! I hate when I even think about that subject because I always end up going in a nonlinking circle (pi)? Anyway< sorry to get off the subject, I was saying faith is the product of what seems to be the most probable at any given time, take religions for instance, during the time when we had alot less knowlage of the universe/world we live in, many things could be reasonably explained by gods or a God, it was common knowlage, today science can reasonably explain a much bigger portion of our surroundings, and religion has lost its base of common knowlage, relying upon tradition and hope rather than its old use of reason, it is trying to adapt but cannot do so and remain anything like its ancestory, thus the current yet unspoken worldview in modernized areas of the world is one of the reality of scientific fact challenging the old reality. The concept of reality is a very difficult one to change over generations, and so much more as applied to individuals. Another faith is that of governments, they "seem" to last because we are here breiefly as individuals and even knowing the history we know it is still imposible to live in the reality of a past being. We have faith that our country will stand forever, and it may in fact be that very reality to those you live an enire life within it, but all things change and the reality we know will never be again. The great civilizations of the past, our own monetary system, we take it all on faith, and it has let those who belived in its permanence down over and over. Why would we put the "in god we trust" on currency? To inspire faith in it. Money has nothing to do with God, it is faith that gives money its value, a pretty good one, all of our lifetimes so far, but vulnerable to change like anything else. I really need to get control of this rambling habit, short and sweet, short and sweet! i'll try harder next time jeezz!

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins