Origins Thread

[Mad as Fish]

Worth a watch

A few minutes in and I am already wanting to poke a stick through his spokes.

He makes much of the propostrousnous of the big bang in supporting theism, yet science itself is now questioning that very theory, so one plank at least is knocked from the platform upon which he stands.

He is also determined to set up the argument as two distinct camps and we must choose one or the other. This I find to be even more preposterous as it gives no credit to the notion that in fact there might be some middle ground, a third, fourth or infinite number of alternative theories.

From what I have seen so far he is simply saying that because we don't know everything, and maybe can't know everything, there must be a god. That is no argument, it's just a proposisition that has yet to be proven, scientifically or otherwise.

 

[Tiger]

She makes much of the idea that scientists don't, as a rule, appreciate that there is knowledge beyond that which can be measured. A sweeping generalism and quite unfair to many I am sure. She appears to have taken her own realisation of this rather mundane fact and inflated it to a pitch to impress her audience rather than quietly absorb it as another milestone in life's journey.

While it’s true that not all scientists adhere strictly to materialism or scientism, the prevalence of these perspectives within scientific discourse cannot be overlooked.

This scientist decided to grapple with existential questions in a way most don’t and never will. Her journey is a testament to people’s capacity for growth and intellectual humility.

 

[Tiger]

It should be born in mind that all sorts of weird preservations will have occurred over the billions of years that life has been around and we will only experience a miniscule fraction of them. The ones that do pop up therefore appear remarkable, but there will be plenty more that have been destroyed by natural prrcesses or will remain hidden from our view.

The odds of such events happening by random chance are astronomically low (past the point of statistical probability). The odds are infinitesimal.

The process of fossilisation is highly complex and requires specific conditions to occur. For instance in the case of the tree resin entrapment, not only must the organism come into contact with the resin, but it must also avoid decomposition and undergo burial and mineralisation to become fossilised.

The absence of evidence for similar occurrences has to be considered too.

 

[Tiger]

A few minutes in and I am already wanting to poke a stick through his spokes.

He makes much of the propostrousnous of the big bang in supporting theism, yet science itself is now questioning that very theory, so one plank at least is knocked from the platform upon which he stands.

He is also determined to set up the argument as two distinct camps and we must choose one or the other. This I find to be even more preposterous as it gives no credit to the notion that in fact there might be some middle ground, a third, fourth or infinite number of alternative theories.

What suggestions do you have for a ‘middle ground’?

From what I have seen so far he is simply saying that because we don't know everything, and maybe can't know everything, there must be a god. That is no argument, it's just a proposisition that has yet to be proven, scientifically or otherwise.

I don’t think this is an accurate representation of his talk.

He simply scrutinised the contrasting worldviews of naturalism and theism, emphasising how each framework addresses fundamental aspects of existence. He argues that theism, positing the existence of a transcendent deity, offers a more comprehensive explanation for phenomena like the universe’s origin, fine-tuning, consciousness, morality and human dignity. Conversely, he critiques naturalism for its inability to account for these facets of human experience, highlighting the limitations of materialism, determinatism, and scientism in providing satisfactory explanations.

To quote John Lennox…

“If the atheists are right, the mind that does the science is the product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew that your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science.”

 

[Tiger]

Hot off the press, this interview with an Astrophysicist is fascinating.

He explores the fine tuning of nature and the universe, focusing on earths unique composition and formation. He highlights how Earth’s abundance of specific elements, its stable magnetosphere, and its protection from cosmic radiation are all conducive to life, showcasing the precision of celestial events that contributed to Earth’s habitability.

Beyond astronomy, the conversation reflects on the broader trend of scientific inquiry, where deeper exploration consistently reveals layers of complexity across various disciplines.

 

[Mad as Fish]

The odds of such events happening by random chance are astronomically low (past the point of statistical probability). The odds are infinitesimal.

The process of fossilisation is highly complex and requires specific conditions to occur. For instance in the case of the tree resin entrapment, not only must the organism come into contact with the resin, but it must also avoid decomposition and undergo burial and mineralisation to become fossilised.

The absence of evidence for similar occurrences has to be considered too.

The odds of anything happening by random chance are witheringly low.

 

[Mad as Fish]

What suggestions do you have for a ‘middle ground’?

I don’t think this is an accurate representation of his talk.

He simply scrutinised the contrasting worldviews of naturalism and theism, emphasising how each framework addresses fundamental aspects of existence. He argues that theism, positing the existence of a transcendent deity, offers a more comprehensive explanation for phenomena like the universe’s origin, fine-tuning, consciousness, morality and human dignity. Conversely, he critiques naturalism for its inability to account for these facets of human experience, highlighting the limitations of materialism, determinatism, and scientism in providing satisfactory explanations.

To quote John Lennox…

“If the atheists are right, the mind that does the science is the product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew that your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn’t trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science.”

I am drawn to one truth above all else and that is there is far more out there than we will ever know and we haven't the mental capacity to grasp. We therefore find ourselves flopping around in the shallows thinking that one day the mysteries of the deep will all be revealed to us, if we really really think about it. Yet we are simply not equipped to explore it so we content ourselves with the invention of entities that are responsible for the great unknown.

It may be that this is the correct explanation, but I see it as a cop out, it's just too easy an answer and lets us off the hook of having to look for answers that many will find uncomfortable. Perhaps there are energies that science hasn't recognised and measured, maybe such notions as telepathy and the afterlife are real things, perhaps the universe is an intelligence in its own right.

Could mankind cope with these sort of truths?

 

[clarke-connolly]

The odds of anything happening by random chance are witheringly low.

If anything gets virtually un-limited opportunities, then it can happen ~ ~ I suppose the question is ~ ~ What gives virtually un-limited opportunities for anything to happen ? !

 

[Tiger]

Can we all pause for a moment to wish Jimbo Jambo a happy Easter. He’s in exile at the moment over on the Isle, however we all know how much he misses this thread, his most favourite thread in the whole wide world. He can’t take his eyes off it.

Happy Easter James!

 

[Mad as Fish]

I am drawn to one truth above all else and that is there is far more out there than we will ever know and we haven't the mental capacity to grasp. We therefore find ourselves flopping around in the shallows thinking that one day the mysteries of the deep will all be revealed to us, if we really really think about it. Yet we are simply not equipped to explore it so we content ourselves with the invention of entities that are responsible for the great unknown.

It may be that this is the correct explanation, but I see it as a cop out, it's just too easy an answer and lets us off the hook of having to look for answers that many will find uncomfortable. Perhaps there are energies that science hasn't recognised and measured, maybe such notions as telepathy and the afterlife are real things, perhaps the universe is an intelligence in its own right.

Could mankind cope with these sort of truths?

Even the bible says as much -

And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding,

Philippians 4:7

 

[Tiger]

This video is an exploration of the complexity of DNA and its implications for the argument of ‘fine tuning’. The speaker explains the concept of DNA coding and splicing using clear analogies, illustrating how DNA contains instructions for creating various proteins.

This video emphasises the sophistication of genetic coding and challenges the notion of naturalistic explanations for such complexity.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1774570273561337985

 

[clarke-connolly]

View: https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1774570273561337985

Dawkins was always very arrogant ~ ~ He is wise-ing up as he gets older.

He at least he is able to, Work Out How Dangerous Islam is.

 

[Tiger]

The blue and green haired atheist debates with the ability you might imagine a multicoloured haired eejit would debate.

 

[Tiger]

 

[Tiger]

View: https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1774570273561337985

Dawkins is a charlatan. A charlatan that frequented Epstein’s island.

End of story.

 

[Tiger]

I am drawn to one truth above all else and that is there is far more out there than we will ever know and we haven't the mental capacity to grasp. We therefore find ourselves flopping around in the shallows thinking that one day the mysteries of the deep will all be revealed to us, if we really really think about it. Yet we are simply not equipped to explore it so we content ourselves with the invention of entities that are responsible for the great unknown.

It may be that this is the correct explanation, but I see it as a cop out, it's just too easy an answer and lets us off the hook of having to look for answers that many will find uncomfortable. Perhaps there are energies that science hasn't recognised and measured, maybe such notions as telepathy and the afterlife are real things, perhaps the universe is an intelligence in its own right.

Could mankind cope with these sort of truths?

As humans, we must acknowledge the limitations of our understanding when confronted with the vastness and complexity of the universe. It’s humbling to recognise that there are aspects of existence that may elude our comprehension, regardless of our efforts to grasp them.

However that should not limit our ability to question the conventional wisdom on certain theories that are full of holes.

 

[Tiger]

Uh oh, Jimbo has been released from his lunatic asylum and it looks like he’s spent most of his time away looking like this.

Expect zero debate and lots of pointless mud slinging to return to this site. Our holiday from him is over.

 

[Mad as Fish]

As humans, we must acknowledge the limitations of our understanding when confronted with the vastness and complexity of the universe. It’s humbling to recognise that there are aspects of existence that may elude our comprehension, regardless of our efforts to grasp them.

However that should not limit our ability to question the conventional wisdom on certain theories that are full of holes.

Indeed not, and my fear is that those who do ask the basic and most important questions are increasingly denied an audience because there are too many vested interests wishing to see the status quo continue indefinitely.

However, it is encouraging to see that tenet of astrophysics, the big bang, now having to be revised as our knowledge of science increases.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://twitter.com/CyberPunkCortes/status/1774995821416595526