[NT] NTs and God

[JocktheMotie]

I'd actually think Ni-Te/Te-Ni would be more accepting of a God than Ne-Ti/Ti-Ne. But that isn't really based on much, just a presumption.

 

[Erudur]

As for religious beliefs being irrational, for something to be considered rational, two criteria must be met:

1.) The premises must be verifiable fact. (Some definitions assert that the premises must simply be axiomatic, but insomuch as, say, the existence of angels was once considered an "axiom", such definitions are flawed and ought to be disregarded.)

2.) The conclusions must be drawn upon the basis of logic.

Can the premise of any cosmology be verifiable fact? The Big Bang Theory is a foundational component of many people's cosmology, but does not meet your first criteria. Is this theory (or a cosmology including this theory) irrational?

 

[Samurai Drifter]

Big Bang theory is strongly supported by observable evidence and phenomena, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation.

The "God" theory is supported by... no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Erudur]

Big Bang theory is strongly supported by observable evidence and phenomena, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation.

The "God" theory is supported by... no evidence whatsoever.

The Big Bang Theory fits comfortably into cosmologies that both include God and exclude God.

As part of some cosmologies that exclude God, The Big Bang Theory presupposes eternally existing matter. This presupposition is most certainly not verifiable fact. Therefore, by MyCrofts definition, these cosmologies are irrational.

 

[Erudur]

Additionally, there may be cosmologies (exluding God) that presuppose some event where some kind of nothingness separated into matter and anti-matter* and then "Big Banged" into what we see today.

This cosmology also has an unverifiable premise.

In short, if you go back far enough, you are forced to consider an unverifiable premise. Perhaps that is irrational. I'm not sure if MyCrofts definition of "rational" is a generally accepted one. He takes it a step further than the definitions I've read.

I think it is important for all those with cosmologies exclusive of God to realize that they have no more rational a premise than those with cosmologies that include God.

* anti-matter being another idea based on unverified conjecture

The "God" theory is supported by... no evidence whatsoever.

This statement is as wrong as it is patronizing.

 

[EJCC]

Big Bang theory is strongly supported by observable evidence and phenomena, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation.

The "God" theory is supported by... no evidence whatsoever.

This is what I hear from many NTs that I know. One argument that I've heard from one NT (ENTP? INTP?) is that God is an invention meant to comfort people who are afraid of death. This NT once said to me (and I'm paraphrasing hugely): "We're going to die and rot in our graves, and that'll be it. Get used to the idea."

Of course, I know Christian NTs, too. It depends on how you were raised, just like with any type. One thing I've noticed with religious NTs, though, is that they often believe that religion and science must compliment each other. Therefore, many Christian NTs aren't creationists. Those who are, though, would have logical arguments to back it up. (An excellent example of this is the poster above me - Erudur - whose perseverence and eloquence I respect immensely as of now.)

One final thing: wasn't this thread created for data collecting, and not arguing over whose beliefs are more valid? As we all know from experience, arguing about religion doesn't get anyone anywhere. So... maybe we should all agree to disagree? Just an idea.

 

[Costrin]

In short, if you go back far enough, you are forced to consider an unverifiable premise. Perhaps that is irrational. I'm not sure if MyCrofts definition of "rational" is a generally accepted one. He takes it a step further than the definitions I've read.

That's definitely true. So my stance is "I don't know".

This statement is as wrong as it is patronizing.

This is your cue to cite some evidence.

 

[Headstrong]

One argument that I've heard from one NT (ENTP? INTP?) is that God is an invention meant to comfort people who are afraid of death."

I was still afraid of dying, even after believing in Christ for 10+ years. I'm not anymore, though. It's a silly fear, really...we're all going to pass on eventually. I think it's a combination of the uncertainty as to what happens afterwards, if anything, and how one is currently living their life.

 

[Samurai Drifter]

Additionally, there may be cosmologies (exluding God) that presuppose some event where some kind of nothingness separated into matter and anti-matter* and then "Big Banged" into what we see today.

This cosmology also has an unverifiable premise.

In short, if you go back far enough, you are forced to consider an unverifiable premise. Perhaps that is irrational. I'm not sure if MyCrofts definition of "rational" is a generally accepted one. He takes it a step further than the definitions I've read.

I think it is important for all those with cosmologies exclusive of God to realize that they have no more rational a premise than those with cosmologies that include God.

* anti-matter being another idea based on unverified conjecture

Big Bang theory describes the expansion of matter from its original, condensed state. It does not make any effort to describe how or why this matter originally came into being. Currently this question is outside the realm of cosmology though that may not always be the case.

Your problem, therefore, is not with modern cosmology or with Big Bang theory, but rather with a question that presently is unapproachable.

This statement is as wrong as it is patronizing.

Obviously the way in which a comment is made affects how correct it is.

 

[Erudur]

Big Bang theory describes the expansion of matter from its original, condensed state.

Its presumed, unverifiable, original, condensed state.

It does not make any effort...blah blah blah

My carefully worded posts don't insinuate otherwise. You miss a lot by your sloppy reading of posts. Your flippant responses make you seem more stupid than you probably are.

Your problem, therefore, is not with modern cosmology or with Big Bang theory, but rather with a question that presently is unapproachable.

Take a moment to look up the definition of "cosmology" to find out how you are misusing the term.

On the "evidence" discussion, I'll refer to previous posts.

 

[Mycroft]

Its presumed, unverifiable, original, condensed state.

It's true that more evidence must be gathered in favor of the Big Bang Theory for it to be regarded as fact, but as Samurai Drifter pointed out, the original, condensed state of the universe proposed by the theory is indeed proposed on the basis of verifiable evidence.

 

[Mycroft]

I'd like to post something more thorough in the future, but for the meantime, here's an interesting article. Scientists have created what is, essentially, RNA.

 

[Erudur]

It's true that more evidence must be gathered in favor of the Big Bang Theory for it to be regarded as fact, but as Samurai Drifter pointed out, the original, condensed state of the universe proposed by the theory is indeed proposed on the basis of verifiable evidence.

Wikipedia is probably not the best source to draw from, but its accessibility and conciseness lead me to it. Here's a snippet from wikipedia's BBT entry:

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang",[notes 2] and is considered the "birth" of our universe. "

At a minimum, this indicates that there is a lot about this hypothetical beginning point that isn't understood and appears paradoxical.

But there also seems to be some underlying cosmological bias wrapped up in this statement too. The singularity does not necessarily, "signal the breakdown of general relativity." It might also suggest that there is a flaw in the model. A potentially better model is much more likely to be found if one is open to the idea that the current model might be flawed.

Having said all that, cosmology really deals more with what (who) might have initiated said big bang, and where said big bang material might have come from, and whether or not it always was. I believe the answers to those questions, will always be unverifiable. But I am still inclined to believe even the details of the big bang theory (if things did indeed happen that way -- we've been wrong before) will remain unverifiable.

 

[Erudur]

I'd like to post something more thorough in the future, but for the meantime, here's an interesting article. Scientists have created what is, essentially, RNA.

Interesting article.

Here are the questions I think need an answer before any dent in ID theory will be made:

Can a verifiable and repeatable experiment be shown to add new information and new complexity through this kind of replication...not just modifications to existing complexity? (see link below)

Is there a satisfying explanation for how the replicating RNA could come about by chance? (see link below)

Mycroft, I tried to find a good article for you and am still looking.

Here is an article that defines complexity and discusses a theory of information. It falls far short of what I'd like to forward (i.e. this is not a counter to your article above, it details the kinds of questions I have about your article above):

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: Dembski, William A.

It defines terms and presents a way to evaluate information and complexity, but doesn't apply the theory to specific examples.

I was hoping to find an online article that discussed specific microbiology in these terms, but haven't found it yet. I heard a debate with this guy (Dembski) and Sarkar (?) at U of Texas. In that debate Dembski specifically discussed the rate of accumulation of mutations, the fraction of mutations that prove beneficial, what it would take to actually add new complex information, etc.

His opponent spent a lot of time talking about how the number of legs of a fruit fly can be manipulated by switching on and off different segments of DNA. I found the arguments for how those examples suggested the possibility for the introduction of new complex information unconvincing.

 

[Samurai Drifter]

Interesting article.

Here are the questions I think need an answer before any dent in ID theory will be made:

Allow me to translate:

"Here are the questions I think need an answer before any dent in this theory that has absolutely no supporting evidence can be made:"

Even if no scientific explanation for abiogenesis was ever developed, that still doesn't provide any positive evidence for the existence of a creator. In other words, even if our current explanation was incorrect, it wouldn't mean yours is correct.

Can a verifiable and repeatable experiment be shown to add new information and new complexity through this kind of replication...not just modifications to existing complexity? (see link below)

In the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952, amino acids were synthesized from raw organic materials in a manner that could have easily occurred when the Earth was young. Would you call that an increase in complexity?

Is there a satisfying explanation for how the replicating RNA could come about by chance? (see link below)

People who have spent their lives studying chemical and biological evolution have formed many ideas. You should educate yourself on some of them.

Also, take note of the anthropic principle. If it hadn't occurred by chance, we wouldn't be around to speculate on the low probability of the event occurring. Even if the odds were 900,000,000 to 1 against life forming, it would not in any way constitute positive evidence of design.

Mycroft, I tried to find a good article for you and am still looking.

Here is an article that defines complexity and discusses a theory of information. It falls far short of what I'd like to forward (i.e. this is not a counter to your article above, it details the kinds of questions I have about your article above):

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: Dembski, William A.

It defines terms and presents a way to evaluate information and complexity, but doesn't apply the theory to specific examples.

I was hoping to find an online article that discussed specific microbiology in these terms, but haven't found it yet. I heard a debate with this guy (Dembski) and Sarkar (?) at U of Texas. In that debate Dembski specifically discussed the rate of accumulation of mutations, the fraction of mutations that prove beneficial, what it would take to actually add new complex information, etc.

Dembski's arguments have been debunked time and again in the scientific community. I suggest you read the essay "Logic and Math Turn to Smoke and Mirrors: William Dembski's 'Design Inference'" by Wesley R. Elsberry so as to avoid using arguments that are widely known to be invalid.

His opponent spent a lot of time talking about how the number of legs of a fruit fly can be manipulated by switching on and off different segments of DNA. I found the arguments for how those examples suggested the possibility for the introduction of new complex information unconvincing.

I find the explanation of "an invisible, all powerful being in the sky who has and will always exist designed everything" to be unconvincing.

 

[Erudur]

Allow me to translate:

"Here are the questions I think need an answer before any dent in this theory that has absolutely no supporting evidence can be made:"

Allow me to translate - "I don't know enough about the subject to speak to it. I am too lazy and sloppy to learn enough to do so."

...amino acids were synthesized from raw organic materials in a manner that could have easily occurred when the Earth was young. Would you call that an increase in complexity?

Says who? And frankly, I don't care. I've heard enough wild speculation from many otherwise intelligent people that it doesn't matter who says it. The short of it is this. Because of the blind faith of many biologists in their own cosmology, those same biologists show themselves completely blind to gaping flaws in their own hypotheses.

If you are one of them, you are clearly doing it too. If you are not, you are blindly putting your own faith in their logical leaps.

People who have spent their lives studying chemical and biological evolution have formed many ideas. You should educate yourself on some of them.

You should too. PLEASE do. And make sure you have your brain turned on so you really understand the assumptions they are making but not testing. And then take the time to look into the plausibility of those assumptions.

Also, take note of the anthropic principle. If it hadn't occurred by chance, we wouldn't be around to speculate on the low probability of the event occurring. Even if the odds were 900,000,000 to 1 against life forming, it would not in any way constitute positive evidence of design.

That, my friend is philoso-babel.

Dembski's arguments have been debunked time and again in the scientific community. I suggest you read the essay "Logic and Math Turn to Smoke and Mirrors: William Dembski's 'Design Inference'" by Wesley R. Elsberry so as to avoid using arguments that are widely known to be invalid.

I see you've spent some time reading the ad hominem and straw man responses to Dembski. Good for you. I am impressed that you've actually read something on the subject. Up to this point, the content of your posts convinced me otherwise.

I find the explanation of "an invisible, all powerful being in the sky who has and will always exist designed everything" to be unconvincing.

Like I've said earlier, I respect your right to hold to that position. I challenge you to open your eyes to your own bias when looking at things from that perspective.

In the same way, I find the explanation that the world and the life that we observe within it came about by billions of incremental steps that include leaps like:

- "raw organic materials" transforming into amino acids

- amino acids somehow "becoming" more complex chains of RNA

- RNA then somehow "becoming" able to replicate

- replicating RNA then somehow "becoming" DNA that constitutes some form of life

- DNA then, by leaps and bounds, extending to new larger AND usable forms that interact with the existing usable segments to reproduce more complex forms of life.

(are we still claiming random mutations and natural selection as the driver here, or have we come up with a different driving force?)

....continue with a multitude of steps like these, every step more complicated and more complex than the most complex engineering and designs ever devised by man....

eventually resulting in a state of life where you and I are contemplating the subject on an internet thread.

That I find unconvincing.

So I guess we both remain unconvinced.

 

[Costrin]

Would someone be willing to link to any evidence for Intelligent Design? It may have already been done earlier in the thread, but it's 30 pages long, so I hope you'll forgive me for being a little lazy here.

 

[Mycroft]

Erudur, yet again someone has pointed out that an incomplete theory is better than no theory at all, to which you've responded that an incomplete theory doesn't disprove intelligent design.

As far as I can tell, the only thing you've actually taken to heart in the course of this entire discussion is to use forms of the term "unconvinced" rather than "incredulous" so your argument from incredulity will, if nothing else, not be blatantly apparent.

Would someone be willing to link to any evidence for Intelligent Design? It may have already been done earlier in the thread, but it's 30 pages long, so I hope you'll forgive me for being a little lazy here.

It hasn't. I'm waiting, as well.

 

[Anja]

I don't spend time arguing about God so I have little experience in the fine art. But I do have a question.

How do people who don't believe in anything which can't be measured or observed deal with the concept of mindfulness? Multiple realities?

What's your standard argument about consciousness?

 

[Darjur]

I don't spend time arguing about God so I have little experience in the fine art. But I do have a question.

How do people who don't believe in anything which can't be measured or observed deal with the concept of mindfulness? Multiple realities?

What's your standard argument about consciousness?

Chemical reactions. / Mathematics.

Chemical reactions.