Re^6: Who is your favorite scientist and why?

[james28909]

the "who created god argument" is always an atheists first argument. because it is their only arguement more or less. :) im agnostic. i only believe in a creator with evidence, which is why i believe in a creator. i do not know who created god, or who created the creator of any god. those questions are far off and i do not think that the way we have evolved to just survive would allow me to even ponder it yet. we are just now coming out of "survival mode" and are figuring out things that were never even dreamed about until very recently in human timescale. i do imagine that in the future (dont know if it is direct or distant) we will be able to explain further. just because we cant explain something does not mean that evolution, or technology, wont advance enough to answer those questions. we are just now starting to really be able to answer these questions that humans have pondered about for years. we are just now, in a human timescale, inventing tools that help us see things that are hidden from our naked eyes. i can only imagine what we will invent in 100 years or 200 years, or 10,000 years ect. just because that me or you cannot explain something now, doesnt mean they wont have that answer after we are dead and gone from this existence.

[Arunbear]

i only believe in a creator with evidence, which is why i believe in a creator.

Ok, but what is this evidence?

[james28909]

some of the evidences, that leads me to believe that there is a creator, have already been laid out in this thread.

personal past life experiences are one. the way we progress in knowledge of our surroundings and technology. evolution leads me to believe as well. scientific discoveries... are just some. can you name a scientific discovery that actually disproves a creator? science does not really rip me away from my personal belief, and my personal belief in a creator does not rip me away from science. they do co-exist fine and easily too. the universe was setup with laws and if they were slightly different then i wouldnt be sitting here typing this. for some people it is easy to see, i think it has to do with perception or feelings. i mean i dont know why or who created it, that would be purely, and only, speculation, but i have a solid belief it was created. the main kickers for me are the results from double slit experiment and the quantum eraser.

what is your beliefs and what is your evidence thats backing that belief?

[Arunbear]

Evolution used to be controversial because it removed the need for a creator as a means of explaining natural phenomena. So you're not making much sense when you mention Evolution.

What you're calling evidence is far too vague and just seems like an Argument from Ignorance.

From Dr Tyson again:

But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a superintelligence? Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence?

Take the human form. We eat, drink, and breathe through the same hole in the head, and so, despite Henry J. Heimlich's eponymous maneuver, choking is the fourth leading cause of unintentional injury death in the United States. How about drowning, the fifth leading cause? Water covers almost three-quarters of Earth's surface, yet we are land creatures—submerge your head for just a few minutes, and you die.

...

Stupid design could fuel a movement unto itself. It may not be nature's default, but it's ubiquitous. Yet people seem to enjoy thinking that our bodies, our minds, and even our universe represent pinnacles of form and reason. Maybe it's a good antidepressant to think so. But it's not science—not now, not in the past, not ever.

[holli]

How far does the creation process go in your world? Do you believe god handknitted our DNA? Or did HE just come up with a set of laws and let it all play out according to them and is now watching us like a reality show?

Does HE interfere occassionally, for example by healing the eyesight a middle class scottish woman while taking a break from giving AIDS to african babies?

[james28909]

with how the quantum world works, i cannot answer that. but, just speculating, if observation or measuring something actually brings it into existence (collapses the wave function), that means at a very fundamental scale, there are things that seem "magical" but we know there is no such thing as magic. so if this is a simulation, and the quantum world is what everything is made of on a macroscopic level and probably larger, whos to say that dna wasnt a prethought up thing that was just a small part of this universe to create/help life? like i said in one of my other posts a while ago, in a universe that is trying to kill life in every way possible, why does life thrive like it is doing? its a good question and one i have not put alot of thought into.

[james28909]

also to answer your first question, creation happens when the wave function collapses. if you believe we are a simulation, then you understand the double slit experiment, and the point of the quantum eraser. all i can do is speculate. i do not have those answers, noone does. i just know that observation/measurement is what literally creates the world/universe around us, or it atleast seems that way.

[james28909]

also, i want to point out you are basing your observations on just humans. think outside the box. literally anything IS possible. but... to sit and speculate about it and try to make out like you know more than someone else, or your way of views id the only right one... just because a baby in africa has aids, well thats pointless. you seem to have a deep seated anger against a god that even you dont believe exists. that is not healthy.

[holli]

you seem to have a deep seated anger against a god

Not really. I have a deept seated anger against religious zealots. If you'd know how I was raised, you'd understand that.