Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

Krsqk · #1 December 15th, 2002, 01:58 AM

I think it comes down to whether scientific laws are evidence of design or evidence that of an ordered world. Obviously both sides can be argued, since those laws by definition mean we have an ordered world; the question is, do they point to anything more.

That's my interpretation of "natural order."

Fyron · #2 December 15th, 2002, 03:34 AM

No, they do not. Gravity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect.

Suicide Junkie · #3 December 15th, 2002, 03:36 AM

The quote wasn't "natural order", but "naturally produces order"...

Which to me says "life does quite a bit of work on its own towards creating an ordered world"

Quote:

(the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect.

As far as we know, of course. Which is still pretty darn far: on the order of 10 billion years.

[ December 15, 2002, 01:39: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Krsqk · #4 December 15th, 2002, 05:54 AM

"Gravity, magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (the 4 fundamental forces of nature, IIRC) did not "come to be" at any point; they were always in effect."

Which, again, is based on your pre-determined worldview. A creationist would say that those forces were created along with everything else. My point was that the "order in nature without outside intervention" argument fits both sides equally well.

Fyron · #5 December 15th, 2002, 06:09 AM

Well... one must always keep an open mind and not allow their pre-determined worldview to prevent any sort of growth.

Just accepting something on blind faith is, IMO, kinda dumb. And no, I do not accept evolution and such on blind faith.

Will · #6 December 15th, 2002, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimbob:
Well it sounds like your brain has warmed up quite well in this thread. I hope you do well on your exams!! What are you studying anyway?[/QB]

Right now, the little pieces of paper say "Computer Science". I'm going to be changing them to "Computer Engineering/Computer Science", just to have that little extra breadth. I'll probably swap in another major or a minor sometime.

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Here's where I think your use of the principle fails. You have already stated you believe that the exsistnace of God to be unprovable, and by applying the razor you say the lack of proof means that God does not exsist. That seems to me to be very circular logic at best. And it also assumes that everything is "knowable" by us, an assumption which I do not accept, although I cannot refute, and which you cannot support. Only time will tell I suppose on that point.

I can see where you think it fails, since the Razor would tend to support whichever view weilds it right

My reasoning behind it falls more on extrapolating from previous beliefs (though I didn't say that... I need to work on this communication stuff). Originally, people didn't understand how the sun and the moon rose every day; so, they said it was gods that did it. Once we found out how the sun and moon actually appear to rise, that was thrown out. It seems that whatever is not understood has the label "GOD" slapped on it, and makes everything all right. So, right now, we don't really understand how this whole universe shebang got started. It seems to me that the reflexive action is to slap on the label, and everything will be all right. I see no reason why this would be any different than wrongly (we think

)explaining the rising of sun and moon as divine influence.

As for not all mysteries of the universe being knowable, I think this allows for that. There's always some other intricacy of the interactions throughout the universe that will need to be explained. Especially what 42 is the answer to. Then, once we figure that out, we will all be destroyed, and a new universe even more bizzare than this one will be created. Of course, this has probably already happened...

Krsqk · #7 December 16th, 2002, 03:40 AM

"Well... one must always keep an open mind and not allow their pre-determined worldview to prevent any sort of growth. Just accepting something on blind faith is, IMO, kinda dumb."

Depending on your definition of open mind.

It seems nowadays that it means "Accept everybody and everything without any sort of value judgment." As long as it means "Keep your eyes open and your brain engaged," I don't have a problem with that.

Oh, and most people who operate solely on blind faith aren't well informed about much of anything, including their faith.