[Closed] Archbishop Rowan Williams

(DNA shouldn't have been able to exist, in the conditions it did),

Why not? See there is me asking for proof about a statement you've made. What conditions did DNA exist in that it shouldn't have?

Also as far as rationality, the world isn't rational so why do you think that dealing with it in a rational way, would make it make any sense?

The macroscopic world is very very rational. I'll accept that human being aren't though.

Have you read into quantum physics? if not have a quick read about quantum tunnelling and the zeno effect, that's not rational or possible according to classic physics but it happens and we don't know why.

Now that's just a massimve physics fail right there. Quantum rules do not apply to the macorscopic scale. Just because we don't understand it now, and we really really don't in this case, doesn't mean we won't at some point in the future. There still isn't a need to invoke a deity.

nickf - Member

And, let's not pick on xtianity, that's just bullying.

We should remember that ALL religions are equally ridiculous

I completely agree - I know only one religion, however, so I can only comment on theat one. And I reserve the same level of scepticism for those who worship at the shrine of moly-coagulated uni-striped oxyacetylene-coated speaker cable as I do for any other religion.

Indeed. That would just be silly.

What rational people don't do is decide something is true because of a "feeling" or because they like the sound of it

What's wrong with that?

Rational people seem to think that truth is far more important than anything else. Fine, but not everyone feels that way.

have a quick read about quantum tunnelling and the zeno effect, that's not rational or possible according to classic physics but it happens and we don't know why

Hehe.. have nothing but a quick read and you'll understand it as poorly as you seem to 🙂

So you are in the camp that thinks that the macroscopic and microscopic worlds don't operate in the same way, because the measurement tools are still being developed. How quaint.

As for evolution not being random .... so you don't believe that mutations (a random event, influenced by environment) give one generation an advantage over another, hence allowing them to be more successful at reproducing? How do you think it works then?

and finally to answer

Why not? See there is me asking for proof about a statement you've made. What conditions did DNA exist in that it shouldn't have?

I will quote Dawkin's, on the origin of life when Earth was a Rock covered in a chemical soup

The ‘Catch-22’ of the origin of life is this. DNA can replicate, but it needs enzymes in order to catalyse the process. Proteins can catalyse DNA formation, but they need DNA to specify the correct sequence of amino acids. How could the molecules of the Early Earth break out of this bind and allow natural selection to get started?

As for evolution not being random .... so you don't believe that mutations (a random event, influenced by environment) give one generation an advantage over another, hence allowing them to be more successful at reproducing? How do you think it works then?

[img] [/img]

............ bugger 😳

Mutations may well be random but the forces of natural selection acting on the population are not. And usually the forces of natural selection act upon the individuals and not generations.

So you are saying that a random event that may give a species a better chance of survival, does not infer that evolution has a random element to it?

So you are in the camp that thinks that the macroscopic and microscopic worlds don't operate in the same way, because the measurement tools are still being developed. How quaint.

Yup, that's me and the rest of the scientific community that think this way. The fact that a single photon can apparently be to travel by two different paths at the same time, which is impossible for say a car, would appear to be evidence of that. Then there are things like quantum entanglement which simply make my brain hurt. It may well be that at some point in the future we will come up with a explanation as to why both these worlds seem to operate in different ways or perhaps we'll find a different explanation that will include both. I'll leave that for brighter minds than mine. If you have an explanation I'm all ears.

What Dawkins book is that exerpt from? Sounds like an interesting read, although I'd be curious as what the following paragraphs are. Does he leave it at that or does he posit so kind of explanation?

So you are saying that a random event that may give a species a better chance of survival, does not infer that evolution has a random element to it?

How evolution works.

The majority of African elephants now have much smaller tusks than formerly. This is because poachers do not shoot them for their small tusks, there not being enough of a return on the investment.

There are, therefore, more "short-tusked" genes being propagated than "long-tusked" ones.

The "short-tusked" genes are more [i]fitted to survive[/i] in an environment that includes a "poaching predator" that kills off the "long-tusked" gene...

Simples.

yeah.... but.... will there ever be a boy born who can swim as fast as a shark?

yeah.... but.... will there ever be a boy born who can swim as fast as a shark?

Marine Boy?

"Complexity is evolved from simplicity"

are you lot joking ? Are you suggesting I dont understand evolution or how complex systems can develop from the repetition of simple actions ?

This is nt what I said at all. What I suggested is that currently a non-theistic explanation of existence has the same problem as a theistic explanation of existence.

Ie What was there before god ?

What was their before the big bang/void etc etc and dont bother giving me the there is no time before the big band I understand that but their presumably must be a cause and effect.

As I said the last thing I read on this seemed to be suggesting that actually the existence of something is actually more energetically favourable than the non existence of everything.

But still that seems to suggest there must have been something that caused the existence of something else I dont think we've got to the bottom of Why things exist and frankly I dont think science ever will.

It will still be the same flawed same argument as religious types have ie "its just because thats the way it is"

And frankly to me thats aa bad an explanation as because thats the way god made it to be honest its the same explanation in my mind.

gonefishin, its from the 'Greatest Show on Earth' if you ignore the small ranty bits (like most of his books) its an interesting/good read

MrW I agree with you about the outside influences not being random, however the bit that starts the whole process off which results in generation of a species an developing an advantage does appear to be random.

Explanation of existence

Q: Why does the world exist?
Theist : God decided to create the universe and everything in somehow.
Q: Why did god decide to do that and why does god exist ?
Theist : Oh, I dont know its just that way

Q: Why does the world exist?
Atheist : Void-BigBang-Delveopment of Universe-Planetsform-evolution-societies develop
Q: But what caused this to happen originally
Atheist : There may have been an infinite number of universes and this is the only one in which the right conditions exist.
Q : But what caused them universes to exist.
Atheist : Oh they may have been created inside black holes or be the results of the big crunch of another universe or them may all exist as once separatley in some kind of plane we dont understand or every quantum event might result in a new universe being created.
Q : But why did that process start ?
ATheist : Oh, I dont know its just that way

Q: Why does the world exist?
Agonist : I dont know its just that way

Result = same

Ie What was there before god

What god is that, then?

Why did god decide to do that and why does god exist

But why did that process start

... are not the same question.

And "I don't know" is the atheist response, not "It just is that way". Er, by the way...

Q: Why does the world exist?
Theist : God decided to create the universe and everything in somehow.
Q: Why did god decide to do that and why does god exist ?
Theist : Oh, I dont know it just that way

Q: Why does the world exist?
Atheist : Void-BigBang-Delveopment of Universe-Planetsform-evolution-societies develop
Q: But what caused this to happen originally
Atheist : There may have been an infinite number of universes and this is the only one in which the right conditions exist.
Q : But what caused them universes to exist.
Atheist : Oh they may have been created inside black holes or be the results of the big crunch of another universe or them may all exist as once separatley in some kind of plane we dont understand or every quantum event might result in a new universe being created.
Q : But why did that process start ?
ATheist : Oh, I dont know it just that way

Result = same

As I've said before, please stop conflating athiest with rationalist. They are two different things.

Personally I'd have stopped at question 2 with the answer "I do not know". Not very satifying but then as a rationalist I can accept that there are many thing to which this is the best answer.

go on ...

Funny - I didn't think any of the Rowans mentioned in this thread believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

But no explanation gives a good account of existence which is what I'm looking for.

Im just a bit annoyied at comments earlier suggesting I did n't understand evolution

Q: Why does God exist?
Religionist: Does it matter? God created us out of love, and he loves us, which makes me really happy. What's the problem here?

And "I don't know" is the atheist response, not "It just is that way". Er, by the way...

Yes but the religious answer is I dont know as well.

molgrips - Member
Q: Why does God exist?
Religionist: Does it matter? God created us out of love, and he loves us, which makes me really happy.

What god is that, then?

Q: Why does God exist?
Religionist: Does it matter? God created us out of love, and he loves us, which makes me really happy. What's the problem here?

I totally disagree with this. But it might be true some religious people think like this. But then surely many atheists just think I exist Im happy whats the problem ?

richc

iirc the current theory on how DNA arose is that it evolved from RNA which is better at catalyzing reactions and capable of replicating itself
im sure dawkins is well aware of that

Yes but the religious answer is I dont know as well.

No. The atheist is saying "We don't know how the universe was created before the big bang".

The theist is saying "I don't know why god created the universe" (having already accepted that this god did, as a contrast to the atheist's response).

Different questions.

What god is that, then?

The one with the beard.

RE: Dawkin's is, and was sceptical (in the book, might not be now). RNA has other issues, I don't have the book at hand and cannot remember what they were though.

If god existed he would never let these debates happen.

I totally disagree with this

You don't think that religionists think that way?

But then surely many atheists just think I exist Im happy whats the problem ?

Exactly!

that was a bit of poor sentence true.

Ok maybe Im not explaining my self right. I dont really care what other people think. Which is what alot of you seem to be interested in.

What Im actually interested in which approach to have myself thesist,athesist or agnostic. My vote is up for sale !

The little Q&A session above is more likely to be me putting myself in all three mind frames rather than another person.

No matter how I look at it all three approaches appear similar to me and there is no difference between them no approach is better than the other.

There do appear to be minor plus minus to each approach,

Thesist Disadvantage : no sex before marriage, advanatage : get to sing in nice building + traditional weddings + ready built community

Athesist Advantage : Sex before marriage, fit in on singletrack world : disadvantage : have to be an annoying git who tells everyone else what they believe is wrong

Here's a question for you then:

Can we ever know if God exists?

PS Have you ever considered calling yourself a pluralist? It annoys people 🙂

I've corrected this:

If god existed he [s]would never let[/s]wouldn't give a shit these debates happen.

Definition of a Thesist : Believes they are right about everything
Definition of an Athesist : Believe everyone else is wrong about everything

mcboo - Member

This guy believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Does he ? ............well he's kept quiet about that !

Still you can't blame him though, he's probably lose his job.

Definition of an Athesist : Believe everyone else is wrong about everything

Not at all. Atheism accepts that there may be a god. However, without evidence, it's just noise. The probability that there is a god is so infinitesimally small that it's as near to zero as makes no difference.

But, heck - all you have to do is demonstrate it...

Atheism accepts that there may be a god

You're thinking of agnosticism I think. Atheism means "No God"

But, heck - all you have to do is demonstrate it...

No, you don't 🙂

Not at all. Atheism accepts that there may be a god. However, without evidence, it's just noise. The probability that there is a god is so infinitesimally small that it's as near to zero as makes no difference.

But, heck - all you have to do is demonstrate it...

Well surely god is an infinitely complex creation. If you were to believe there was more than 1 universe/parallel universes or reapeting universes we basically have infinite time. As complexity can self develop from simple components though repeating actions surely given infinite time god is sure to exist.

He'd probably then create a new universe to start things going again maybe to eventually make a new god as he's lonely.

Thesist Disadvantage : no sex before marriage, advanatage : get to sing in nice building + traditional weddings + ready built community

you missed out a fair bit

hating gays
discriminating against women
covering up child abuse.....
etc etc etc

One of the golden rules of childhood applies- 'never trust a man with a beard'.

Well surely god is an infinitely complex creation

There being no evidence that a god exists, no.

you missed out a fair bit

hating gays
discriminating against women
covering up child abuse.....
etc etc etc

None of those things are unique to theists.

There being no evidence that a god exists, no.

So are you saying that without evidence of something, it doesn't exist?

So are you saying that without evidence of something, it doesn't exist?

Probably more like without evidence the assumption that something does exist is wrong.

Probably more like without evidence the assumption that something does exist is wrong.

So it depends on if you are a pessimist or an optimist, as there is a hell of a difference between *might* and *doesn't*