4 of 26
4
Is Atheism doomed to extinction?
Posted: 01 November 2012 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6158
Joined  2009-02-26
mid atlantic - 01 November 2012 06:38 PM
sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

1)  Why advocate the theory of evolution, but not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?  By not promoting it evolutionists appear to be hiding something, they seem to be defensive or just plain ignorant.  Why say that we could create a monkey cage in six days but hide from the idea that a higher evolved being could create our cage in six days?  I’m not saying it did - just saying why couldn’t it?  And why spend so much energy trying to dismiss it??
2) While I completely understand the notion of survival of the fitest, I can’t see why a molicule would want survive -let alone 6.4 billion of them want to line up extremely specifically in 60 trillion different cells in our body.  Call me stupid - but you can’t get a million Phds to line up specifically, let alone trillions of non-intellegent specks -
3) If you believe in evolution you need to believe we will evolve out of the concept of it.  Just as our brain evolved out of an protazoa - future intellegence -(if there is such a thing) will have no use for our primordial concepts

1) Higher evolved beings could exist, but there isn’t any evidence that they do, so scientifically it’s irrelevant.

And if there are higher evolved beings, would they somehow be non-physical?

2) Molecules don’t want to survive; their activity, like all matter, is controlled by the “laws of physics.” These “laws” are an inherent part of the known universe.

Does a star want to go nova or does it want to survive going nova?

3)I don’t know what you mean by we have to “evolve out of the concept of evolution.”

The concept of evolution is not an abstract idea. It is a self evident natural selective process of trial and error.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 08:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
DarronS - 01 November 2012 10:09 AM
sobpatrick - 01 November 2012 09:37 AM

Well -there are very specific ratios needed to allow the natural forces of the universe not to pull the universe apart and allow gravity to function - exactness to the power of ten to 40.  for inflation - exact to a quintillionth of a point.  The very specific amounts of dark energy needed to make the universe exist is 10 to the power of 122 -more specific than sellecting one atom in the entire universe.  And of course these ratios have to be in place at all times - not once somewhere in the corner of the universe.  This is math telling us this.  Not a lot of room for debate here - but I’d love to see a debate.  Is the math wrong?

You didn’t bother reading any of the links I provided. Your math is wrong, very wrong. Yes this is the Center for Inquiry forum. Critical thinking demands you keep your mind open and change your opinion when presented with new information. What you have shown is reaching a conclusion then seeking evidence to support your conclusion while ignoring contradictory evidence. That is ideological thinking, not skepticism.

If you would truly love to see the debate then take the time to educate yourself.

i admit i haven’t checked out the links yet, but every source i have gone to present the same numbers.  I will check it out as i hope i’m wrong - if only it would make a reasonable debate.  But it isn’t my math, it’s Leo Susskind’s math and he kicked Stephen Hawkings butt - see for yourself =this youtube entry entitled What We Still Don’t Know: “Are We Real?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM  makes the point specifically about 17min into - Cosmologist Martin Rees/ Physist Leo Susskind explain further…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 08:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3313
Joined  2011-11-04

Imagine no religion.

If there were no concepts of god, then there would be no need for atheism. We would all, in effect be atheists, but we just wouldn’t know it, and would thus not identify as atheists.

But as long as there are silly and conflicting religions and concepts of god, there will probably be atheists, also.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 08:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
Dead Monky - 01 November 2012 10:18 AM

Hey, Pat.  Where’d you get your math from anyway?  I’m curious.

Numerous youtube science shows heres a few
What We Still Don’t Know: “Are We Real?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM  makes the ‘dark energy” point specifically about 17min into - Cosmologist Martin Rees/ Physist Leo Susskind explain further…
Novas Fabric of the Cosmos series
Quantum Revolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InoMBWnTXpg
Intelligence revolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlbuh3_ZKsE&feature=related
Biotech revolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teYI5lVNBrE&feature=related
BBC Horizon: To infinity and beyond:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIaS2aCD_b4&feature=related
BBC horizon parallel universes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXLZRoBnEHY
BBC Horizons “what happened before the Big
Bang” and “what is reality” - can’t find their links- also check out BBC Horizon - is everything we know about the universe wrong?
Many more of course. Actually I’ve never seen a science show that disputes them.  I think you can look up the insane equilbrium of the natural forces of nature on any website describing them…here’s the wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_forces

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 08:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Sobpatrick, the problem with all of the science you’re trying to appeal to (Not all of it accurately) is that all of it…no exceptions…disproves the existance of your god.

An omnipotant being…which is a trait claimed for your deity…does not need [i[anything to be fine tuned.

Period.

What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 08:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
TimB - 01 November 2012 08:33 PM

Imagine no religion.

If there were no concepts of god, then there would be no need for atheism. We would all, in effect be atheists, but we just wouldn’t know it, and would thus not identify as atheists.

But as long as there are silly and conflicting religions and concepts of god, there will probably be atheists, also.

I think when we see the process of creation that we do ourselves as humans and then examine the natural world with everything far more complex then anything we can imagine the idea of a bigger creator is inevitable.  Also, when I look at my kids and see I am able to provide for them what they want and need, I can’t help but see everything I want and need is provided for me as well - I need a big puzzle that I think I’m making progress in solving - got it,  I need mystery- got it, I need a small amount of conflict-got it, I need a little evil - got it…to me the universe - or my universe - is too perfect for me for there not to be something benevolent pulling the strings.  I also find it too perfect that the most dominant religion - yes Christianity - has as it’s leader a figure who was killed by the religion of his day - so in a way he should appeal to the anti-religious (too perfect)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 09:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4858
Joined  2007-10-05
sobpatrick - 01 November 2012 08:56 PM

I think when we see the process of creation that we do ourselves as humans and then examine the natural world with everything far more complex then anything we can imagine the idea of a bigger creator is inevitable.

Please try to make sense. A computer program could write a better sentence. You are dangerously close to failing the Touring Test.

Also, when I look at my kids and see I am able to provide for them what they want and need, I can’t help but see everything I want and need is provided for me as well - I need a big puzzle that I think I’m making progress in solving - got it,  I need mystery- got it, I need a small amount of conflict-got it, I need a little evil - got it…to me the universe - or my universe - is too perfect for me for there not to be something benevolent pulling the strings.

Your lack of imagination and investigation does not mean a supernatural being created the universe.

I also find it too perfect that the most dominant religion - yes Christianity - has as it’s leader a figure who was killed by the religion of his day - so in a way he should appeal to the anti-religious (too perfect)

So what? Appeal to popularity is a common logical fallacy. Citing mythology as evidence of anything is not a logical fallacy, it is just plain ignorant. Oh wait, you didn’t say it was evidence of anything. What, exactly, is your point here?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 09:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 01 November 2012 08:44 PM

Sobpatrick, the problem with all of the science you’re trying to appeal to (Not all of it accurately) is that all of it…no exceptions…disproves the existance of your god.

An omnipotant being…which is a trait claimed for your deity…does not need [i[anything to be fine tuned.

Period.

What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

Well if we want to get crazy - I would say God does not exist only because the concept of existance is a human concept - and nothing human would apply to God - or a non- human as far as I’m concerned.  What amazes me about all the smart people out there who believe in evolution forget the entire universe is in our brain - in the present state of our brain i might add.  Even though there are 7 billion of us we all more or less share one brain - though separate of course.  They all pretty much work the same way. Consider then that you only need to be aware of our cerebral limitations to make absolutely anything possible - God or otherwise. 
But back to your question - what I find difficult to understand is that smart people would say the powerball lottery was fixed if someone won it twice in a row - definitely 3 times in a row - for sure it’s fixed - but even the most generous cosmological constants have such ridiculous odds that you would have to win every powerball lottery for the next million years to even come close to allowing the most possible constant- (cosmic inflation one in a quintillion to work) this is what I find so difficult to understand.  Who wouldn’t?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 09:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
DarronS - 01 November 2012 09:04 PM
sobpatrick - 01 November 2012 08:56 PM

I think when we see the process of creation that we do ourselves as humans and then examine the natural world with everything far more complex then anything we can imagine the idea of a bigger creator is inevitable.

Please try to make sense. A computer program could write a better sentence. You are dangerously close to failing the Touring Test.

Also, when I look at my kids and see I am able to provide for them what they want and need, I can’t help but see everything I want and need is provided for me as well - I need a big puzzle that I think I’m making progress in solving - got it,  I need mystery- got it, I need a small amount of conflict-got it, I need a little evil - got it…to me the universe - or my universe - is too perfect for me for there not to be something benevolent pulling the strings.

Your lack of imagination and investigation does not mean a supernatural being created the universe - For me just one fo many reasons

I also find it too perfect that the most dominant religion - yes Christianity - has as it’s leader a figure who was killed by the religion of his day - so in a way he should appeal to the anti-religious (too perfect)

So what? Appeal to popularity is a common logical fallacy. Citing mythology as evidence of anything is not a logical fallacy, it is just plain ignorant. Oh wait, you didn’t say it was evidence of anything. What, exactly, is your point here?

sorry left out the coma - I’m typing in the dark - see how this sounds: I think when we see the process of creation - that we do ourselves as humans, and then examine the natural world with everything far more complex, better??
Anyhow this entry was a response to the other dude’s comment - kind of a personal statement.  I sent you Leo Susskind and his answer to the extreme specificness of dark energy.  Is his answer something you’re comfortable with?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 09:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
Write4U - 01 November 2012 07:22 PM
mid atlantic - 01 November 2012 06:38 PM
sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

1)  Why advocate the theory of evolution, but not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?  By not promoting it evolutionists appear to be hiding something, they seem to be defensive or just plain ignorant.  Why say that we could create a monkey cage in six days but hide from the idea that a higher evolved being could create our cage in six days?  I’m not saying it did - just saying why couldn’t it?  And why spend so much energy trying to dismiss it??
2) While I completely understand the notion of survival of the fitest, I can’t see why a molicule would want survive -let alone 6.4 billion of them want to line up extremely specifically in 60 trillion different cells in our body.  Call me stupid - but you can’t get a million Phds to line up specifically, let alone trillions of non-intellegent specks -
3) If you believe in evolution you need to believe we will evolve out of the concept of it.  Just as our brain evolved out of an protazoa - future intellegence -(if there is such a thing) will have no use for our primordial concepts

1) Higher evolved beings could exist, but there isn’t any evidence that they do, so scientifically it’s irrelevant.

And if there are higher evolved beings, would they somehow be non-physical?

2) Molecules don’t want to survive; their activity, like all matter, is controlled by the “laws of physics.” These “laws” are an inherent part of the known universe.

Does a star want to go nova or does it want to survive going nova?

3)I don’t know what you mean by we have to “evolve out of the concept of evolution.”

The concept of evolution is not an abstract idea. It is a self evident natural selective process of trial and error.

I see it more as higher evolved beings should exist and yes they could be anything- consider our own brain.  Consciously we can only do two or three things at once - yet our unconsious does twenty million processes a second - we can’t even imagine that - but we do it.
Yeah - for me the “laws” of physics and other cosmological constants scream design - there’s no reason why there should be laws - there could be choas or at least temporary chaos - it’s too controled not to have a conductor.
To evolve out of evolution is to recognize every aspect of our universe is a product of the inner universe - our brain if you like.  And that brain has changed - and the universe within it - since we oozed around as a single celled organism.  Trial and error, big,  small, God/ no god. It’s all in our brains.  When/if the brain changes - everything will change.  But for now a God makes the most sense from my perspective

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 09:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Well if we want to get crazy - I would say God does not exist only because the concept of existance is a human concept - and nothing human would apply to God - or a non- human as far as I’m concerned.

Now you’re conflating far eastern metephysical nonsense with your own creed. Further, in your missionary zeal, you’re still missing the point that with an omnipotant god, there is no need for anything which might be considered fine tuning. A truely omnipotant being could literally make life and cause existance in any medium it wanted to. This is why all of your arguements…every single one…are fatally flawed.

No matter how you spin it, they disprove the existance of your god.

What amazes me about all the smart people out there who believe in evolution forget the entire universe is in our brain - in the present state of our brain i might add.

No it’s not. (And in regards evolution, aside from the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about on this issue, I see you’re trying to throw it in to confuse the issue.)

In fact, with all the irrelevancies and non-sequiters you’re throwing in, it looks to me like confusing the matters at hand are exactly what you’re trying to do.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2012 11:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6158
Joined  2009-02-26
sobpatrick - 01 November 2012 09:53 PM
Write4U - 01 November 2012 07:22 PM
mid atlantic - 01 November 2012 06:38 PM
sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

1)  Why advocate the theory of evolution, but not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?  By not promoting it evolutionists appear to be hiding something, they seem to be defensive or just plain ignorant.  Why say that we could create a monkey cage in six days but hide from the idea that a higher evolved being could create our cage in six days?  I’m not saying it did - just saying why couldn’t it?  And why spend so much energy trying to dismiss it??
2) While I completely understand the notion of survival of the fitest, I can’t see why a molicule would want survive -let alone 6.4 billion of them want to line up extremely specifically in 60 trillion different cells in our body.  Call me stupid - but you can’t get a million Phds to line up specifically, let alone trillions of non-intellegent specks -
3) If you believe in evolution you need to believe we will evolve out of the concept of it.  Just as our brain evolved out of an protazoa - future intellegence -(if there is such a thing) will have no use for our primordial concepts

1) Higher evolved beings could exist, but there isn’t any evidence that they do, so scientifically it’s irrelevant.

And if there are higher evolved beings, would they somehow be non-physical?

2) Molecules don’t want to survive; their activity, like all matter, is controlled by the “laws of physics.” These “laws” are an inherent part of the known universe.

Does a star want to go nova or does it want to survive going nova?

3)I don’t know what you mean by we have to “evolve out of the concept of evolution.”

The concept of evolution is not an abstract idea. It is a self evident natural selective process of trial and error.

I see it more as higher evolved beings should exist and yes they could be anything- consider our own brain.  Consciously we can only do two or three things at once - yet our unconsious does twenty million processes a second - we can’t even imagine that - but we do it.
Yeah - for me the “laws” of physics and other cosmological constants scream design - there’s no reason why there should be laws - there could be choas or at least temporary chaos - it’s too controled not to have a conductor.
To evolve out of evolution is to recognize every aspect of our universe is a product of the inner universe - our brain if you like.  And that brain has changed - and the universe within it - since we oozed around as a single celled organism.  Trial and error, big,  small, God/ no god. It’s all in our brains.  When/if the brain changes - everything will change.  But for now a God makes the most sense from my perspective

You are making it all much more difficult than it really is. 

Inflation was a chaotic event, a moment of almost infinite pure energy released in a single mega-quantum event. Order came after the Inflationary Epoch, due to the functions of universal constants and interactions. You see these constants as Universal laws fashioned by some intelligence. This is wrong.
These qualities are inherent in the structure of spacetime and its physical existence.  I identify them as Universal Potentials (latent abilities).
Does this not sound more reasonable than “there must be an ‘unknowable being’ that ‘endowed’ everything with their inherent potentials before anything even existed”?

Did you know that the Vatican (Holy See) has acknowledged Universal Evolution, thereby completely negating the OT account of creation? You are still stuck in the notion of “irreducible complexity”.  There is no such thing, it can all be reduced to simple formulas. The only problem science has is the inability to see outward due the sheer physical size of the universe and the difficulty to see inward to the sheer physical smallness at the Planck scale.

But as long as 1 + 1 = 2 (a universal constant), all of it is explainable. There is just a lot of it and the numbers are staggering. By now, if there is no evidence of supernatural meddling, I personally am confident that there is no supernatural Martha Stewart….. cheese

[ Edited: 01 November 2012 11:33 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2012 06:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4858
Joined  2007-10-05
sobpatrick - 01 November 2012 09:36 PM

I think when we see the process of creation - that we do ourselves as humans, and then examine the natural world with everything far more complex, better?

Nope. That is still an incomplete sentence.

Anyhow this entry was a response to the other dude’s comment - kind of a personal statement.  I sent you Leo Susskind and his answer to the extreme specificness of dark energy.  Is his answer something you’re comfortable with?

Do you realize Susskind is an atheist, and does not believe in fine tuning?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2012 07:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
DarronS - 02 November 2012 06:04 AM
sobpatrick - 01 November 2012 09:36 PM

I think when we see the process of creation - that we do ourselves as humans, and then examine the natural world with everything far more complex, better?

Nope. That is still an incomplete sentence.

Anyhow this entry was a response to the other dude’s comment - kind of a personal statement.  I sent you Leo Susskind and his answer to the extreme specificness of dark energy.  Is his answer something you’re comfortable with?

Do you realize Susskind is an atheist, and does not believe in fine tuning?

Yeah I realize that, but his untestable response of “10 to the power of 122 other universes”  just to account for fine tuning, should not sit well with anyone.  It sure doesn’t with me.  Do you accept it? A true sceptic should not accept it and say “what other options are there?” One of my points as to why I think atheism is in trouble.  And of course this is just one of numerous extremely specific aspects of our reality.  How many times can people just say “no” to a higher power with everything so specific?  To me there is absolutely no logic in that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2012 08:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
Write4U - 01 November 2012 11:18 PM
sobpatrick - 01 November 2012 09:53 PM
Write4U - 01 November 2012 07:22 PM
mid atlantic - 01 November 2012 06:38 PM
sobpatrick - 29 October 2012 10:46 PM

1)  Why advocate the theory of evolution, but not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?  By not promoting it evolutionists appear to be hiding something, they seem to be defensive or just plain ignorant.  Why say that we could create a monkey cage in six days but hide from the idea that a higher evolved being could create our cage in six days?  I’m not saying it did - just saying why couldn’t it?  And why spend so much energy trying to dismiss it??
2) While I completely understand the notion of survival of the fitest, I can’t see why a molicule would want survive -let alone 6.4 billion of them want to line up extremely specifically in 60 trillion different cells in our body.  Call me stupid - but you can’t get a million Phds to line up specifically, let alone trillions of non-intellegent specks -
3) If you believe in evolution you need to believe we will evolve out of the concept of it.  Just as our brain evolved out of an protazoa - future intellegence -(if there is such a thing) will have no use for our primordial concepts

1) Higher evolved beings could exist, but there isn’t any evidence that they do, so scientifically it’s irrelevant.

And if there are higher evolved beings, would they somehow be non-physical?

2) Molecules don’t want to survive; their activity, like all matter, is controlled by the “laws of physics.” These “laws” are an inherent part of the known universe.

Does a star want to go nova or does it want to survive going nova?

3)I don’t know what you mean by we have to “evolve out of the concept of evolution.”

The concept of evolution is not an abstract idea. It is a self evident natural selective process of trial and error.

I see it more as higher evolved beings should exist and yes they could be anything- consider our own brain.  Consciously we can only do two or three things at once - yet our unconsious does twenty million processes a second - we can’t even imagine that - but we do it.
Yeah - for me the “laws” of physics and other cosmological constants scream design - there’s no reason why there should be laws - there could be choas or at least temporary chaos - it’s too controled not to have a conductor.
To evolve out of evolution is to recognize every aspect of our universe is a product of the inner universe - our brain if you like.  And that brain has changed - and the universe within it - since we oozed around as a single celled organism.  Trial and error, big,  small, God/ no god. It’s all in our brains.  When/if the brain changes - everything will change.  But for now a God makes the most sense from my perspective

You are making it all much more difficult than it really is. 

Inflation was a chaotic event, a moment of almost infinite pure energy released in a single mega-quantum event. Order came after the Inflationary Epoch, due to the functions of universal constants and interactions. You see these constants as Universal laws fashioned by some intelligence. This is wrong.
These qualities are inherent in the structure of spacetime and its physical existence.  I identify them as Universal Potentials (latent abilities).
Does this not sound more reasonable than “there must be an ‘unknowable being’ that ‘endowed’ everything with their inherent potentials before anything even existed”?

Did you know that the Vatican (Holy See) has acknowledged Universal Evolution, thereby completely negating the OT account of creation? You are still stuck in the notion of “irreducible complexity”.  There is no such thing, it can all be reduced to simple formulas. The only problem science has is the inability to see outward due the sheer physical size of the universe and the difficulty to see inward to the sheer physical smallness at the Planck scale.

But as long as 1 + 1 = 2 (a universal constant), all of it is explainable. There is just a lot of it and the numbers are staggering. By now, if there is no evidence of supernatural meddling, I personally am confident that there is no supernatural Martha Stewart….. cheese

To be truthful, none of the stats I’m presenting are mine personally.  I’m just quoting from the experts in the field, and the experts say inflation had to be exact to a quintillionth of a point.
To say universal constants are just inherent to space time does not make sense to me.  I think saying things “just happen” or “that’s the way it is” is in opposition to science – and I believe the experts don’t accept it as well.  From what I understand, part of string/m theory is to explain such specificity.  Basically every possible variation in the “string” must create another universe with other properties in their own space.  As a result you have 10 to the power of 500 other (improvable) universes.  I fine this difficult to accept as well (plan crazy actually).
Yeah the Vatican to me is just the main office for a large corporation.  They need to control the masses so whatever they send out needs to be easily understandable and not too cerebral.  Evolution is an easy thing to accept (when you don’t look too deeply into it) Yes we look like monkeys, who are similar to rodents…
But when you do look deeper into evolution you find some paradoxes.  One being each link in the evolutionary chain has its own universe.  And all are projections of our human consciousness.  There is a story about the farmer holding a pig up to an apple tree.  A man walks by and asks “What are you doing” the farmer replies “I’m feeding my pig”.  The man responds “that will take you an eternity to feed him that way” to which the farmer says “what does eternity mean to a pig?”  This story illustrates how we shouldn’t see anything as universal.  We have to function in a shared reality 1+1= 2 makes sense in this reality.  But I can’t say such realities of our brains are shared with different brains.  Even small children – my 2 yr old doesn’t get 1+1= 2.  Is his reality right or is mine?  What if our brain didn’t stop forming at 13yrs and continued to advance as dramatically as it does between 1 and 5yrs?  Would 1+1 still equal 2?
I don’t think it would.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 26
4