Caleb

Religion and Secularism
121
And science did not create the knowledge contained in Wikipedia?
Create the knowledge? No. Wikipedia references knowledge that already exists, but it doesn't create information from scratch (as far as I know). I believe you must source your data when contributing there, or risk your contribution getting deleted.
And what exactly do you assume God created? Physical reality consists of three fundamental values which interact via mathematically based processes.
The catalyst for the Big Bang. But, that's kinda vague. Let's use something you brought up: time. Time was created during the Big Bang. As you said "eternity has the same value as instantly". Physically, is it possible for something to be both eternal and instantaneous at the same time?
Where does God come in and can you define what God is and why it is required that a God must exist?
He fills in the "gaps" of knowledge. Until science can answer why the Big Bang happened, I and most people will believe God caused it. Sorry, but "random energy fluctuations" isn't a valid scientific explanation in my opinion, nor is it any different than saying God caused those fluctuations.

 

Alright, let me show you what I’ve written so far for my blog entry on God. As I’ve said, this is 8 months early, so it’s still a WIP and not set in stone and I’m willing to make changes. But I’d appreciate some feedback nonetheless:

 

Caleb: God

If God were to return to Earth as an ordinary human being, I believe he would choose to be an actor. An actor is a person who portrays a character in a performance, and God is certainly one complex character!

He already has previous experience playing diverse characters in creation stories – playing male and female genders accordingly, to each “script”. For example, in the Bible, he plays both a domineering, aggressive, and demanding father figure; but also a kind, compassionate, and protective son.

Lastly, he plays the role of a mysterious, genderfluid, multilingual spirit, which ironically, is actually closest to his true physical form. I use he/him pronouns only because I was raised believing him to be male.

Each religion defines God’s role differently: different origin stories, different settings, different personalities, different cast, etc. In the end, he is still the same supernatural entity that we all know and love.

For those of you that don’t believe in him (because you’ve never physically met), I suggest to picture him as the embodiment of “infinity” in mathematics.

That is, he’s an entity that is boundless and larger than any real or natural number. He cannot be directly quantified, but he can be symbolized, and therefore, he can be conceptually understood – even in the mind of a 5-year-old child.

I say that God would play an actor because he really loves performing. He actually plays an active role in all our lives, communicating through the hearts of our friends and family.

His primary motivation in life is to ensure that we all live our lives to their fullest. One day you will meet him, and discover all this for yourself. I’m just accelerating this process for you.

 

122
why it is required that a God must exist?
There are way too many answers to this, and I purposely didn't address it in my blog entry. Believers have a personal connection with God. He means different things to different people. He's done different things for different people. I don't know your life story; why you became an atheist or why you continue to remain one. However, most people attribute those insane "mathematical probabilities" you spoke of, to God. However, instead of thanking improbability, they're thanking God -- a "character" one can relate with far better than a percentage.
123
And given how fine tuned the probabilities are in life in order for us to survive, I’m more likely to believe in pseudorandomness than randomness.
And what is pseudorandomness? Mathematical probability!

Not only that, but mathematics present a quasi-intelligent function which seems to be a property of the universal spacetime fabric itself. The proof of this lies in the fact that our symbolic mathematics are uncannily accurate and allow us to predict future causal events with great accuracy. Our “creation” of the Higgs boson is an example of accuracy in human symbolic representation of universal mathematics.

I believe a lot of people look at this from the wrong perspective. The universe is not fine tuned for mathematics of life. Life is fine tuned to the mathematics of the universe.

Life comes in an almost infinite variety of forms under an almost infinite variety of conditions. Life is a emergent phenomenon, a result, not a cause, except after it has emerged by Abiogenesis. We have proven this is not only possible, but necessary under certain conditions. There is no hint of a supernatural causality being necessary for any of it.

So unless God is defined as a natural phenomenon, it is an unnecessary causality. As Hazen observes, life can express itself in many forms and via many bottlenecks, on many planets in the universe that have some basic chemicals and environmental conditions in common, like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, clay, etc. and a dynamic but regular environment with moderate temperatures. And most important of all, a mathematical regularity in planetary behavior, like an ordinary orbit around a stable sun. The earth is a typical example of an ordinary planet with potential for the abiogenesis and evolution of some form of life.

124
You’re looking at this from the wrong perspective.
I think you're right there. I may use the info you mentioned in that post for the Zola entry. Science is a better fit for her character. :)
125
However, instead of thanking improbability, they’re thanking God — a “character” one can relate with far better than a percentage.
I like that, it's true.

But one way to get around that is to assign a mathematical essence to spacetime itself. IOW, probability and percentages are mathematical measurements of a universal condition which appears to function with intent, but is fundamentally based on regularity.

Regular - Wikipedia

There is an extremely large number of unrelated notions of "regularity" in mathematics. Algebra and number theory[edit]. (See also the geometry section for notions ...‎Arts, entertainment, and... · ‎Mathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Regular
126

What’s the url to the Wikipedia page? The link you put just points to the main page.

127
And what is pseudorandomness? Mathematical probability!
Yup! I didn't mention this before, but when God "spoke" to me in 2010, it was via pseudorandomness. Very similar experience to A Beautiful Mind.

 

I’ll do more research on abiogenesis, and found these 2 articles a little while back, which corresponds to the C H N O connection you mentioned:

 

Love to hear your thoughts!

128
a “character” one can relate with far better than a percentage. -- yonkey
Not sure I can. That's why I left. The draw was community, which is imperfect, but we know that. The push was the lies, the claims that belief in Jesus was the starting point, and then study and prayer would fill in the missing elements. It doesn't, unless you consider filling in a story, an unsubstantiated narrative, to be the same as filling in the mysteries of life with evidence, poetry, learning, logic, etc.
129
Not sure I can. That’s why I left. The draw was community, which is imperfect, but we know that. The push was the lies, the claims that belief in Jesus was the starting point, and then study and prayer would fill in the missing elements. It doesn’t, unless you consider filling in a story, an unsubstantiated narrative, to be the same as filling in the mysteries of life with evidence, poetry, learning, logic, etc.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Yes, my goal in all this is to connect with different people, on different levels. I'm essentially building a global community, and all through the narrative of my personal life experiences, which all happen to be based on truth (since that's what I like :P) The irony is that it started from writing in a personal journal... and somehow evolved into a public platform.

And that’s why I created Caleb like an homage to religion without all the negative elements you mentioned. An archangel that belongs to no single religion yet represents all of them, spiritual leader, protector, etc. He also represents faith, which I think is a powerful thing. Whether it’s faith in God, humanity, science, or whatever, it’s important to believe in something to derive meaning and purpose.

130
W4U said; And science did not create the knowledge contained in Wikipedia?
.
Create the knowledge? No. Wikipedia references knowledge that already exists, but it doesn’t create information from scratch (as far as I know). I believe you must source your data when contributing there, or risk your contribution getting deleted.
Your answer evades the question, read it again, more closely......

 

131

Oh sorry, I think I misread it as “And scientists did not create the knowledge…”. You’re right the field of science is what the knowledge contained in Wikipedia is based on.

I was mainly focusing on those that create - engineers, artists, musicians, writers, etc. Science is more about discovery than “creation”, which is why I believe there is so much animosity towards creationism.

132
I believe there is so much animosity towards creationism.
Not really the word "creation" is a neutral term and is the opposite of the word "destruction"

OTOH, “Creationism” is a suspect term as it invokes a motivated creator and IMO , that is more imagination than based on demonstrable proofs.

If I introduced the religious term “Destructionism” in context of a motivated action causing a Supernova, would you accept that proposition without question?

133

Your using the word faith loosely. Do you mean trust?

Also infinity is a concept we made up. You want to equate God to a concept- go for it

134
Not really the word “creation” is a neutral term and is the opposite of the word “destruction”
Ok, that's a relief, because I wasn't sure if I was offending you guys every time I used the word or not! ?
If I introduced the religious term “Destructionism” in context of a motivated action causing a Supernova, would you accept that proposition without question?
Hmm, I know Hinduism has a God Shiva the Destroyer, but the context is that he destroys in order to recreate. But to answer your question, I probably would take issue with such a concept. Destruction is counterproductive after all.
135
Your using the word faith loosely. Do you mean trust?
Yes, that's how I meant it -- trust.
Also infinity is a concept we made up. You want to equate God to a concept- go for it
Excellent!
136

So your God is just a concept with no explanatory powers or usage.

Faith used in the religious sense is not trust but belief without evidence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

137
So your God is just a concept with no explanatory powers or usage.
Do I really need to describe omnipotence? I thought that's self-evident. And usage... I think I'd be restrictive if I attempted to describe them.
Faith used in the religious sense is not trust but belief without evidence
I'm more going for the "feeling" of faith rather than the action. So trust is fine.
138

But you have no good reason for God belief.

No explanatory powers and no usage. Just a concept as you have agreed.

139

Ok, I’ll make some adjustments later.

140
Do I really need to describe omnipotence? I thought that’s self-evident. -- yonkey
Sure, but how can a God be both all powerful and all good? How can one know the many choices that exists, the consequences of them, and the good and the bad of all that and then act as if that's the best they can do? Unless there is some set of perfect choices that lead to perfect outcomes and some way to communicate them, what is the point of omnipotence? Balancing justice and mercy is the challenge of every civilization, from the smallest tribe on up. The answer I get from believers is "God works in mysterious ways". Which is the opposite of self-evident.