Don't you love Jesus?

[Wombat]

Here's the issue - observation tells us that things do not randomly become MORE ordered.

No, it tells us that the WHOLE does not become more ordered. It's common and expected that pieces of the whole will become more & less ordered, as long as the average doesn't increase.

Entropy demands that things fall to a lower energy state, not a higher one. The entirety of the universe ending up all logical and ordered... randomly? By mere happenstance? Not only is it unlikely, it has all the forces of physics working against it!

No, it doesn't. We have no idea how much energy existed at the beginning of time. Even the concept of a big <B>bang</B> implies that much, much energy was lost in the expansion, and may still be so at the edges of the universe. No violation of physics at all.

One of my big problems with the concept of evolution is that according to the basic criteria we are NOT the pinnacle of the evolutionary mountain. Why should we have evolved at all? There are plenty of creatures out there that live longer than we do, that are more "evolutionarily successful".

Can you elaborate on this? Why are we not the current peak of this planet's evolution? Just as the first predator, or the first to breathe air, enjoyed huge success at finding a new niche, we are the first to master complicated tools and fire. Just because we control the Earth now does not mean we always shall. I think your vision is limited. Your 100-year lifespan and millenia of civilization look eternally dominant to you, though it's nothing in the millions and billions of years this planet has to look forward to.

WHY, when the laws of entropy demand that everything fall apart... do things instead come together?

For the same reason that if you throw a deck of cards into the air, sometimes they'll form little card houses: ripples of order happen within the average.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not an "Intelligent Design" advocate. I'm saying that unlikelihood is added onto by improbability, and compounded by the laws of the universe... and despite all of that, things tend to become MORE ORDERLY, almost as if that were the way it were... uh... intended.

Not things. By your standards, I'd say "just our planet." The universe is filled with millions of dying stars, and stars that never were. Even our own solar system has ~9 planets where it could have have ~10, and only one that supports life. Sample a million planets, and only a few will appear special. But because your particular view is from one of the special planets, you think the whole universe must be for you.

[Gurm]

I'll look for some for you. I'll try and find some from multiple perspectives so as to not be ... overly biased by my own beliefs.

I assume you are talking about Christ fulfilling the Law of Moses, right?

Jammrock

Yes that is what I thought he wanted - it's something the RCC isn't big on. I mean, they're still working on the whole "what, we can't KILL Jews any more?" thing. Actually, under the current pope, don't be so sure...

[Gurm]

No, it tells us that the WHOLE does not become more ordered. It's common and expected that pieces of the whole will become more & less ordered, as long as the average doesn't increase.

Correct. My problem is that the WHOLE is entirely too orderly. Stars, planets... the better we get at looking around, the more we see that we're not all that special - that most stars have planets after all. MOST solar systems probably look a lot like ours!

No, it doesn't. We have no idea how much energy existed at the beginning of time. Even the concept of a big <B>bang</B> implies that much, much energy was lost in the expansion, and may still be so at the edges of the universe. No violation of physics at all.
...
For the same reason that if you throw a deck of cards into the air, sometimes they'll form little card houses: ripples of order happen within the average.

The problem with this ENTIRE line of argument is that it's not just little ripples. Every star seems to have planets. Everywhere, things aren't just falling apart. Everywhere we look in the night sky we see stars. Not dispersed gasses. Some are dying, but plenty are being born too. What we're looking at is as if someone threw up 1000 million decks of cards, and 500 million of them all formed not just little card houses, but complex mosaics depicting Meditteranean scenes. Then every once in a while, just for fun, the cards fell together SO ORDERLY that they formed a highly advanced microcomputer with an artificial intelligence algorithm named "Phil" which was perpetually cheerful if a bit lonely. See where I'm going with this?

Can you elaborate on this? Why are we not the current peak of this planet's evolution? Just as the first predator, or the first to breathe air, enjoyed huge success at finding a new niche, we are the first to master complicated tools and fire. Just because we control the Earth now does not mean we always shall. I think your vision is limited. Your 100-year lifespan and millenia of civilization look eternally dominant to you, though it's nothing in the millions and billions of years this planet has to look forward to.

Well let's see - there are plenty of creatures that live longer and have few natural predators. We have LOTS of natural predators and it's only the last couple hundred years that our lifespan is worth talking about. Yet we're FAR more complex than, say, a shark - which is an unrivaled top-of-the-pinnacle sort of creature. The horseshoe crab hasn't changed in millions of years - it just works. But it's pretty simple. Why did evolution keep progressing towards MORE COMPLEXITY? That makes no sense. More complex != advantageous.

Not things. By your standards, I'd say "just our planet." The universe is filled with millions of dying stars, and stars that never were. Even our own solar system has ~9 planets where it could have have ~10, and only one that supports life. Sample a million planets, and only a few will appear special. But because your particular view is from one of the special planets, you think the whole universe must be for you.

Even if only a few are special, see my above analogy.

[Nowhere]

Correct. My problem is that the WHOLE is entirely too orderly. Stars, planets... the better we get at looking around, the more we see that we're not all that special - that most stars have planets after all. MOST solar systems probably look a lot like ours!

And what about the whole matter/radtiation that's between them?
Besides, all of it will end up in black holes eventually. Which will eventually evaporate.

The problem with this ENTIRE line of argument is that it's not just little ripples. Every star seems to have planets. Everywhere, things aren't just falling apart. Everywhere we look in the night sky we see stars. Not dispersed gasses. Some are dying, but plenty are being born too. What we're looking at is as if someone threw up 1000 million decks of cards, and 500 million of them all formed not just little card houses, but complex mosaics depicting Meditteranean scenes. Then every once in a while, just for fun, the cards fell together SO ORDERLY that they formed a highly advanced microcomputer with an artificial intelligence algorithm named "Phil" which was perpetually cheerful if a bit lonely. See where I'm going with this?

Those were ripples, slight variances in the density of matter/energy at the beginning. Eventually gravity pulled them together...but another force ripps them apart constantly, and will more so.

Well let's see - there are plenty of creatures that live longer and have few natural predators. We have LOTS of natural predators and it's only the last couple hundred years that our lifespan is worth talking about. Yet we're FAR more complex than, say, a shark - which is an unrivaled top-of-the-pinnacle sort of creature. The horseshoe crab hasn't changed in millions of years - it just works. But it's pretty simple. Why did evolution keep progressing towards MORE COMPLEXITY? That makes no sense. More complex != advantageous.

But those are dead ends, they haven't changed much for millions of years. We OTOH...

Even if only a few are special, see my above analogy. [/QUOTE]
Yes, and most is disoriented matter/energy, or will become so (yes, those special too)


PS. I'm waiting with curiosity for answer about the dillema why Judaism assumes existence of God if it has a doctrine of not assuming anything else about him.

[Gurm]

It assumes the existence of God because he walked up one day, smacked Abraham in the forehead, and went "I'm Rick James, Bee..." oh wait...

[schmosef]

PS. I'm waiting with curiosity for answer about the dillema why Judaism assumes existence of God if it has a doctrine of not assuming anything else about him.

Well God's existence is revealed in the Torah. And it's in the Torah that God tells us not to bother trying to understand him because we don't have the capacity. Instead, we need to follow his rules, essentially the rules of ethical monotheism, and he'll continue to bless the nation of Israel (ie., the decendants of Jacob).

[Nowhere]

But you can't be sure that God have told this. Wouldn't that be another assumption? That those are words of God? (unless there'a a text that overcomes this logical trap of course...)

Hmm...I see this could be potentially bigger deal than depiction of Jesus or God in some places...the latter are "only" disobediencies not changing that much, whether in this case the words of God that tell us to not assume anything about him question his own words.

[KvHagedorn]

Why did evolution keep progressing towards MORE COMPLEXITY? That makes no sense. More complex != advantageous.

I guess our rapid development and growth could be compared to a cancer..

[Gurm]

But you can't be sure that God have told this. Wouldn't that be another assumption? That those are words of God? (unless there'a a text that overcomes this logical trap this of course...)

Hmm...I see this could be potentially bigger deal than depiction of Jesus or God in some places...the latter are "only" disobediencies not changing that much, whether in this case the words of God that tell us to not assume anything about him question his own words.

Actually you ARE allowed to question.

There are simply articles of faith. It's the same with any religion.

*sigh* but this is a retarded argument. Trying to explain to an atheist that you believe in a creator... is like trying to explain to a dog that you don't HAVE to chase the ball.

[Nowhere]

I understand that you believe in him, I want to understand how (also, in greater picture - how Judaism overall deals with dillema I posted).

It's not about questioning per se, but determinig if those words have a chance of coming from God. I think I have the impression that they themselve contradict it...

The thing is, from what I understand there are two basic "rules" in Torah:
- "those are words from God"
- "do not assume anything about God"

It seems to me that the second can mean "don't assume those are words of God"...

BTW, I'm not atheist, more something like this

[Umfriend]

OK< I don;t care either way about anything. I just want to note here that the only logic I have found for believing here is in an argument that goes like: "I do not understand how this all could have come about without a creator, hence I believe it all came about because of a creator which, by the way, I do not understand".

The factual questions raised about the universe here are worhty of any new-age magazine. The most striking thing is that the questions, even if they are relevant/valid, can only go as far as to show that scientific theory can;t explain everything we see. It's actually a fallacy in discourse as it merely seeks to invalidate a standpoint by making it suspect (as in, you can't explain it thus you are wrong) to further another standpoint (which says "I can explain it by proposing an unexplainable thing").

Let me just say that I respect anyone's belief in God, just not the position that such belief is supported by logic.

[schmosef]

But you can't be sure that God have told this. Wouldn't that be another assumption? That those are words of God? (unless there'a a text that overcomes this logical trap this of course...)

Hmm...I see this could be potentially bigger deal than depiction of Jesus or God in some places...the latter are "only" disobediencies not changing that much, whether in this case the words of God that tell us to not assume anything about him question his own words.

Well, there's a couple of ways of looking at that...

First you have the context of how the revelation at Sinai came about... If you accept the context of that then it's not a great leap of faith to accept the Torah.

And that brings me to the second way of looking at it: Faith. For me, it's my faith that allows me to believe what I believe. I don't feel that I follow it blindly either. It feels right. And I don't dispute that a Christian or a Muslim might feel his faith is right either. Again, God's plan is just as unknowable as he himself is. I don't know why he allows what he allows, but if we're lucky, there will be a an interesting story for us one day.

Doc touched on an interesting point before. That of Ruah HaQodesh, or the reception of Divine inspiration. For me, it's what makes my faith feel right. And I'm sure it's what inspires Christians and Muslims too. To what end? I don't know.

I know a few very pious Jews who have no sense of Ruah HaQodesh. They follow the rules of Jewish law with great attention to detail, but they don't feel it. They long for it, but they are truly just going through the motions. To some extent they are Jews because that's what they learned from their parents. I didn't learn Judaism from my parents. They were both secular in practice and lay in their education. I came to my knowledge through my own exploration. That doesn't make me any more or less of a Jew than anyone else, I'm just trying to explain that my faith is based on more than just my upbringing.

Last point I want to make, when I think of how my friends who profess to be atheists must look upon the world and life in general, I get an unpleasant empty feeling. It saddens me that not everyone has some sense of the "spirit of God" in their daily life.

[Gurm]

The thing is, from what I understand there are two basic "rules" in Torah:
- "those are words from God"
- "do not assume anything about God"

AHH. No, you've got the second one wrong.

It should be "do not assume that you can fully comprehend God".

As I said earlier, the Zohar goes on (at some length, quite complex in fact) about the things we DO know and CAN understand about God. But the essence of the being of God... is unknowable, largely because it is beyond our comprehension - as one would expect of an extra-universal entity.

[Umfriend]

*sigh* but this is a retarded argument. Trying to explain to an atheist that you believe in a creator... is like trying to explain to a dog that you don't HAVE to chase the ball.

I am an Atheist. It's not hard to explain to me you believe in a creator actually. Trying to base such belief on logic however is like.... explaining to a dog that the indians HAVE to eat pigs.

[Gurm]

OK< I don;t care either way about anything. I just want to note here that the only logic I have found for believing here is in an argument that goes like: "I do not understand how this all could have come about without a creator, hence I believe it all came about because of a creator which, by the way, I do not understand".

The factual questions raised about the universe here are worhty of any new-age magazine. The most striking thing is that the questions, even if they are relevant/valid, can only go as far as to show that scientific theory can;t explain everything we see. It's actually a fallacy in discourse as it merely seeks to invalidate a standpoint by making it suspect (as in, you can't explain it thus you are wrong) to further another standpoint (which says "I can explain it by proposing an unexplainable thing").

Let me just say that I respect anyone's belief in God, just not the position that such belief is supported by logic.

You could have a point. In 1000 years, the things we understand about the Universe might in fact cause us to stop, as a society, believing in God. And the fear that such a thing might happen is why for thousands of years religious types all over the world have fought to suppress knowledge and learning. With, I might add, the exception of Judaeism.

Ok that sounded a bit smug, but it's true. For 2500+ years, Jews the world over have had a 100% literacy rate. That's pretty impressive, considering that there isn't a 100% literacy rate in any country in the world right now.

But back to the topic at hand... is all religion born of just "not knowing"? Perhaps. That's where faith comes in. Perhaps we are all the result of random fluctuations in the vacuum of nothingness that resulted in the first few hydrogen atoms. Seems pretty bleak to me.