Recent Posts

1

Episode Chatter / Re: Episode 155

« Last post by DLMCK on Today at 08:42:52 AM »

Actually, although I said "testable" in the above message, the proper terminology is "falsifiable," which means  "capable of being proved false." That usually means that some tests are made to show a thing true or false, or at least arguments are put forth which show other ways of "faking" the results (as are done in most PSI/ESP experiments). When such arguments are put forth, then the testing becomes more rigorous, to negate the fakery.

Let me give you an example of unfalsifiability:

In at least the Catholic religion, the priests perform a vampiric and cannibalistic rite (the partaking of the blood of Christ and the body of Christ). A blessing of wine and bread is performed, etc.

Now, at least when (and perhaps before) man became capable of performing scientific tests to see if the blessing actually transubstantiated the wine and bread to something different, the Church declared that it did indeed transition the bread and wine into the analog of  blood and flesh, and that it was subject to "no test of man" to prove that it did not. In that moment, it became unfalsifiable (meaning, incapable of being proved false), at least in the Church. Imagine their chagrin when some priest (or priests) began "turning" Coca Cola and Oreo cookies into the blood and flesh of Christ. They got really pissed off at this more-or-less blasphemy.

So, very many things are unfalsifiable in religion, the existence of god(s) being one of these.

The entire reason for this message is to reinforce the idea that if things are not "capable of being proved false," they are merely conjecture. (And, remember "capable of being proved false" does not mean that they will be proved false, but rather that there is a means to find out whether they are false.)

~Dennis

2

Episode Chatter / Re: Episode 155

« Last post by DLMCK on Today at 07:09:52 AM »

As has been said by one who first said it and which has been repeated many times by many others:

Time is the fire in which we burn.

So, in that sense, Ian is correct.

Even so, finding answers is the human trait, so "seeking" never ends. Still, speculation should always be labeled as such, rather than as "fact." The answers to the "what ifs" often lead to illumination, and "testability" leads to answers. If it ain't testable, it remaing conjecture.

~Dennis

3

Episode Chatter / Re: Episode 155

« Last post by Angry (Ian) Bastich on May 21, 2013, 08:42:12 PM »

I've thought a lot about it, and I've got nothing. Nothing that would add to this at all. I believe that science and math will always have the answer. From a philosophical standpoint, I feel the whole question of the origin of everything is somewhat pointless. I can't imagine how finding the catalyst would help us, humanity as a whole, in improving any aspect of our lives. Would it be cool to know? Sure it would. Would the knowledge bring about world peace, or end hunger or racism? Most likely not. My philosophy is to look towards the future. I am not concerned with how I got here, only what I do with the time I have.

4

Episode Chatter / Re: Episode 155

« Last post by Thom on May 21, 2013, 12:46:41 PM »

Logically, I know that I'm still doing the same exact thing man has been doing for thousands of years- filling in the spaces where I lack knowledge with a higher power. I'm not much different than the ancient peasant hearing thunder and picturing a giant man throwing around bolts of lightning.

5

Episode Chatter / Re: Episode 155

« Last post by DLMCK on May 21, 2013, 07:52:34 AM »

My original rant is against the Fundamentalists, who believe that a particular collection of scrolls, written by the scientifically ignorant and (perhaps) the delusional and the (could be) fraudulists and (probably some of) the mentally ill, when assembled into a single book, is the one-and-only written word of the Sky Fairy, er, hmph, God. Furthermore, these Fundamentalists are (for the most part) literalists and are (usually) also scientifically ignorant, and they claim (believe) this assemblage of scrolls is the True Word, and EVERYTHING in that assemblage did indeed happen, and that there were unicorns (look it up) and demons and and other such mythical beasts and persons and happenings, including a devastating flood that (aw, hell, you know that distortion of something altogether different).

Anyway, Thom, you are right in that the odds are (very) long when it comes to  having a planet in the Goldilocks zone, a planet with a large, stabilizing moon, a planet with water and a sufficient atmosphere (which once was something other than the nitrogen/oxygen/trace mix it currently is, and with a rotating iron core and its associated shielding magnetic field, and a temperature-leveling planetary rotation, all in a friendly orbit, and with the chemicals of life (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen) available, and with subduction and lightning and churn of oceans and ice ages and hot ages and other natural elements available to give rise to life. But, given all the foregoing, LIFE happens. Not because there is a Sky Fairy, but rather because there is chemistry and physics and natural forces at work.

As to turtles all the way down, it is just as true for having gods all the way down as it is for non-god Universe creations. I.e., where did that Big Bang particle come from is the same question as where did god come from. Quantum mechanics says the Big Bang arose spontaneously from nothing, hence NGN. Perhaps a god spontaneously arose from nothing, yet that god would have to exist in a nothingness vacuum and have to have very powerful abilities to create all else, starting with what was probably a Big Bang.

Nevertheless, my rant against Fundamentalists stands.

~Dennis

6

Episode Chatter / Re: Episode 155

« Last post by Thom on May 20, 2013, 09:16:41 PM »

If this is all your dream then you are one disturbed man, Charlie Brown.

7

Episode Chatter / Re: Episode 155

« Last post by (the) Brian on May 20, 2013, 06:14:20 PM »

I must warn you that at some point I will wake from this dream and this whole existence will cease.

8

Episode Chatter / Re: Episode 155

« Last post by Thom on May 20, 2013, 05:56:50 PM »

More.

Isn't the universe pretty much an "If x then y" kind of place? We can look at background radiation in the universe (the "y") and determine the rough date of the Big Bang (the "x")? We could play the "turtles all the way down" game and ask, "What caused life to originate?" and answer with, "Solar radiation bombarding water." We can say that the Big Bang gave birth to the stars. We can say the Big Bang happened because of randomly occurring particles from the quantum foam. We can say strings. We can say previous universe, Big Crunch leading to our Big Bang.

But, what's the origin point?

In my head, there's an starting point. Something that existed before matter existed. Call it whatever you like: Flying Spaghetti Monster, magically spawning quantum foam, a primal ball of matter that "Is, Was and Always Shall Be" that spends trillions of years exploding and contracting in an infinite cycle of universe creating and destroying for no apparent reason. What's the origin of reality?

That's my God.

9

Episode Chatter / Re: Episode 155

« Last post by Thom on May 20, 2013, 12:47:29 PM »

I think a good way to solidify or weaken non-scientific beliefs is to try and explain them to someone who is very literal. In my case, a seven year old boy with Autism. The concept of God (or god, if you prefer) makes no sense to him. However, when I tell him that the stars consume hydrogen and turn it into helium, and the result is everything in the universe- iron, carbon, gases, etc. - he gets it. As Carl Sagan said, "We are made of starstuff."

My belief in creationism and God/god has more to do with a philosophic curiosity than anything else. Sure, there's a mathematical chance that life spontaneously formed, that the Earth would have the right conditions to support life, that life would have the exact things needed to evolve over billions of years into its current state, and that eventually we'd be here.

What about the mathematical chances of a Big Bang that could kick start it all? Why do particles pop in and out of existence? What's the mathematical chances that quantum foam could spontaneously exist? When you add the foam, the Big Bang, the right kind of sun, liquid water, spontaneous life, conditions for that life to evolve, the life actually evolving into higher forms of life, etc., then what does the math look like?

If I am just a randomly occurring lump of electrons, why do I have an intelligence that a cat lacks? If the cat is just as old (evolutionarily speaking) as me, why is it still a cat?

Does there have to be a god to explain it all? No, but some part of me clings to the fact that there must be some final factor out there, some cause and effect that puts the astronomical odds into life's favor.

10

Episode Chatter / Episode 155

« Last post by DLMCK on May 20, 2013, 11:59:27 AM »

Joe Hill (the writer): Horns was okay, as was Heart-Shaped Box, but he isn’t as good as his daddy. Anyway, thanks to Brian, I am also reading the graphic novel Lock and Key. I’ll probably post something when I finish it.

BL-1 is/was a fun game, and it is really good for getting acquainted with the Borderlands stuff. It’s a good introduction to Borderlands 2. But Ian is right: the story line in BL-2 is much better than the shoot-and-loot story line of BL-1. BL-1 is more like a dungeon crawl (kick down the door, kill all, grab the treasure, move to the next door), as to BL-2’s generally better Role Playing game with an overall objective to stop Handsome Jack and prevent his control of the Great Monster, hence his dictatorial control of the world (hence, BL-2 is a save-the-world game).

Speaking of Big Brother (and you were), Person of Interest (the TV show) confirms the conspiracy theorists worst fears. Sounds just like Ian’s and Thom’s conversation.

Incidentally, I do like the idea of replacing the White House with a trailer.

But-but, YA books far preceded Harry Potter books. J.K. Rowling just happened to catch the wave. But even though some of us thing the Potter books are a very long rehashing of previous young-boy-becomes-a-Wizard, and young people form a great group that fights evil, and young people win sports games, JK managed to mash it all together. Give her credit for that.

Bad People who are Heroes: (In film) The Professional (with Jean Reno [as the assassin], Gary Oldman [the corrupt cop], Natalie Portman [the kid, her first and best professional role]); (on TV) Dexter (a serial killer whose targets are serial killers); (in comics) the Punisher (another kind of serial killer who’s targets are bad guys).

DLMcK Rant follows:

Oh, crap, what the Creationists ignore concerning the rise of life are physics and chemistry and math. I will pose the following quite "simple" problem from a Creationist’s viewpoint and then a Chemist’s and then the Creationist’s and then a Physicist’s and then the Creationist’s and then a Mathematician’s.

So, the Creationist says, “What are the odds that life arose from a series of random events? Impossible, I tell you. So, God had to step in and create everything.”

And the Chemist says, “Well, let me pose the following problem: let’s say you take a bunch of marbles, say, three-thousand of them, all the same size, except two thousand are red and one thousand are white. We put them in a big container, shake them up, freeze them, heat them up, spin them around, mash them, and whatever else you can do to them without destroying them, and when we stop, we let them cool down, warm up, and so on. And then, sight unseen, we let them out of the container three at a time. What are the odds that for every triad we get two red ones and one white one, time after time, two reds and one white for each and every three we release sight unseen from the bag?”

The Creationist replies, “Two reds and one white for each three we pullout of the container?”

Chemist: “Yup”

Creationist: “Virtually impossible odds. Like Life arising from a series of random events. Impossible!”

Chemist: “Ah, but you forget, I said we applied heat.”

Creationist: “So?”

Chemist: “Well, what if I told you the red marbles were really Hydrogen atoms, and the white marbles were Oxygen atoms, and I applied heat, and, voila! Water forms. It really isn’t random at all. It’s Chemistry.”

Creationist: “You tricked me!”

Chemist: “No. I just told you that Life isn’t random at all. Chemistry and natural forces are involved.”

Creationist: “Well, then, I say God made the Oxygen and Hydrogen. The world, too.”

Physicist: “Nope. The Hydrogen is a natural product of the Big Bang and the Oxygen comes from the nuclear fusion engines of the stars. And the stars themselves came from hydrogen and helium and gravity working together. And the stars form from clouds of gases drawn together by gravity And at the moment of ignition, the shock wave throughout the cloud of gases produce the conditions that lead to the formation of planets in orbit. Hence the Earth, among other things, comes about.  And the hydrogen and helium and space itself were formed from quarks and other particles created in the Big Bang.”

Creationist: “Aha! Then the Big Bang itself came at the hand of God.”

Mathematician: “Sorry, old man, but of recent—in a mathematicians’ measure of ‘recent,’ that is—we have shown according to quantum theory, particles can pop in and out of existence at random, all part of the quantum foam, and the energy of a given partial can be at almost any level you’d care to name. So, the Big Bang particle itself is subject to that math, and so, no hand of any god (or gods) is needed at all.”

Creationist: “Did you say these particles pop in and out at random?”

Mathematician nods.

Creationist (triumphantly): “Q.E.D.”

Mathematician: “No, old boy, back to your original premise, it is false, for life itself is a product of physics, chemistry, natural forces, and evolution. Nothing random about it at all. Not Q.E.D but N.G.N instead.”

Creationist: “N.G.N?”

Chemist, Physicist, Mathematician, in chorus: “No Gods Needed.”

The argument goes on from here, and slowly fades into inaudibility, but the point being that many Creationists’ arguments devolve into arguing against a series of random events leading to life, but when chemistry and physics and natural phenomena are thrown into the mix, the “randomness” turns out to be not so random at all.

Rant is now turned off.

Sorry, guys, for this long side trip, but I was compelled.

I return your regular program to its usual intent.

~Dennis