Sunday, March 1, 2009

Conclusions from the Big Picture

Taking a look at the universe itself, there are some things that I could say about the being that created it. Obviously it took a great deal of power to create something the size and with the amount of energy in the universe. I don't know if you could conclude that this being is all powerful. He/She/It certainly could be but I don't see any strong evidence either way. I would also say that this being has a penchant for order as the rules of gravity, space/time, energy are constant and stable. The creator probably has some kind of needs or motivation. Why else create something if not to satisfy some kind of longing/desire. He/She/It must also be very creative as the variety of heavenly bodies indicates. He/She/It probably has some kind of planning personality. The elements and the precise requirements in the first few instances after the big bang indicate that this creation was thought out beforehand.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

What We've Got

It seems to me that the most probable explanation for universe is the existence of a creator. Now I'm wondering what this creator might be like and what, if anything, he/she/it wants from us. There are some things that I should be able to conclude about the creator by what he/she/it created so let's start with what we've got.
So, what do we have. According to various experts in the field, this is the situation. There are 1 to the power of 80 particles in the universe. It is about 30 to 40 billion light years in diameter and expanding. Matter is centered in galaxies that contain on average about 200 billion stars each. There are a number of rules that matter seems to follow (gravity, energy, momentum, etc.). The universe seems to be understandable. The matter that we can detect seems to be a small part of the matter in the universe. There are basic elements which seem to have be made from the most basic element, hydrogen. There are many different kinds of heavenly bodies (stars, nebula, planets, comets, etc.). As far as we know there is life on only one planet in the universe. This life is incredibly diverse with a wide variety of functions and complexity. Some life is self aware. All life seems to be built around the same genetic code system. All life except for humans create a balanced system with each other which is very stable. The complexity of the organism is more or less related to the size of their genome. The body systems of organisms are very stable. There are events that happen in the body systems that cause them to break down. There seems to be a spiritual and a self part of humans that does not seem to be a part of the physical but yet is closely related to it. Upper animals feel emotions. Emotions are complex and seem to be able to be controlled. Human nature seems to have some rules although they are complex. There are things that humans characterize as desirable and those which they characterize as undesirable. Humans tend to want to gravitate toward the desirable.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Taking Stock Part II

Points Against the Existence of a Creator

1. How did a creator begin? Is it possible for something to have existed forever? If He/She/It didn't exist forever, what created the creator?
2. There isn't hard evidence that He/She/It participates in the universe. Why create a universe and then sit back and watch?
3. Why would a creator allow the cruel and evil things in the world?
4. There is no scientific proof.
5. Why would a being powerful enough to create the universe create a world that has so many imperfections?
6. Why leave the world in confusion as to your existence? There are many religions that profess to be the "true way." What would be the purpose of creating the universe and leaving little evidence of your creation?

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Taking Stock

Here's the points for and against that I have in my mind right now. I'm still on the search for others.

Points for the existence of a creator
1. The universe couldn't have existed always otherwise all heat and energy would be spread evenly throughout the universe (second law of thermodynamics) and so it was created. That implies that something created it.
2. The conditions needed for life are very specific. It seems extremely improbable that they came about by chance. You can only call on the anthropic principle (it must have happened that way or we wouldn't be here to talk about it) so many times before you say the improbabilities are just too great. Setting up the conditions seem to indicate that something was setting them up.
a) Immediately after the big bang all matter in the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.
b) Then matter expanded at exactly the right speed to form stars and planets. Stephen Hawkins says that if they expanded one part in a thousand million millions slower, matter would have collapsed back on itself. Any faster and stars wouldn't have formed.
c) The stars and planets.
d) After the earth cooled, there was no water. We needed water for life. 326 000 000 000 000 000 000 gallons appeared on earth with no good explanations for the amount.
e) There are right handed and left handed amino acids. If both existed on earth then life could not have happened. Somehow all the right handed amino acids were eliminated.
f) The development of the atmosphere for life and a stable world with small temperature changes (no other planets discovered so far could support our kind of life).
3. There is no plausible model for the first cell. There is no good explanation for where all the molecules came from and no good explanation for how they came together in close proximity.
4. Even if all the ingredients for a cell are brought together in plentiful supply in a test tube, life does not occur. Something needs to "breathe" life into it.
5. Very specific proteins with very specific tasks (eg. DNA polymerase) are needed for life. The probability of about 1 000 amino acids arranging themselves in the right order is infinitesimally small. There are many more specific enzymes that are needed for life to occur.
6. Life needed a DNA or RNA strand of about 30 000 base pairs to begin. The probability of about 30 000 nucleic acids arranging themselves in the right order is almost too small to be worth considering possible.
7. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any system, open or closed, all things tend toward entropy. For chance evolution to occur, the opposite would have had to happen millions of times over.
8. The fossil record shows sudden jumps in complexity. The first animal was the comb jelly which has connective tissue and a nervous system. During the Cambrian Explosion, plants and animals suddenly (in the geological sense) went from very simple to very complex. It is easier to believe that something was involved in the process rather than evolution took jumps.
9. Natural selection selects out or for certain traits. It does not increase the complexity of the organism.
10. There have been no beneficial mutations documented that increase the complexity of the organism.
11. In every culture there is a belief in spiritual beings.
12. Complex organs like the eye could not have evolved since there are many steps that give no benefit to the organism and there is no reason to continue along a path to build them.
13. There are DNA segments that exists in different species that did not exist in their common ancestor.
14. In cases of people who have been resuscitated, they experience very similar things including meeting some "being of light."
15. Any time we see complexity, we immediately assume that an intelligent being organized it. Why would we assume different for the universe?
16. Nobody has observed evolution occuring. Even those there are more humanoid beings living right now than for the last six million years and far more mutanogens. Lots of evolutionary steps happened then. Why are not more happening now? We see the extinction of many species but no new species appearing. Evidence shows fewer species developing.

Well, I ran out of time. I'll cover the points against in my next post.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

the Religion of Niwrad

The atheistic evolutionary doctrines resemble a religion in many ways. They have their priests who preach the doctrine, their great prophet Darwin, and their minor prophets, dating back many years before Darwin. Their tenets are laid out and need to be accepted by faith. If you don't believe in them, you may be ridiculed, shunned, or even put out of the church. If you ask the priests too many questions regarding the foundational tenets of their faith, they can become defensive and may tell you to "have patience my son/daughter for the answers will some day be revealed to you." They claim that theirs is the one true religion and will not consider the validity of others.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

The Thin Veneer of Civilization

I've been reading things off and on about the "There probably is no God so don't worry and start living" campaign.
For many years the country of Haiti was tightly ruled by a dictator name Papa Doc Duvalier. After he died, his son took over but was eventually deposed. We moved to the country shortly after his overthrown and experienced five revolutions in the three years we were there. It was a country adrift. There was virtually no functioning government and the rule was might is right. The revolutions were caused by bands of former army or police officers getting a hold of some guns and trying to milk the already financially anemic country out of more money. These gangs would rape, steal, murder, basically do what they wanted until another group got together enough weapons or power to replace them. What happens to the human mind in times of extreme unrest is scary. With no anchor of proper behaviour and manners to hold on to, people can be extremely base, stripped down to survival instincts.
This isn't a scientific point for or against any party in the origins debate but a prediction. If there is no creator then there is no real justification for ethics. If there is no purpose in life, then why should I be concerned about others. My goal would be to propagate my own genetic code by whatever means I can and be the one who survives in the "survival of the fittest" race. What reason would I have to work for the common good? There would be no ethical reason to stop me from doing whatever I can to be the top dog.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Why do people go to church

These are in the order that they come into my mind, not of importance.

1. Duty
2. Fear - I think this may be a big one. I think there are a lot of people who are afraid of hell.
3. Societal expectations
4. Searching
5. They believe and are looking for teaching
6. Friendship
7. Parental/Family pressure
8. Hedging their bets - If there is no God, then no harm done, but if there is a God, they've circumvented hell
9. Routine
10. Comfort in the traditions
11. It makes them look respectable
12. Guilt
13. An anchor in a cruel and unstable world
14. A moment of peace
15. Networking - maybe some go to make business or social contacts
16. To feel needed
17. To reinforce our belief system
18. For ego boosting - Churches tend to be forgiving and full of praise for efforts and talents that might not be as appreciated elsewhere
19. It makes them happy
20. Because they believe God wants them to