Evidence from the Universe

Share |

Many of you are inclined to cite a lot of scientific evidence for the non-existence of God. This is the folly of the author of this video, who suggests that the Kepler astronomical orbiter proves something for Christians. It is a great video production, however its initial and final conclusions are flawed. They are:

1. Scientific arguments. The existence of a multitude of 'Earth-like' planets is going to make a difference to Christian belief - it won't. Anyone who has debated a great many Christians will find that they are impervious to reason. Why? They use it sparingly in the context of God. Their repudiation of logic is quite simply repression. They repress evidence which is contrary to their believe. They have the infallible capacity to deny reality, and to define it in terms of 'non-existence', or 'other existences', just as this guy suggests their are 'other Earths' or a person with multiple personalities creates other identities.

2. Humility. The guy in the final moments of the video advances the virtue of 'humility'. He is implying that the smallness of humanity is reason enough to feel 'humble'. The reality however is that the vastness of the universe, as difficult as it might be to comprehend, is not grounds for humility, but in fact opportunity. Look how far humanity has come in 3,000 years...given the universe has evolved (since the last Big Bang) over billions of years. Humanity (as a pspecies) is in fact amazing! Unfortunately, we spend most of our lives invested in immortality of the collectivist styles which manifested from religion, then socialism.

Humility is an act of self-repudiation...so fundamentally the producer of this guy agrees with Christianity. Belief is god is a side issue...if not god, they would still be self-loathing. There is no justification for collective 'self-loathing'. I don't even think people have good reason for personal responsibility in a world which possesses such confusing values. It is no wonder that so many fall prey to crime, low self-esteem and the 'temptation' of immoral acts. The Christian failure to utilise their rational faculty (i.e. faith is repudiation of logic since it is acceptance of ideas without evidence) is the ultimate in immorality, but it is a defiance of their nature, not of some God.

I can't help watching this video and feel excited by the opportunity. Humanity is so worried about polluting this 'Earthily environment", and its their values which cause the problem ultimately, and at the end of the day, there are thousands of plausible Earths out their upon which humanity might be able to settle.
haha...That won't stop Christianity....interestingly his final statement was in support of "humility"....which is self-repudiation...so fundamentally the producer of this guy agrees with Christianity. Belief is god is a side issue...if not god, they would still be self-loathing.

See the video.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Arguments against evolution

Share |

Richard Dawkins has done a good job dispelling arguments against evolution in this article. Read his arguments from creationists about the evidence against evolution at Newsweek.

Actually reading the newspaper today, apparently there is new evidence suggesting a further link between chimps and homosapiens called 'ardipithecus ramidus. He is neither a human nor a chimp, but something in between. You can read this story at the NZ Herald. The evidence grows for evolution whilst there is no evidence against. No creationists can find evidence against evolution. There are no misplaced fossils. From creationists however we are already getting the rationalisation that the Bible is just a story to depict ethical principles, and not a factual document.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Charles Darwin and the principle of evolution

Share |

Charles Darwin in 1859 released his book outlining the process of 'natural selection' by which living things have evolved on Earth. In this video about evolution Richard Attenborough highlights in single terms the process by which natural selection accounts for the development of all life forms including humanity. It is noteworthy that important fossil finds are still being made today which give ever greater clarity to this natural process. Radiometrics have also been important in determining the age of fossils and rocks, whilst the genetics is promising to unlock even further discoveries.

My particular interest is in the value of science to the development of philosophy and politics. What this video does highlight on this subject is how religion is not only a repudiation of science, it played a big part in repressing scientific development. Darwin postponed publication of his works out of deferrence to the ignorance, superstition and fears of his Christian brethren. Today science and indeed all knowledge and even our livelihoods are being repressed by religion. Such is the depth of the betrayal of human nature.
You can see the video about Charles Darwin and evolution at this website.
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com - just as importantly Andrew Sheldon evolves. Always testing convention.

The Universe - A justification for God

Share |

People look at the magnificence of the universe, its expanse and complexity, and conclude that this is evidence of a God. I look at this reality and consider it justification for no God. Let's consider the evidence:
1. Science suggests that the universe is 20 billion years old, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Despite this Christianity is a very human-centric philosophy. I cannot argue that religion is consistent with science, whether astrophysics or human nature. Religion to me is a repudiation of everything I know. I can disprove every argument you can make about religion.
2. Grand design: The idea that the universe is a miraculous design, so there must be a designer. This ignores the reality that there was no conscious designer for the universe, it developed or unfolded as a result of its nature. i.e. The materials comprising the universe developed as they must, in accordance with their physical properties.
3. Creation. The argument that there must be a God, otherwise who created the universe 20 billion years ago. The origin of the universe is a speculative issue, however I would posit that the universe was never created; that it has always existed. I would assert that every 20 billion or so the universe goes through a 'Big Bang', or sometimes perhaps smaller bangs. I don't think the universe has the uniformity in its evolution as posited by physicists.
4. Motive: A human-centric God as the maker of the universe and humanity is dubious when you consider the requirement for God to be so patient. He would have to wait 4 billion years for the Earth to form, and 20 billion years for the universe to develop before he could have created humanity. It seems more probable that he does not exist, and Christians are ignorant idiots.
5. Causation: The idea of a God defying all the natural laws that drive every other physical entity is another basis for driving a peg through the Christian hypothesis/'scare model'. The Christian philosophy is a repudiation of human nature, as shown elsewhere.

For a greater appreciation the smallness of humanity in the context of the universe watch this video clip. I recommend it not to show how small you are. You are very important to you, and to anyone who values you. You cannot detach the value from the valuer, which it was Christianity asserts. You are not intrinsically good. You are good for reasons....as determined by a thing which has the capacity to value, whether your pet dog, a presidential nominee, or your wife.

-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Evidence for evolution and against creationism

Share |

If you want evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years I suggest you study geology. There is so much evidence for a protracted history for Earth - it begs belief. Let me start:
1. Geological principles of cross-cutting rock structures
2. Process of sediment to rock maturation - we can observe rocks deposited up to 7,000 metres think without deformation, so they must have been layed down. We can observe typical speeds of deposition.
3. Dating of radiometric isotopes in rocks, ice core. Not just one isotope but a plethora of them from different rocks, each of which tells a story that integrates with the rest.
4. Tree rings alone can be 6,000 years. But there are also tree fossils preserved in rocks which can extend the sentiment history even further. Afterall x number of rings in a rocks must be at least X times older than the rock in which it was found, and they take a lot of compression & heat to mature sediments into rocks.
5. Lake sentiments recording the annual deposition of snow-melt related muds.
6. The massive global database of rocks around the world - empirical veracity
7. The movement of hot spots - eg. Hawaii has left a trail of volcanoes which tell us the age, distance, speed of movement
8. The movement of continents - magnetic reversals from spreading centres
9. Direct observation of geological events. eg. Frequency of meteorites.

Given more time I will think of some more. But lets stack the Bible up against science. They don't so much argue that science has contradictions, but that there is gaps in science. Its not surprising or a concern that there should be gaps. The important issue is that assertions are based on evidence. So let's look at the Bible.

Evidence of strange mystical powers? The Bible and other sources showing that people paralysed in fear by experiences they didn't understand in a pre-science era.
Evidence to refute such assertions. Given the Bible was written by disciples of God, contradictions in the Bible and its philosophy highlight its flaws. This blog is all about those, so don't waste any time.

I would leave you with another point. There is no reason to believe there was actually a starting point for the universe. I would contend that the universe has never started, that it has changed forms, but it has never come or gone in or out of existence. For that reason, I assert that the universe has always existed and always will. I would argue that the formation of the universe as we know it 24 billion years ago was actually just the start of a cycle, and that there has been an infinite number of such cycles.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com