Exploring Naturalism/Materialism .

[animist]

Latest post of the previous page:

...we get the number of communicating civilisations in a galaxy the size of the Milky Way to be 0.91. (Taking the high end of the error bars it is around 182 000 000 - the true figure will lie between these two extremes, but we just don't yet know enough to be able to narrow it down further.)

can you explain this a bit more? AFAIK there are no "communicating civilisations in the galaxy"

How do you know that? First off, we are a communicating civilisation. Secondly, the fact that we are unaware of other communicating civilisations does not mean that they do not exist: we simply do not know. If the low end of the Rare Earth Hypothesis parameter pertain, we may be the only one.

of course I don't know that; as I said, AFAIK there are no other civilisations than ours in the galaxy with whom we might communicate. Actually I was hoping that you would explain the Rare Earth Hypothesis and how you get to the figures you quote

[Altfish]

3. Finally, Please explain who created your creator.

It is creationists inability to answer this very simple question that shows them to be total charlatans and nonsense peddlers.

[Compassionist]

Dave, I know you said you were indulging in "personal research" but, so far, I have not seen much investigative research - looks more like that you are telling us what we believe (still awaiting an answer to my questions about links to those "official" Humanist manifestos) and trying to convince us that Humanism is some kind of pseudo religion, that it has to believe in that same things as religions hold so dear.

Well, for this humanist the "origins" of life, the universe and everything are interesting and, I am sure, give many academics a sense of value - but have no bearing whatsoever on my my worldview (definition: "a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world" - seems to indicate "current", not "origin" or "destiny").

My personal destiny? A big, hot gas oven then being sprinkled over a rose garden and, I hope, some fond memories in the minds of those who have known me well. (Rather I was composted and used to promote new growth without polluting the atmosphere but I don't believe in being buried in a deep hole in the already crowded earth.)

The destiny of the human race and the world it lives on? Outside of my scope, love to come back and see if common sense came to humanity in time to save the world. Otherwise I do those things that 1/6 000 000 000th of the human race can achieve and just hope enough other 1/6 000 000 000ths do enough, in time, to make a difference.

The destiny of the Universe? You'd have to be a nutter to worry about it!

Later: Googled "Humanist Manifesto" out of interest. The one in Wiki is a document produced by the AHA that, it seems, had its origin in "Religious Humanism".

OK, that is one version of a Humanist manifesto, the American version. Have you researched world-wide Humanism and compared every "manifesto" you have found - do they all agree with your view of what Humanism should believe in or accept? If not it looks a bit like a case of the usual American insularity and near egomania - if the Americans think it how can there be any alternative?

I am in a personal investigative mode , but that's not to say that I haven't already done significant research into Secular Humanism . In fact, I was once a S.H. of 10 adult years. I have a strong Science background so if Someone makes a statement that our Universe is eternal, then I feel its my duty to present the truth with supportive scientific evidence in an effort to help that person . I don't mean to do this in a heavy-handed manner or 'me telling you the way it is'...but rather.... a sharing of information for ones edification .

Yes, the AHA is just one of many Humanist Associzations with many more worldwide. The AHA is my point of reference since I reside in America , but I find that the Manifesto affirmations are applicable to all Humanists on a general level . That would include : Evolutionism , Man being the center of all things, sexual freedom expressions and lifestyles, no absolute moral laws encumbant upon all of mankind, etc....

Evidence indicates that our universe is ever expanding which will lead to the Big Freeze. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_ ... g_universe

[Compassionist]

But my question was, is calling yourself a secular humanist contingent on having answers to these (or even asking them)?

I think a professed Humanist or Theist should have a logical, reasoned answer to these questions which correlates to reality. Don't you agree ? I mean, if we are going to hold to something , shouldn't it be because its the truth ? We either hold to something because we believe its the objective truth or we hold to something because it suits us philosophically regardless of truth (which is really an injustice to ourselves). .

How can I, we or anyone else have access to objective truth? All truths are subjective truths. Some truths are shared subjective truths others are exclusive to a specific sentient being. Please let me illustrate this with an example. There is ground beneath our feet. This is a shared subjective truth. Billions of sentient beings (humans and other animals) are aware that there is ground beneath their feet. I tripped and fell on the ground. It hurts. Only I am aware that it hurts me. This is an exclusive subjective truth which is accessible only by me. Without being sentient, it is impossible to know anything as true. So, sentience is the prerequisite for knowing any truth. It is entirely possible that only I exist and the rest of the world, including you, are mere illusions. Such solipsistic stance can't be proven or disproven. It is also possible that we are plugged into a computer simulation which we believe is real but is not actually real. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis Again, such hypotheses can't be tested.

[Dave B]

3. Finally, Please explain who created your creator.

It is creationists inability to answer this very simple question that shows them to be total charlatans and nonsense peddlers.

Trouble is, Altfish, it's a bit like asking Mormons or JWs questions outside the script they have learned, they are so stuck in a dogmatic rut they are incapable of relating to the real world.

[Compassionist]

The more I learn about the universe and the living things within it the more I am convinced that it had NO designer and that chance had a lot to do with it.
Have you heard of the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe? No intelligent agent would ever design it like that.
What intelligent designer would design the breathing and eating mechanism to use the same tube? Humans have that system and many people (usually babies and children) die every year when they get food stuck in their throat.
Why have humans got a blind spot in their eyes? Any decent engineer could design it better.
Take our planet, why design it with 2/3rds salt water that we can't drink? Why make about half of the land mass uninhabitable?
Why is only our planet in our solar system capable of human life?

No, this universe is not designed it has come about by evolution which is NOT totally random. The mutations that drive evolution are either successful or fail dependent on their benefit to the species.

I totally agree with you. Living things are very, very flawed. That is why they die so easily. They could not possibly have been designed by an omniscient, omnipotent God. They are a product of blind non-sentient chance. Only that would explain the deficiencies in living things and the planet, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe we inhabit.

[Compassionist]

Yes. OUR Creator created the entire Universe with the many established unchanging Laws governing the Cosmos including the current 150+ Life Enabling Constants so when he made Adam , his lungs / circulatory system / brain / ears / temperature regulatory system, and dozens of other anatomical systems, et al.... were all perfectly matched to the environment that was before him. In fact, if any of the Life Enabling Constants were off just ever so slightly, Adam could not have live and today, neither could we. The sustaining power of God is testimony to his undeserved love and mercy toward us -- he didn't just kickstart the Universe then took his hand off of it ; rather, he is maintaining the Creation about us and that includes the continual replacement of some 60 trillion cells within our Body at any given time employing distinct discernible messages of information in our DNA blueprint. Our Universe was specifically fashioned FOR US ... that's how much God thinks and values us .

Starting to get an idea of who this Creator is that you will one day meet and know either as loving Creator of your Soul or the Person whom you didn't have any time for while on Earth (?) The choice is ours to return his love for us or not . Wise men do while they are able . Its not 'religion' and it never was about religion -- its about relationship. A personal real relationship that can be had and enjoyed in the context of reality.

(From the post above : 'Much less than 1 chance in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion exists that even one such planet as Earth is would occur anywhere in the universe') .

If the variables you are talking about were different, different outcomes would have occurred. So what? May be there are other universes with other variables where there are other kinds of beings. The Life Enabling Constants do not prove there is a God. You speak of God as 'loving'. If God is real and is loving, why didn't it/she/he prevent all suffering? Living things suffer enormously. How can an omniscient and omnipotent God be loving if it/she/he failed to prevent all suffering? I do my best to prevent the suffering of myself and others. Why didn't your God prevent all suffering? Doesn't this failure imply that such a God is either evil or imaginary?

[Tetenterre]

of course I don't know that; as I said, AFAIK

ermmm ... you do know what the "IK" in that acronym stand for?

Actually I was hoping that you would explain the Rare Earth Hypothesis and how you get to the figures you quote

IF you like I can send you the PDF of a presentation I do on the topic ("Are We Alone?"), which examines, inter alia, the Drake Equation and the REH. Most of it is explained in there. PM me an email addy if you want it.

[animist]

of course I don't know that; as I said, AFAIK

ermmm ... you do know what the "IK" in that acronym stand for?

AFAIK it means "I know" - no?

Actually I was hoping that you would explain the Rare Earth Hypothesis and how you get to the figures you quote

IF you like I can send you the PDF of a presentation I do on the topic ("Are We Alone?"), which examines, inter alia, the Drake Equation and the REH. Most of it is explained in there. PM me an email addy if you want it.

yes thanks, I will do