The Jedi Temple Forums are off-line... second day, going on the third... tech is on it, but there are complications... I am chafin' at the bit about whether or not data has been secured or lost... I'm *SO* hoping that I don't have to start the initiate program all over again!! GAAAA!!!!
I'll edit this and write more later as stuff develops...
EDIT; ALL IS BACK ONLINE, AND DATA IS INTACT!! YAY!!
Thank you, Ren, and all the rest of the team!!!!
MTFBWYA!!
- Tarran ^_^
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Science Proves The Creator's Existence?
Well, perhaps not in so many words... but in an article posted on Christmas, last year, on the Wall Street Journal's website, by Eric Metaxas, the apparent overwhelming evidence seems to point out that the possibility simply cannot be blindly disregarded. I'll paste it here below, with a link to the main source, both here, and at the end of this post.
But before I do, I'd like it to be well understood that, my posting this here, wherever I happen to personally stand on the issue, is not in any way to proclaim that one school of thought is in any fashion the victor over any other in any conceptual arena, since any hard physical proof that would completely tip the balance to one side or the other is yet to be found in either encampment, evolution or creation.
(Let's also not forget that I am not now, nor was I ever, nor will I ever be, a crucifix-wearer... and am often considered a "heathen" by those who do wear it. So, as logical and scientific-minded as I'd like to boast to be, if I seem to show any leanings toward creationism, let's not forget that the "church" did not invent such a concept, nor is their particular flavour of it the sole and only type out there. I am of a Native American tribal mind, like my ancestors before me.)
Now, a disclaimer;
*****************
This is shared here from (source linked both above, and further below), here, under the Fair Use Act, which states that copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.
This is here, in my *private*, personal side-journal, which, in whole, is as notes on my education as an initiate following the curriculum as a member of the Temple of the Jedi Order - if there be any dispute as to the use of this article by its original author and/or original publisher, and a desire exists for me to remove it from this private, personal journal, I may be reached at the Temple - my name there, as here, is Tarran.
*****************
Here below, is the article;
******************************
In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all.
Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row.
Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.
******************************
Now, again I say, this is not to hold one concept above another in any sense of "HA-HA"-ism - this isn't any fight, and there is no triumph to be had here... but rather, this is in defence of those who understand this concept, though are ridiculed, and quite unfairly so - most often in ways that smacks of playground bullying, and by those who would have themselves be seen as pillars of education.
Yeah, I'm gonna rant just a wee little mite ^_~ I'll make this quick...
We are not imbeciles... those of us who are NOT swayed by any mountebank clergy class, of whatever religious organization, into thinking anything even remotely illogical or spectacularly idiotic.
Those of us who, no, do NOT believe in some "invisible man in the sky", as so many atheists would jeer... those of us who know such a being would not be invisible per se, nor a man, nor "hiding" or skulking about in any place as provincial as our sky.
No.
This is merely to show, explain, and prove that those of us who do scientifically understand this concept, are NOT some drooling, faerie-tale clinging, clergy-following, quarter-wits, freely ejaculating blind faith in pouring largesse, who clasp their hands over their unenlightened ears against scientific logic, screaming "I'M NOT LISTENING!!"
No... not all of us who accept the possibility of Intelligent Design are like that - those of us who are not so easily lead by those fellow humans who assume a position of being holier than the rest of us, and spoon feed "their flock" illogical crap and call it "manna"... we can and do see that there is scientific logic behind it all.
But I do point to this article as a testament - that those of us who feel that this universe is too huge to not have more intelligence out there, are indeed of sound mind, and that such an idea can and does follow logic... and that we also feel that it's insanely egotistical, to say the least, to think that whoever is out there couldn't possibly be far smarter, far wiser, far more powerful, far more sentient, or yes, even far more than mortal - than we.
That we, carbon-based life forms of Earth, are extremely specialized beings to our environment, this spectacularly provincial world, amid a maddeningly immense universe, and that we are certainly not in any way an assumable representation of what necessarily would ELSE be out there.
That we who understand the concept of Intelligent Design are NOT devoid of logic or reasoning, but we do see a science behind it... a line of followable logic... and that it is not an intellectually unjustifiable position to take a stand in after all. In fact, we take such trusting, fact-based faith in science as being our suit of armour AGAINST ignorance and blind faith.
There are those of us who are Alchemists, whether unaware of the term, or acknowledging of it - and while there are about as many definitions of that word as there are Alchemists, this one fits best for this post right now; Some scientists say that creationism and science are irreconcilable... an Alchemist is a scientist who sees them both reconciled, and in fact having never been separated, nor ever in any need of reconciliation. We do not see "God" as some "invisible man hiding in the clouds" - we see him as a wondrously, supremely logical sentient being, the Grand Architect of the Universe... and as such, The Ultimate Scientist.
And we ponder the arts and techniques and sciences and logical doings of His design, and of the vast teams of celestial "master craftsmen" in His charge.
But most important of all, we do not judge others for not seeing things our way - we do not jeer, we do not poke fun, and we do not scoff or scorn... we are all finding our way around discovery, so sure, it seems logical to suppose we'll all end up in the same knowing in the end - in the mean time, we should strive, all of us, of whatever school of thought... we should all just play nice, yeah?
No more being judgemental, bullyish and/or pigheaded... you astrophysicists and such, and you freaky churchy people either :P lol
(And yes, of course, that goes for me too - ALL of us ^_^)
Remember, no-one of either encampment has physically found the all-telling, quintessential "Holy Grail" just yet... we ALL are "still in school" <3
That's all for this post... to find the article at it's source, please follow this link here.
Love and light to you all, and May the Force Be With You... Always <3
- Tarran ^_^
But before I do, I'd like it to be well understood that, my posting this here, wherever I happen to personally stand on the issue, is not in any way to proclaim that one school of thought is in any fashion the victor over any other in any conceptual arena, since any hard physical proof that would completely tip the balance to one side or the other is yet to be found in either encampment, evolution or creation.
(Let's also not forget that I am not now, nor was I ever, nor will I ever be, a crucifix-wearer... and am often considered a "heathen" by those who do wear it. So, as logical and scientific-minded as I'd like to boast to be, if I seem to show any leanings toward creationism, let's not forget that the "church" did not invent such a concept, nor is their particular flavour of it the sole and only type out there. I am of a Native American tribal mind, like my ancestors before me.)
Now, a disclaimer;
*****************
This is shared here from (source linked both above, and further below), here, under the Fair Use Act, which states that copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.
This is here, in my *private*, personal side-journal, which, in whole, is as notes on my education as an initiate following the curriculum as a member of the Temple of the Jedi Order - if there be any dispute as to the use of this article by its original author and/or original publisher, and a desire exists for me to remove it from this private, personal journal, I may be reached at the Temple - my name there, as here, is Tarran.
*****************
Here below, is the article;
******************************
In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all.
Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row.
Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.
******************************
Now, again I say, this is not to hold one concept above another in any sense of "HA-HA"-ism - this isn't any fight, and there is no triumph to be had here... but rather, this is in defence of those who understand this concept, though are ridiculed, and quite unfairly so - most often in ways that smacks of playground bullying, and by those who would have themselves be seen as pillars of education.
Yeah, I'm gonna rant just a wee little mite ^_~ I'll make this quick...
We are not imbeciles... those of us who are NOT swayed by any mountebank clergy class, of whatever religious organization, into thinking anything even remotely illogical or spectacularly idiotic.
Those of us who, no, do NOT believe in some "invisible man in the sky", as so many atheists would jeer... those of us who know such a being would not be invisible per se, nor a man, nor "hiding" or skulking about in any place as provincial as our sky.
No.
This is merely to show, explain, and prove that those of us who do scientifically understand this concept, are NOT some drooling, faerie-tale clinging, clergy-following, quarter-wits, freely ejaculating blind faith in pouring largesse, who clasp their hands over their unenlightened ears against scientific logic, screaming "I'M NOT LISTENING!!"
No... not all of us who accept the possibility of Intelligent Design are like that - those of us who are not so easily lead by those fellow humans who assume a position of being holier than the rest of us, and spoon feed "their flock" illogical crap and call it "manna"... we can and do see that there is scientific logic behind it all.
But I do point to this article as a testament - that those of us who feel that this universe is too huge to not have more intelligence out there, are indeed of sound mind, and that such an idea can and does follow logic... and that we also feel that it's insanely egotistical, to say the least, to think that whoever is out there couldn't possibly be far smarter, far wiser, far more powerful, far more sentient, or yes, even far more than mortal - than we.
That we, carbon-based life forms of Earth, are extremely specialized beings to our environment, this spectacularly provincial world, amid a maddeningly immense universe, and that we are certainly not in any way an assumable representation of what necessarily would ELSE be out there.
That we who understand the concept of Intelligent Design are NOT devoid of logic or reasoning, but we do see a science behind it... a line of followable logic... and that it is not an intellectually unjustifiable position to take a stand in after all. In fact, we take such trusting, fact-based faith in science as being our suit of armour AGAINST ignorance and blind faith.
There are those of us who are Alchemists, whether unaware of the term, or acknowledging of it - and while there are about as many definitions of that word as there are Alchemists, this one fits best for this post right now; Some scientists say that creationism and science are irreconcilable... an Alchemist is a scientist who sees them both reconciled, and in fact having never been separated, nor ever in any need of reconciliation. We do not see "God" as some "invisible man hiding in the clouds" - we see him as a wondrously, supremely logical sentient being, the Grand Architect of the Universe... and as such, The Ultimate Scientist.
And we ponder the arts and techniques and sciences and logical doings of His design, and of the vast teams of celestial "master craftsmen" in His charge.
But most important of all, we do not judge others for not seeing things our way - we do not jeer, we do not poke fun, and we do not scoff or scorn... we are all finding our way around discovery, so sure, it seems logical to suppose we'll all end up in the same knowing in the end - in the mean time, we should strive, all of us, of whatever school of thought... we should all just play nice, yeah?
No more being judgemental, bullyish and/or pigheaded... you astrophysicists and such, and you freaky churchy people either :P lol
(And yes, of course, that goes for me too - ALL of us ^_^)
Remember, no-one of either encampment has physically found the all-telling, quintessential "Holy Grail" just yet... we ALL are "still in school" <3
That's all for this post... to find the article at it's source, please follow this link here.
Love and light to you all, and May the Force Be With You... Always <3
- Tarran ^_^
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)