Anthropic principle = God?

I love the idea of cosmological constants (fine-tuning of the universe) as proposed by the anthropic principle. There are two explanations which arise from this idea that involve leaps of faith, both of which I do not support thus far:

1) the concept of a multiverse means the probrability will allow for the existence of 'fine-tuned' universe. I do not accept this yet as we have yet to find proof o...f this concept. (many ongoing studies are being done to study this: for example, astro-physicists are examining concentric concentric rings in the cosmic background radiation. They think that it indicates collisions with other universes.)

2) that the 'fine-tuned' universe is created by a God. Even if there is a creator, we cannot yet verify the identity of this creator. How then we jump to the conclusion that the creator is God?

We do not know yet! That is precisely the thing. We should keep trying to find out and not just plug something into the gaps.

And the cosmological constants should not only be restricted to the workings of the anthropic principle. We must be equally aware that the same cosmological constants do not only support life, these constants also will ultimately destroy life (and yes, this includes us).

1) collision with Andromeda

2) our sun dying out

3) most places in the universe kill life instantly- radiation, heat, cold

4) dark energy will pull out universe till all possible life is left stranded and utterly alone to a temperature of absolute zero

How to choose the ONE CORRECT religion part 2: a simple objective study

Errors Quran 2670 videos

Errors Christainity 1950 videos

False Judaism 2900 videos

False Hinduism 2180 videos

False Buddhism 2190 videos



This is not an exhaustive list of all religions. This was just the search yields over youtube (as of 15 May 2012) with the above search fields. Now let's go about the simple process (one online source) of choosing the ONE CORRECT religion by virtue of the truth it claims and holds ok? This will be simple. Trust me.



Not all videos are reliable critiques. But aren’t all claims worth viewing first and then dismissing based on certain characteristics? But before that, you need to understand the background story: you would have to study up on and understand the motivations based on social, economic and political history from antiquity to date so as to set up a comprehensive list of characteristics to which you would use to help you identify which videos are “not worth investigating”.



Then step two is to view all videos and classify them into “worth investigating” or “not worth investigating” based on your criteria from above.



Then next, all non-dubious claims must be investigated which means you must study up intensively on all religions, literature, semantics, languages, history, anthropology and science of all such claims in question.



All non-dubious claims which are valid must then be sufficiently matched up with defending arguments from the ‘religion under attack’. With which you must examine each counter-argument for its validity and dismiss counter-arguments which are invalid.



Repeat process till you reach an end-point for each religion’s attack on another religion until all attacks in the above videos have been dealt with.



Weigh all evidence based on a scale of reliability and accuracy of each religion based on commonalities of rationalism that you can find among all religions.



Easy?

Proof for evolution (lecture from Jerry Coyne)

Direct predictions

Adaptation is the engine for speciation and gives the “look” of design. Speciation in lineages shown by transitional forms

Timing in fossil record is accurate to theory of evolution.




Retrodiction also support evolution.

Commonalities exist in embryology (even dolphin embryos first develop with four limb buds)

Lanugo on human embryo similar to our other primates. This hair is later shed.

Vestigal features can be found in many animals which are common to all in their lineage.

Bio-geology support the distribution and speciation of living things.

Bad design exists in all living things and testifies to evolution because the process cannot be taken back to the drawing board and can only be added on (e.g human prostrate gland).

Natural selection is very slow and does not happen in all species. But over 300 cases have been found in the wild. (e.g the finch)

DNA similarities exist across all living things and coincide with predictions of speciation.

Complexity in our design is an indication of evolution for design could have achieved the same effect with much less complexity.

"Falsification tests"

DNA structures would have been different.

Biogeology would show species that should not belong.

Altruistic behaviour would exist between non-relatives.

Fossils would be found in the wrong geological strata.

Why should I choose solve the ONE CORRECT religion

Why does it matter if I declare my faith in the ONE CORRECT religion? If it is all about doing the CORRECT good actions, then that doesn’t make much sense as will be explained in the last paragraph (for which we need to cover some other fundamental aspects of this conundrum first). So for now, we will move on.

I should declare my faith in the ONE CORRECT religion because this is the way for my soul (if such a thing exists) to be saved. Is this endeavor then not for purely personal benefit such as a luxurious afterlife? No one else gets to benefit from me enjoying myself in the hereafter.

If the reason why I need to declare my faith in the correct religion is so that I can spread the ‘good word’ and in turn save others, then this doesn’t hold up too. This is not counting in the fact that many of them would already have their own faiths which many times argue for the sole validity of their system thereby leading to a formidable barrier to my ‘crusade’. And when you struggle with this endeavor, don’t you just sometimes wish that your God would do a miracle right in front of them and make them believe too, but that would be nothing short of a miracle (if they do occur in the first place ;p)

And even if I am successful in getting others to believe in my correct religion, what would happen to them if I am WRONG? Then would I not have condemned some who were already saved (given that they used to believe in the ONE CORRECT religion)? And the chances of me choosing the incorrect religion is very high indeed when you consider the many religions of past and present throughout human history. Should I not then err on caution and not lead anyone astray with what I believe to be correct?

So the safest bet for the fearful is to throw your lot in with one religion with the highest probability of being correct. Do your homework about all religions (and I mean all!) before you decide. But if you really did this, you would then come to the conclusion that all are equally valid in their own assertions about their own systems and most are valid in their criticisms of other systems. This objective process may take you a lifetime by which you are dead and will not be “saved” by virtue of you having not chosen the correct religion which makes the endeavor counter-productive. Another dead-end.

So how do you choose? You can’t and you won’t. You will realize that your lifetime is short. And even if you ‘fry for eternity’, that is just you and you should not be so selfish to just focus on yourself. Why not use your short lifetime to do the best as you can for all people of all religions? If there were a God, would it not be proud of this selfless decision? Or would it really go, “Hey, you! You did not believe in me. You may have done good but I will still fry you!”

A last question remains, if you do not believe in any religion, how can you do the CORRECT GOOD for others? Well, use your mental faculties: some GOODS are universal! Study up on all religions and you will find commonalities which ironically any rational person could and can come up with even without religion. So if a CORRECT set of GOOD exists, then you have to play safe again and just do those GOODs so that you do not step on the toes of the ONE CORRECT God/s. And that is it, do those GOODs. Help others flourish and hope that God (if any) cares more about what really matters than whether or not you believe in it.

Pascal's wager: Does God exist?

An adjustment to Pascal's wager: Does God exist?


His original probrability was 50-50. And he went with the pro-God side because he felt that the consequences of him going with the 'wrong side' are 'too terrible to imagine.'

1) Now the first problem that I have with this probrability is that one should never believe in something because of fear.

2) I agree with his 50-50 probrability since we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. However, the 50% (for God's existence) then needs to be further divided up by all religions existing and of past which argue for the sole validity of their God/s. Now a lot of people contend with me the division of that 50% is unnecessary and unfairly dilutes the probrability. Sad but true, this means that they consider some or only their own concept of God/s to be valid and others to be not. This can only arise and be acceptable from a position of 'privileged confidence'. I however need to be fair and take all claims to God as equally valid and invalid since I cannot prove or disprove them.

1. Neuroscience and the 'computational brain'

I am back again on this topic but this time, science (more specifically, neuroscience) has brought in fresh winds of insight.

In my first entry, I will be writing on how the brain is much more flexible and yet flawed as a computational toolkit.

The brain is a toolkit. As predicted by the toolkit analogy, larger neo-cortexes can be seen in animals in more complex social environments and larger hippocampus can be seen in animals with a need for more complex spatial memory. Some animals can literally ‘grow’ larger brains in seasons when they need more complex problem-solving tools and then ‘shed’ it later when it is not needed. Why? This is because brain maintenance is costly! Our huge brain takes up 25% of our daily calorie intake.

Learning is an important feature of a toolkit. Without this ability, the organism may not be as valid as changes occur. But learning is often only thought of in a linear fashion. Some behaviors are so important that learning is and should not be an issue as they are hard-wired into our brains. This then reduces the chances of us making costly mistakes that would jeopardise our and our specie’s well-being. Learning is not always productive and its costs may outweigh its benefits. In situations where the target of learning is not constant, then costs and benefits set in and learning is not important because probrability will win over learned (conditioned responses). Learning can also occur in creatures without brains. Slime mould without brains show complex problem-solving behavior that we often ascribe to a mind.

The brain has the ability to compute on an abstract level. Neurons in our brains fire upon recognition of concepts. The word ‘bird’ or sounds/pictures of ‘birds’ will cause the same neurons to fire.

Like processor units, brains continously compute an analysis of the outside world so that the body can react accordingly. But this computation process is not perfect. This is due to the limited abilities of any organism's sensory tools and so brains often take in semi-complete signs (as suggestions) from the environment and has to fill in the gaps (computes what is expected).

Janism

So many similarities. Mahavira and Siddharta one and the same?

Ahimsa


Jains believe that the only way to save one's own soul is to protect every other soul, and so the most central Jain teaching, and the heart of Jain ethics, is that of ahimsa (non-violence).

Lay Jains try to follow the doctrine in every part of their life, but not so strictly - since full ahimsa is not compatible with everyday life. Some harm is inevitably done, for instance, in the following activities:
•preparing food

•cleaning buildings

•walking

•driving

•self-defence against attack


There is no God who demands worship


The perfect beings that Jains worship have no interest in human beings.Any being that desired anything would not be perfect and thus not a god. This makes so much sense. Just as on the small level, I do not make my students greet me because it is a necessity. Can't a God get over itself and not care so much about my insignificant worship?

Some religions preach that an individual can be saved by devotion to God, the saviour, or to God's incarnations and intermediaries. Jainism teaches that we can attain true peace and happiness only through behaving and thinking rightly.
Acharya Kundakunda