Whats the proof that god exists? [Archive]

Royce

Oct29-03, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by FZ+
I would have thought that most religions name chance as God.

In either case, I think you underestimate chance's abilities... And left out the reason why - why do you think it all had to turn out this way?

Late night I watched NOVA on a PBS channel. The program was The Elegant Universe. Brian Greene, the author of the book of the same title and host for NOVA said that ther are about 16(?) numbers that are critical. If any one of them changed value even minutely the universe would no longer exist as we know and love it. The value of these parameters are exactly the value that they need to be in order for the universe to exist as it it. If that is not enought then how many events had to happen just the way that they did when they did for life to emerge in the universe.
Then multiply those astronmomical odds agains life on earth developing into intelligent self aware beings, us; and, it is thought that we as a species nearly went extinct. At one time it is estimated that our population was down to less than 10,000 worldwide.
No I am not underestimating the power of chance. I realize that given an infinite amount of time and and infinite amoiut of space anything and everything possible however remote or unlikely will happen. However according to the BB and a number of physists the universe is not infinite but finite in both space and time.
It is all but impossible to realize how unlikely and event that the universe is much less how unlikely you and I are. How precise the parameters have to be for the universe to come about in the first place and then maintain and evolve itself into its present state.
Sure its possoble but it is far more likely as impossible as it may seem to some that the laws and parameters and universe were created
by a supermind some call God.
Why? I don't know unless it was to experience itself and evolve itself and to be aware of itself.
It has been said that the material universe was created so that newly created souls would have a place to stand and live and grow. But then why were the souls created? Maybe it is its way to procreate or evolve itself as I said.

Bariyon

Oct29-03, 06:49 PM

You are defining your own god, then going into lengthy discussion about whether this god exists or not.

Can you not see that you are making a big ERROR?

You are still assuming that god is some kind of universal intelligence.

This is not the god of the bible.

If you want to find out about the god of the bible, then read the bible. This may take some effort. If you don't have the time, then keep on making up your own definitions and speculating on their validity. But I will not participate in such FOOLISHNESS.

Royce

Oct30-03, 10:57 AM

Bariyon, I disagree that God is not the universal conscious or ultimate super mind. It is the God of the bible but beyound the bible and viewed a different way. It is just another facet of the One God of which we are all part of and of which he is.
My views are based on my Judeo-Christian upbringing and my study of mainly Buddhism and Zen. It is not so much that I am defining my own God as my God is defining himself to me in his many different aspects.
This is a result of many years of meditation and study. Either that or I am far mor psychotic and deluded than I think that I am. I am not the only one who has seen these things nor am I the only one to have said or written them. I am therefore not alone in my psychosis or delusion or in the truth and reality if that is what it is.
It is foolish to call someone else's opinion or view foolish simply because they don't coincide with yours.

Bariyon

Nov1-03, 05:40 PM

Royce,
I think I am making the same point that you have already made.
God is not something that is separate from us. If we think that god is some sort of objectively separate entity, then we are misleading ourselves from the outset.
Yet in another sense, I see no reason why god cannot be described by a physics theory. It's just that a theory of god and the experience of god are two quite different things.
So this would be a proof of god, that is, the nature of reality that lies beyond our everyday experience.

Royce

Nov2-03, 12:49 PM

Bariyon,
It is my understanding that for God to be described by a physics experiment, God would have to objective. While it is not impossible for God to manifest himself as objective, God is usually concidered outside of spacetime and therefore neither objective or subjective but spiritual (for want of a better word).
As such there is no possible objective proof of God. This is the prime reason that science does not and can not address the question of God's existence or non existence. God is not within the realm of
science, so God cannot be either proved or disproved or strictly speaking even spoken or written about in any scientific way.

(Yet, when the subject of God is brought up many objective materialist immediately bring science into the picture and say that there is no evidence.)[?] [?] [?] [?] [?]

Bariyon

Nov3-03, 02:02 AM

Royce,

A "theory of god" may not be as sensational as it sounds. It may simply be an extension of our present theory. I am not talking about going outside space time - this is speculation. And why shouldn't this extended reality be objective, even if it lies outside our everyday experience at the moment?

According to my understanding, matter is presently caught in a state of incompleteness. We do not know what lies beyond our present incomplete reality, and our incomplete reality is even reflected in our theory.

A new theory that describes the fullness of reality would be the same as demonstrating the existence of god, as we usually say according to our poetic thinking. But there is a big difference between having a new theory on paper, and living in the extended reality that it describes.

I see no real reason why we shouldn't be able to use experiment to demonstrate god. However I would think that the best way to demonstrate god would be via meditation. After all, meditation is just a special type of experiment on matter, namely ourselves.

You may argue that it is impossible for anyone to develop an extended theory without actually experiencing the extended reality first. I would argue that the power of mathematics allows us to develop theory that actually goes beyond our experience.

This new theory is unlikely to be developed by a scholar. After all, they've had enough time to do so, using their methods, and I'm sorry to say that they haven't had much success. Its development may be a more subtle process. It may represent a final coming together of science and spirituality.

Royce

Nov3-03, 08:16 AM

Bariyon,
I agree with you but there are many who would not. In my opinion I/we already have ample proof of the existence of God in our everyday lives and all around us. Meditation can and often does support this beyound our everyday experience. It is in fact why I know that God is and is a part of us as we of him. I am, however, a believer.

There are those who will not accept any evidence that God exists and deny and evidence that he does. The thinking that QM may show the hand of God is ridiculed and rejected out of hand. Those who do not believe will go to any length to try to disprove and evidence and even make up "scientific" reasons to dispute any evidence that such exists.

Even if we ever do find indisputable objective evidence of the hand or mind of God it will be rejected and ridiculed by some. Jesus would be in just as much if not more danger if he came back to earth today and announced himself as he was the first time. As the bible says there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Zaphod

Nov3-03, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by photon
Despite what most people think, it is actually possible for God, the Big Bang, and Evolution to all coexist.

So, in that case, what begot what, in your opinion? Did God exist before the big-bang, or would you say he was created WITH the big bang? Somehow the notion of God being created after the big bang doesn't sound too strong( which can be said pretty much about my entire post). But then again, I just want to hear a few opinions on this regard.

selfAdjoint

Nov3-03, 11:37 AM

Some theists go like this: God has always existed - he can do that because he has all these infinite attributes. Matter and energy can't do that because they are finitistic and obey causality. Then the big bang is identified (somewhat naively) with God creating the universe. God is behind all the actions of this world, but His hand is hidden, because, to support our free will He doesn't want us to be just puppets. That's okay because "all things are possible with God", so everything, including evolution is both completely causal and completely God's will. You're not going to be able to reduce all that logically, and the atheists are driven to giggles by it, but theists don't care.

FZ+

Nov3-03, 06:57 PM

The value of these parameters are exactly the value that they need to be in order for the universe to exist as it it. etc etc

The question I am raising here is...

What is so great about that?

The key issue here is the conversion of rarity to specialness. No one denies that probability-wise, for things to have turned out the way it has is pretty rare. But what I don't really agree with is the idea of specialness - that the probabilities have any significance as a real dartboard the cosmic player is trying to hit. I am saying that we are drawing the bullseye after the dart has hit.

And guess what? It's a direct hit. As I have said before, the one fuzziness on which the design argument lives or dies is the idea of purpose. If we conclude things have a purpose, then it seems pretty conclusive the way this purpose is met. But if we did not, then we can only find significance relative to us - and so we can feel fortunate, but that fortune is not the fortune of the universe.

I did not get run over by a car today. Before I state that this is a case of a conscious fate, I must show that it actually matters to anything but me and maybe people who know me.

However according to the BB and a number of physists the universe is not infinite but finite in both space and time.
Actually, I'll expect this to be leading on to a discussion of the anthropic principle, which has a number of solutions.

1. Multiple universes. This is allowed by many theories, like Everett's Many Worlds hypothesis, M-theory and so on. If multiple universes exist, it seems certain that something like this would develop.

2. Participatory universe models. This focuses on some physical significance to awareness, concluding that until observation, the universe was not real, so inevitably the ghost universe that eventually gained reality is the one where we live.

3. Infinite space/time universes. There is definitely no clear consensus on this. Even BB offers little but speculation on what occured before the inflation stage of the universe.

Bariyon

Nov4-03, 07:06 PM

Royce et al,

I don't see that there is anything special about god that cannot be understood by us or described by mathematical theory.

At the moment we are able to experience god via meditation etc, but it still leaves us a little mystified - it is beyond our everyday experience.

Perhaps some time in the distant future mankind will have an understanding of the reality that presently lies beyond our experience, and will know god.

But at the moment we are still at the evolutionary stage of developing this understanding. So at the moment we are making statements such as "god does not exist" or "god exists but cannot be objective".

Therefore I will make the statement "a theory of god is simply a matter of time, and from there it is simply a matter of time until god is part of our everyday experience."

FZ+

Nov4-03, 08:32 PM

Wait wait, Bariyon...

Let me get you right...

Your concept of god is that of an ultimate reality, a perfect reality, a sort of analogue of Plato's universe of Forms that underlies existence... right?

Iacchus32

Nov4-03, 09:02 PM

Is it possible for the Universe to exist without a "spiritual essence" or a motive? ... Well, certainly not in terms of what "we humans" experience anyway. [;)]

Bariyon

Nov5-03, 12:01 AM

FZ+,

I am talking about god as being a more complete reality than we are presently aware of. Or in another sense, god is what we have left out of the full picture.

We are getting into the difficult area of defining the unknown.

So I would actually prefer to keep the word undefined, since we all have our own views on what it may mean.

Sorry if this is not being very rigorous.

The way I understand things, Plato was talking about the world of thought rather than the material world. Certainly we do not have a full understanding of consciousness.

Mumeishi

Nov5-03, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Royce
We experience God within ourselves and know God and know that he exists. It is beyond belief and beyond what is normally thought of as faith. Once God is experienced within ourselves there is no longer any need for proof.

In that case, this is the only occasion when unverified subjective experience of something justifies its belief. Why does this not apply to madmen who 'know' they are John the Baptist? Or to cultists who 'know' that they are communing with extraterrestrials? What is the justification for this special ruling? If the answer is of the 'Because God is special' form, then we have a circular argument (pulling itself up by its own diameter).

Mumeishi

Nov5-03, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by photon
The "infinite ladder" that meteor posted is no more absurd than the infinite ladder that created matter and life.
If you call the idea of God absurd, you're pretty much calling the idea of the Big Bang, ect. absurd also.

No. He is showing that the creator concept is extraneous and solves nothing. If we can speculate about an always-existent, self-creating or outside-of-the-normal-laws-of-cause-and-effect God, why not miss him out altogether and consider that reality itself may have these very properties?

Royce

Nov5-03, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
In that case, this is the only occasion when unverified subjective experience of something justifies its belief.

In a very real sense every subjective experience is unverified and everything that we experience in life is subjective as it is all mental perceptions of what our senses send to our brain. God is no different with the exception that the experience is somehow beyound perception but direct contact with our being or mind if you prefer.
It, the experience is not linear but a complete concept all at once.

Why does this not apply to madmen who 'know' they are John the Baptist? Or to cultists who 'know' that they are communing with extraterrestrials? What is the justification for this special ruling? If the answer is of the 'Because God is special' form, then we have a circular argument (pulling itself up by its own diameter).

Since our individual reality is totally subjective perception then for them it is their reality. I presume that it is no less real for them than the reality that I perceive is real to me.
Again the thing that make it special or different or distinguishable from our other perceptions is that it a complete conceptual perception of direct input rather than linear sensory input. I know that this is vague but it is the best that I can do to describe the experience to one who has not experienced it.

No. He is showing that the creator concept is extraneous and solves nothing. If we can speculate about an always-existent, self-creating or outside-of-the-normal-laws-of-cause-and-effect God, why not miss him out altogether and consider that reality itself may have these very properties?

Because it is not possible to seperate God from reality. Reality has those properties because God is the ultimate reality and all that reality is, is of God. There is only one reality. It has different aspects but it is still one and thus ultimate and it is real.

God is not special, nor is God a special reality apart from our reality. God is. God is all. God is all that there is and all that is is God. There is a Buddhist saying that if everything is sacred then nothing is sacred. Substitute the word special and it is still valid.
It is the thinking that we are seperate, apart from God that causes us to think of God a special or as scientifically or logically unnecessary. The absurdity of this thinking is that we are not seperate or apart from God but a part of God.
If you can't or won't buy that then think of it as the universe, a conscious universe with will and purpose. The universe is all that is. We are a part of the universe and the universe is us. There is nothing outside of the universe and the universe is the untimate one and only reality. There is only one X and all is one X. Substitute the word that you can best live with, God, Reality, Universe or make one up yourself. God/universe doesn't care. Your perception or belief of what reality is or is not changes nothing. What is, is.

FZ+

Nov5-03, 04:25 PM

If you can't or won't buy that then think of it as the universe, a conscious universe with will and purpose.

Actually, I think you can interpret it as objecting with this bit. That it is extraneous to state the universe is god by being conscious and willful.

Mumeishi

Nov5-03, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Royce
In a very real sense every subjective experience is unverified and everything that we experience in life is subjective as it is all mental perceptions of what our senses send to our brain. God is no different with the exception that the experience is somehow beyound perception but direct contact with our being or mind if you prefer.
It, the experience is not linear but a complete concept all at once.

Now you're branching off into philosophical Idealism. One problem with idealism is that investigation of reality reveals consistent and apparently physical causes for my mental states - the pathways of my senses and nervous system can be traced with precision and if I alter the the chemistry of my brain it will have a direct effect on my perception of reality. If 'everything is subjective' and thus the physical is caused by the mind, then why is the causality working the wrong way? Is it a conspiracy of some sort? For what purpose? Does this philosophy really have any explanatory power?

Another problem is that if Idealism is true, I should be able to control reality by changing my mental state (aka 'magic'). I can't.

A third problem is that if Idealism is true I can make it false just by disbelieving in it. There I just did! Checkmate!

Originally posted by Royce

Since our individual reality is totally subjective perception then for them it is their reality. I presume that it is no less real for them than the reality that I perceive is real to me.
Again the thing that make it special or different or distinguishable from our other perceptions is that it a complete conceptual perception of direct input rather than linear sensory input. I know that this is vague but it is the best that I can do to describe the experience to one who has not experienced it.

We are not normally privy to how our subjective states arise. What makes you think that you would really know if something was 'directly input' ?

Originally posted by Royce
Because it is not possible to seperate God from reality. Reality has those properties because God is the ultimate reality and all that reality is, is of God. There is only one reality. It has different aspects but it is still one and thus ultimate and it is real.
God is not special, nor is God a special reality apart from our reality. God is. God is all. God is all that there is and all that is is God. There is a Buddhist saying that if everything is sacred then nothing is sacred. Substitute the word special and it is still valid.

Yes, but where does 'God' fit into this view of reality? Buddhists don't beleive in God. Calling ultimate reality 'God' is just an excuse to bundle in unjustified beliefs such as omnibenevolence, the afterlife, judgement etc, in other words, to try to continue the old Judeo-Christian social-control memes. As Richard Dawkins puts it:

If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them?

Originally posted by Royce
It is the thinking that we are seperate, apart from God that causes us to think of God a special or as scientifically or logically unnecessary. The absurdity of this thinking is that we are not seperate or apart from God but a part of God.

How can I think of myself as separate from 'God', when I dont have a belief in Gods? You're putting the cart before the deity.

Originally posted by Royce
If you can't or won't buy that then think of it as the universe, a conscious universe with will and purpose. The universe is all that is. We are a part of the universe and the universe is us. There is nothing outside of the universe and the universe is the untimate one and only reality. There is only one X and all is one X. Substitute the word that you can best live with, God, Reality, Universe or make one up yourself. God/universe doesn't care. Your perception or belief of what reality is or is not changes nothing. What is, is.

See above. Anyway there is no sign that the universe exhibits will or purpose except in small pockets called 'brains'. The rest of your comments about reality, I pretty much agree with.

Royce

Nov6-03, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Now you're branching off into philosophical Idealism. One problem with idealism is that investigation of reality reveals consistent and apparently physical causes for my mental states - the pathways of my senses and nervous system can be traced with precision and if I alter the the chemistry of my brain it will have a direct effect on my perception of reality. If 'everything is subjective' and thus the physical is caused by the mind, then why is the causality working the wrong way? Is it a conspiracy of some sort? For what purpose? Does this philosophy really have any explanatory power?

There is one reality. Reality has different aspects. It is all interactive. The reality the we perceive is of course effected by the chemistry in the brain as well as a number of other things. This does not change reality only our perception of it. While the physical is caused by The Mind, God, it is not our mind that is the cause.
The only way that we can know anything is through our perceptions whether it is spiritual, subjective or physical reality. Our perceptions do not change or cause reality.

Another problem is that if Idealism is true, I should be able to control reality by changing my mental state (aka 'magic'). I can't.

Meditation is often called and altered state of mind. It is more like changing the station on a radio. We see a different reality than we normally do. Again this is mostly passive. We are receivers.
We process the signals we receive by whatever method and form our perception of what we receive. We do not change reality with our perceptions. Our thoughts, will and intent can and do change the physical state of our bodies and through our physical bodies we can and do effect the physical world or reality.

A third problem is that if Idealism is true I can make it false just by disbelieving in it. There I just did! Checkmate!

Only in your own mind can you change you own perceptions of reality. By this example you prove that subjective thought and will can change your reality. You choose not to believe by an act of conscious will.
Thus your reality changed; but, only in your mind. That which is the reality of the universe outside of your mind did not change at all. You are not, outside of your own mind, a god. There is that which is greater than you and exist outside of and independant of you. You are, however, a part of the reality and a part of God as he and reality is a part of you.

We are not normally privy to how our subjective states arise. What makes you think that you would really know if something was 'directly input' ?

By meditation we can to a degree control our sugjective state. That is what meditation is. I know when I am dreaming. I know when I and recieving sensory input and when I am just imagining or thinking images in my mind. We also know when we intuite something or when we perceive a conceptual image in our mind. There is a difference and we can know that this perception did not come via the "normal" inpts.

Yes, but where does 'God' fit into this view of reality? Buddhists don't beleive in God. Calling ultimate reality 'God' is just an excuse to bundle in unjustified beliefs such as omnibenevolence, the afterlife, judgement etc, in other words, to try to continue the old Judeo-Christian social-control memes. As Richard Dawkins puts it:

Buddhists may or may not bewlieve in a god. They do believe in an after life and spiritual being. They believe in the One of which we are all part. It is from the Buddhist teachings that I first read of this concept. Buddhist, some at least, also believe that this life on earth is the illusion and the spiritual is the real but that it is all interconnected and interactive.

How can I think of myself as separate from 'God', when I dont have a belief in Gods? You're putting the cart before the deity.

Isn't not haveing a belief in God or gods as seperate as we can get.
If you don't even acknowledge God's existence, you can not acknowledge being a part of God or him of you or his having any effect in your life. This does not change the reality of God only your perception or lack of it.

See above. Anyway there is no sign that the universe exhibits will or purpose except in small pockets called 'brains'. The rest of your comments about reality, I pretty much agree with.

How can you perceive that which you don't believe. The universe is ordered and logical. It and we exist despite the astronomical odds against it. Life exists and arose from non-life. Life evolves and here on earth has reached the point where we exist despite astronomical odds against it. This to me is evidence of a mind of will and purpose.

One other point, reguardless of whether we believe in God or the Big Bang or both, the physical objective material universe that we know and love is the effect, not the cause. It is not all of reality. It is only a part of, an aspect of, the ultimate reality.

phoenixthoth

Nov8-03, 02:51 AM

depends on what God is.

some people think that God is all that is. the author that thinks God is all that is also defines knowledge to mean that A knows B if A=B. the "argument" is that i can know about a cat but to know a cat i have to be a cat. thus, if God is all that is, then it's clear that God is omnipresent. also, being all that is, with this definition of knowingness, God knows everything and is omniscient. i don't see how omnipotence follows from this definition...

other people may start with an assumption about God being omnipresent which would entail, at least, that God is within all that is. but then, if there were something in "all that is" that God isn't a part of, God wouldn't be omnipresent; so God is all that is.

if God is all that is, then God exists if and only if "all that is" exists. in other words, if at least one thing exists, then God exists. however, if nothing exists, then, of course, God doesn't exist. it was an "if and only if" statement.

i don't think one will ever prove the existence of God from definition alone. something else is required, perhaps observation though people don't always take observation to constitute absolute proof due to it's possible (or assured) subjectivity. for example, the following statement is considered by the rules of logic to be "true": if x is an element of the empty set then x is a purple goat controlling my thoughts. in some sense, you might call vacuous truth kinda weak, but it's basically saying that if x doesn't exist then you can say anything you like about x. what i'm trying to say is that arguments based on definitions of God and logic alone don't prove God exists. i could construct a mathematical example where i define something and even discuss its properties but that doesn't even prove it mathematically exists, which is probably easier than proving that something really exists (unless you consider mathematical existence to imply existence).

all i've done above is say that if God is all that is then
God exists if and only if all that is exists.

if you accept that God is all that is and if you accept that at least one thing exists, well then it follows that God exists. if you don't accept that definition of God, it doesn't automatically follow that God doesn't exist.

let's take this in a different direction and consider a proof not based on definition and logic but observation. let's not even consider God, let's just say i claim to be either immortal or omnipotent. i don't think i can ever prove that i am either immortal or omnipotent, though i might convince you that i am even if all the evidence i give you is circumstantial. let's just take immortality. how can i prove to you that i am immortal? think about it. i can't. the only thing i can do for you is disprove the claim by dying. however, i may outlive you. that just means i outlived you, it doesn't mean i'll live forever. suppose i live for a googleplex years. that still doesn't prove i will always live. (however, i have heard that some scientists think a claim is true if it is consistent with reality so far. if that is the case, it's already true that i am immortal because that is something that is consistent with reality so far. the flaw with this conception is that even time-independent claims may be true one day and not true the next.) you can do something similar with omnipotence. i may be able to lift a billion tons of rock but then you can always ask if i can lift 1,000,000,001 tons. nothing i can do will prove i am omnipotent.

let's just say that i can prove i am omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, the first cause, and all that jazz (which i think is highly unlikely though i may be able to convince you of it). then how would i prove that i am the christian God or G-d or Allah or The Great Spirit or blah blah blah? (hope you can excuse the reference to religion.)

thus, both logic and observation will not prove God exists.

what would?

well, if you were omniscient, you would be able to know if i were God. too bad we're not omniscient...

i personally think the statement "God exists" is undecidable but i can't prove that it is.

however, at least in certain situations, there are statements which are on some level true though they cannot be proven to be true in finite time. so, and this is just my opinion, "God exists" is a true statement but there is not nor will there ever be universally acceptable proof. that is unless God makes us all omniscient. then we would by definition know if there was a God.

Bariyon

Nov8-03, 05:52 PM

If we want to prove god, whatever that means, a simple first step is to develop our fundamental scientific theory. If we spent more time doing this and less time talking about it, we would begin to get places.

phoenixthoth

Nov8-03, 09:46 PM

developing scientific theory would seem to be relevant if and only if there were any scientists trying to prove God exists.

developing science would seem to indicate or presume that God's existence is mysterious or non-obvious, which it may or may not be. but let's even say that some being claims to be God and shows itself to everyone "in the flesh." the above arguments in a previous post of mine show that even if a supposed God revealed itself to us, we would have a hard time proving that it is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, immortal, and all the jazz, unless it uses its omnipotence to give us omniscience which would then give us the ability to know if it is God.

btw, my guess is that psychology or some psychology-related science will be more relevant than a physical science if science will ever prove God exists. specifically, the psychology of consciousness and the "expansion of consciousness."

Bariyon

Nov9-03, 07:33 PM

Pheonixthoth,

We seem to be invoking different definitions of god.

I do not adhere to the belief that god is some sort of superman. I know that idea is put forward in the bible, but my view is that if it is a helpful thought to some people, then I am not going to discredit it.

The point I was trying to make is that discussions of god can become futile, especially if we are talking about something before we have even worked out what it is.

So if we simply get on with the task of developing our understanding, particularly physics theory, then we will eventually realise that we have been on a path of discovering god, even if we don't acknowledge it now.

In this sense, the main objective of theoretical physics is the discovery of god. And it was the main objective of the prophets, the buddhist masters, etc.

I fully agree that if physics develops an understanding of god, then it will bring together physics and psychology, and perhaps change them both beyond recognition.

phoenixthoth

Nov9-03, 10:08 PM

The point I was trying to make is that discussions of god can become futile, especially if we are talking about something before we have even worked out what it is.
perhaps such an endeavour is futile in general but it does work in geometry and set theory in which points and sets are not defined yet a seemingly productive discussion of them takes place without working out what they are. however, discussing the nature of sets and points doesn't and can't prove they exist.

birdus

Nov10-03, 02:40 AM

I for one believe in the existence of the all powerful infinitely wise God. I look at the irreducible complexity of nature and the vast evidence of intelligent design and wonder how anyone could believe otherwise. However, proving his existence I think is impossible. One of the laws of the universe is trial by faith. We are put here on Earth to be tested like gold refined in the fire. They that overcome become as God, his agents creating a new universe in the next great epoch. How can you pass judgement on the creator without automatically forfeiting your own soul. How can I question the wisdom of God. If God destroy me what can I do. If God preserve me, then it is intirely at his mercy.
For the sceptics, how do you know what you know? What is proof? What is reality? All of science and math are founded on a set of assumptions. If those assumptions are not correct, then all of our theorizing and speculations will not hold.
He who thinks must believe!

phoenixthoth

Nov10-03, 02:48 AM

this is argument 6 from
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

i think there is at least one person who uses each argument to "prove" God exists, actually. i love the perfection argument as well as the creative definition one.

how about a collection of "proofs" that God doesn't exist? i'll start the list off:
1. the arguments here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm are all flawed.
2. therefore, God doesn't exist.

For the sceptics, how do know what you know? What is proof? What is reality?
do you mean skeptics of the statement "God exists" or "God doesn't exist?" your questions apply to both types of skeptics.

here's "proof" 3 from that site:ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
while this is obviously flawed, i think i can message it into a better argument (that still has flaws).:
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I-reloaded)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) X exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

however, this seems pretty silly depending on what X is, like if X is president bush's penis (though that may be his God).

if X is the universe, or perhaps more, all that is, then that may be better but attributing consciousness, omnipotence, and some other traits seem difficult to me with that definition.

birdus

Nov10-03, 03:18 AM

If you made a thousand arguements for the nonexistence of God, how would you know that you have eliminated all possibilities. There may be one more argument yet unthought of that proves the existence of God. There is a list for the nonexistence of God argument equally long and equally founded on logical fallacies. The problem is that every argument begins with a premise, that is an assumption that a statement is true to reality. To make the assumption you must BELIEVE something is true. You here many people claim that such and such is a proven fact. But what is proof. Isn't proof just a statement that many people choose to believe. Then that in itself is the logical fallacy of mass appeal. Many people can believe something is true but it is not necessarily true. All reasoning begins with an assumption. We can choose to believe in God and reason from there, or we can choose not to believe in God and get an intirely different result. As for me, I choose to believe in God and begin reasoning from there.

phoenixthoth

Nov10-03, 03:39 AM

all it takes (either for a proof or a disproof) is one argument not resting on unprovable assumptions and not making any definition that are arbitrary (not to mention possibly self-serving).

on that note, i wish both sides luck because the rules of inference and the belief that observation gives any insight into truth or reality are unprovable assumptions.

this:how about a collection of "proofs" that God doesn't exist? i'll start the list off:
1. the arguments here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm are all flawed.
2. therefore, God doesn't exist.
was a joke. this site is linked to by a sight with an atheism theme by a self-proclaimed athiest. i think that it is actually thought by some people that since all known arguments for the existence of God are flawed, then that constitutes proof that God does not exist.

Wolf

Nov10-03, 01:54 PM

Mumeishi

Nov10-03, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by birdus
If you made a thousand arguements for the nonexistence of God, how would you know that you have eliminated all possibilities. There may be one more argument yet unthought of that proves the existence of God.

It is irrational to believe in things without justification. There may be arguments you've never heard for the existence of gravity elves. Does that mean that it is sane to believe in them, or even to regard the belief in them to be as valid as the lack of belief in them? No. The fact that there may be unknown arguments or evidence for God just means we cannot know for certainty that he does not exist. Having said that, I've yet to come across an intelligible or even a consistent definition of God, so I don't really understand what this thing/nonthing that supposedly exists outside of existence is claimed to be.

Originally posted by birdus
As for me, I choose to believe in God and begin reasoning from there.

This type of thought-bypassing manouvre is sometimes called 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. Yes, you are indeed free to believe whatever unchallenged nonsense you like.

Wolf

Nov10-03, 03:15 PM

"it is primitive to beleive something exist or does not exist"
i do not remember who created that quote but if there is no proof
in something or against it then would the decision to beleive or not beleive be entirely up to you my view on it is all questionable but i have my reasons for it there is proof of things happening without an explanation before so this in a way does proof that a "higher" being is a posiablity.

Mumeishi

Nov10-03, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Wolf
The only thing that has any remote prove of a "god" is that no
one can explain what happened if there is no god then what began
everything?science says that everything begins from something else
so what started it all?
the only thing that really proves some "god" may exist is that we exist

Not that one again.

1. The principle of conservation of energy is a property of the universe - thus there is no reason to assume it applies before, after or outside the universe.
2. There was no time before the universe either. Time is a property of the universe. There was no moment when the universe did not exist, just as there was no time when you were waiting for your parents to conceive you.
3. Even if the universe did have to have a cause, why do you assume it was 'God'? Why that god? Why not a computer programmer in another dimension? Why not some cosmic natural event?
4. If everything has to have a cause, what was God's cause? And of course you will want to follow with some sort of 'God is special - he is not part of time, he encloses all of time, he always existed' argument to which I will respond:
a. How do you know what the properties of this thing are that you have yet to show the existence of?
b. If you can ascribe these qualities to god without logical contradiction, I can ascribe them to reality/the universe, after all, since time is an aspect of space-time which is a property of reality, I could argue that the universe 'is not within time' and 'encloses all of time' too.

Wolf

Nov10-03, 03:27 PM

Mumeishi

Nov10-03, 03:44 PM

god is assumed to be for the fact that we have no other explanation if you where to go back to the time in wich the story of god was created and you altered it then we would be having this same disscusion about whatever you changed it to in short i beleive that there are "higher beings"

In other words people invent (without justification) a blanket explanation for the gaps in their knowledge yet this explanation is mysterious in itself, thus ultimately explaining nothing. We used to believe that disease was caused by evil spirits - now we know better. God used to be a more immediate being who lived on Mt Sinai, then in the sky - he has moved further and further away until he has become nothing more than the started the causal chain going.

but no god i beleive in higher beings due to i have seen people running up walls or along them prooving for me that there is some beings that through proper traning can do more than an average being but god is though to exist

Do you mean acrobats?

because no one can prove else can you prove he does not exist?or can you prove he does no

1. can you (or anyone ) define what this thing is that I'm supposed to disprove.

2. I never said that we are justified in knowing that God doesn't exist, only that belief is unjustified.

3. with all beliefs, we do not start by assuming existence and challenging others to disprove it. Can you give me any non-religious examples of this? If we went around believing in things just because we couldn't disprove them, we would have as many beliefs as we had thoughts - we would be like extreme schizophrenics.

The onus is on anyone making a positive claim to provide the evidence/argument, and then there is something there to be disproved. This applies to all issues, why should different rules apply here? (If you want to say 'cos God is special', see my previous post for the response.)

phoenixthoth

Nov10-03, 10:49 PM

The only thing that has any remote prove of a "god" is that no
one can explain what happened if there is no god then what began
everything?science says that everything begins from something else
so what started it all?
the only thing that really proves some "god" may exist is that we exist
ah, the good ol' first cause argument.
1. there must be a first cause
2. therefore, there is a first cause
3. God is the first cause.
It is irrational to believe in things without justification. There may be arguments you've never heard for the existence of gravity elves. Does that mean that it is sane to believe in them, or even to regard the belief in them to be as valid as the lack of belief in them? No. The fact that there may be unknown arguments or evidence for God just means we cannot know for certainty that he does not exist. Having said that, I've yet to come across an intelligible or even a consistent definition of God, so I don't really understand what this thing/nonthing that supposedly exists outside of existence is claimed to be.
correct conclusions can sometimes be arrived at illogically. hence, i suppose, irrationally. therefore, the irrationality of an argument doesn't prove the conclusion is wrong, just illogical. this post redeems itself with the comment, "The fact that there may be unknown arguments or evidence for God just means we cannot know for certainty that he does not exist," which is what i would say. as for the intelligible/consistent definition of God, what about the following one: God is all that is? i'm not saying this is my definition; just wondering what you think.This type of thought-bypassing manouvre is sometimes called 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. Yes, you are indeed free to believe whatever unchallenged nonsense you like.
i agree that assuming God exists and using that assumption to prove God exists is pretty flawed but i don't agree that the statement "God exists" is nonsense. but i'm going to make my own definition of what is nonsense and go from there. ;)

oh, just noticed Mumeishi already dispensed with the first cause argument. kudos to Mumeishi. also like the idea of the burden of proof resting with those making the claim. and since you used the word "positive," the same doesn't apply to those making the claim "God does not exist." i think that the burden of proof rests on anyone making a claim, be it positive or negative. i do agree that we shouldn't necessarily believe in everything we can't disprove though. it does seem like a slippery slope to me to say that once we believe in God due to lack of disproof then that means we have to believe in everything due to lack of disproof.

phoenixthoth

Nov11-03, 08:19 AM

God can not be proven. No one can prove to you or anyone else that God does or does not exist. We experience God within ourselves and know God and know that he exists. It is beyond belief and beyond what is normally thought of as faith. Once God is experienced within ourselves there is no longer any need for proof.
The way this has happened to a number of us is through meditation and acceptance and asking while meditating.
god "existence" is dangerous
How can you trust your feelings, that "god" exists?
Generally speaking, human feelings can "cheat", right?
Say, you could had been "drugged" when you experienced "a connection with the god", isn't it so?

PREVIOUSLY people "needed" a god in order to survive (just "to keep together"), that is it.
For NOW people DO NOT NEED god.
Moreover, "idea of god" is DANGEROUS for human race.

Because of "whose god is better" arguing
(which cannot be solved because is based on irrational "feelings")
our poor mankind can commit suicide using NEWLY introduced weapons of mass destruction.

So, even IF "a god" exists, people MUST "prove" to themselves, that no any god exists and QUICKLY!

P.S.
"Morality" CAN be explained without references to any god, do you know that?

an age-old exchange not unlike the rest of this thread. in response to the second quoted message, "How can you trust your feelings, that "god" exists" in particular, do you believe that love exists? do you go around telling everyone who claims to be in love that they're not because love doesn't exist and is illogical and imaginary with the question "how can you trust your feelings?" let's take it a step further, then. how can you trust any observations, including observations in a science lab? however, perhaps love doesn't exist, or at least that many people who think they're in love are just confused. i might tell my daughter who has known a guy for 2 days and wants to get married that she's not in love. however, the number of "bona fide" instances of love leads me to suspect that love may exist. the other natural question is "how can you attribute God to whatever you're feeling?" this is a very good question and i don't have a good answer. all i can tell you is that if you ever felt it, you wouldn't ask it anymore.

nothing above (that i wrote) is intended to be a proof that God exists.

Bariyon

Nov12-03, 01:16 AM

Mumeishi,

with all beliefs, we do not start by assuming existence and challenging others to disprove it. Can you give me any non-religious examples of this?
Some physicists believe in a theory of everything, even though there is no evidence that it exists. Are these believing physicists being irrational?

Wolf

Nov12-03, 08:27 AM

i said some beleive in god because they cannot porve other wise and no i do NOT mean acrobatics i have a thread of my own read that threadand you will see what i mean

Mumeishi

Nov12-03, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Bariyon
Some physicists believe in a theory of everything, even though there is no evidence that it exists. Are these believing physicists being irrational?

It is not irrational to believe in the possibility. It is irrational to feel certain when evidence does not justify that.

It also depends what you mean by 'believe in a theory of everything'. It seems very plausible that all phenomena have a common source and as time goes by we collect more and more evidence to unify the phenomena that we know - all things are made of a finite set of atoms - all atoms are made of a smaller number of subatomic particles, matter is ultimately a form of energy. The electromagnetic forces and strong and weak nuclear forces have (I think) been shown to be aspects of the same. We can extrapolate from there. But until proven, this is just rational speculation.

Another matter is whether it is even possible for mankind with his finite brain to understand 'everything'. Even string theorists generally regard this as an open question. As Brian Greene put it:
No matter how hard you try to teach your cat general relativity, you’re going to fail.

Scientists do not 'believe in' theories in the same way that some people believe in God (not the sane ones at any rate). They simply regard a particular theory as being the best model we have for a particular phenomenon. If they get so emotionally attached to an idea that they believe it is 'true' without evidence, or with evidence against it, then they are straying into pseudoscience or at least 'bad' science.

The current best candidate for a 'theory of everything' - M theory (with the five string theories and supergravity as aspects of it) - is unproven but it's perceived value is not based on faith - it is based on its proven power to explain many hitherto incompatible aspects of physics which emerge from it mathematically without adding arbitrary constants.

Mumeishi

Nov12-03, 08:51 AM

Where is your thread Wolf?

phoenixthoth

Nov12-03, 09:04 AM

It is not irrational to believe in the possibility. It is irrational to feel certain when evidence does not justify that.

it is not irrational to believe that God is a possibility, then. or purple people or santa clause for that matter.

question: does irrational=wrong? if so, does logical=right?

the way i would have phrased it is this: some physicists believe that a theory of everything (in particular, the one inch equation) exists though there is no proof that it does.

Mumeishi

Nov12-03, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
it is not irrational to believe that God is a possibility, then. or purple people or santa clause for that matter.

A very remote possibility for all of the above, if at all. And what 'God' (and 'Santa') are would have to be defined in terms which were meaningful and not self inconsistent. I'd say there was evidence against all of the above.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
question: does irrational=wrong? if so, does logical=right?

'Irrational to believe' in real terms means probably wrong unless by coincidence (or genetic determination). Logic can tell you the most likely situation based on available evidence - it cannot give you the direct truth of factual matters.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
the way i would have phrased it is this: some physicists believe that a theory of everything (in particular, the one inch equation) exists though there is no proof that it does.

A theory is something created by humans. No such theory exists as far as we know. It is not rational to assume that such a theory is a certainty in the future.

ThOrNe

Nov12-03, 07:35 PM

I happen to like the idea from the post in the general philosophy -Religion imposed by Evolution (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8235) . God could be just an excuse for us not to commit mass suicides whenever something bad happened. but as for proof...for some the beliefs of the masses are enough to convince them but for some of the more inquisitive ppl, the concrete/written proof seems non-existant or too old or extraordinary to seem true.

Mumeishi

Nov12-03, 07:55 PM

I think that religion is the product of a complex interaction between evolution and memetics. Just because God is an invention does not mean that there are (or have been historically at least) social and evolutionary advantages for religious behaviour - primarily social cohesion.

ThOrNe

Nov12-03, 09:32 PM

But still...what proof is there of a god (or proof that there isn't a god)? It isn't like ppl couldn't get along without worshiping the diety of their choice (santa & purple ppl included). Besides history also shows that religious activity leads to huge amounts of unnecessary bloodshed. I wouldn't care enough to waste the energy to reply if humans didn't go to such extremes over their religion.

Mumeishi

Nov13-03, 04:55 AM

There is no proof or evidence for God. There is evidence against the theistic story (requiring them to reinterpret the story) eg. the sky is not a 'firmament', evolution, etc, but no proof. How can a concept like 'God' be disproved if it has not been defined in a coherent, consistent or testable way? Any number of 'non-disprovable' hypotheses can be erected - can you disprove the invisible gravity elves (who live in another dimension)? A hypothesis has to presented in a testable way and supported by evidence before there is even something there to disprove - otherwise we would have an unlimited number of unsupported beliefs.

We have better (simpler and more powerful) hypotheses for much which was explained by ancient Hewbrew tribesmen in terms of divine acts.

Certainly there have been and are some terrible and usually very long religious wars. And many atheists hark on about this. And its very easy to point to one war or historical event as if it existed in isolation and say that without religion those people would not have suffered and died. But to me whether there would be less bloodshed without religion is unclear - the world would be a different place and I simply don't know. The wars might be between secular ideologies instead - the number of people murdered by Stalinism was collosal (significantly more than those killed by the Nazis).

Religion tends to create more internal social cohesion and cooperation but to decrease tolerance to external belief systems.

But society is changing. Personally I think that pluralism and secular government is necessary for all modern multicultural states.

Anyway, whether something has evolutionary and memetic advantages has no direct reletionship with how good it is for the welfare of mankind or the individual man. Consider the cultural trait of suicide bombing - it certainly doesn't do much good to the individual, but it does give militarily dominated groups an effective weapon where otherwise they would have none - and without religion it probably wouldn't be possible.

adrenaline

Nov13-03, 06:54 AM

I am a Diest. Thus, I believe God created the universe but only to let the universe run by natural laws. Hence, he is not an iterventionist god and prayer is useless. Can I prove there is a God ? No. Can I prove he created us? No. Thus, this belief is just pure faith.I grew up among Hindi and Muslim friends in Malaysia and learned early to respect as well as distrust the world's major religions.

The big bang theory does not preclude a god, for me. In much the same way evolution does not preclude a god (for me.) It shows that God was a brilliant scientist! I think the state of the world shows a very indifferent god, much akin to our own indifferance when we create a whole universe of bacterial colonies in petri dishes and throw them away into the hazardous waste bins. Many great scientists and thinkers were Diests or religious, even Einstein never lost his spirituality. (Don't forget Mendel, a monk, Faraday, a devout fanatic christian, Newton, essentially a Diest/Unitarian. etc. etc.)

It is irrational, but perhaps it is because even the most rational does not relinquish the idea that there is something greater than us. In addition, for some, probing into the depths of science either makes you more of an athiest or more spiritual. As a physics professor once told me "Mathmatics and science is the language of God." not the bible. He felt that if one studied mathmatics and science, we saw the intricacy and brilliance of a God without all the ridiculous sanctions imposed by cultural values.

As you can see, I am basically a simple person.

just my two cents worth.[:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)]

Mumeishi

Nov13-03, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by adrenaline
I grew up among Hindi and Muslim friends in Malaysia and learned early to respect as well as distrust the world's major religions.

Did you learn to distrust or at least question Christianity too?

Originally posted by adrenaline

The big bang theory does not preclude a god, for me. In much the same way evolution does not preclude a god (for me.) It shows that God was a brilliant scientist!

No - it shows that the Gravity Elves were brilliant scientists! Have ye no faith?!

Originally posted by adrenaline
I think the state of the world shows a very indifferent god, much akin to our own indifferance when we create a whole universe of bacterial colonies in petri dishes and throw them away into the hazardous waste bins.

What happened to a loving omnibenevolent god?

Originally posted by adrenaline

Many great scientists and thinkers were Diests or religious, even Einstein never lost his spirituality. (Don't forget Mendel, a monk, Faraday, a devout fanatic christian, Newton, essentially a Diest/Unitarian. etc. etc.)

There's a big difference between theism and spirituality. Einstein certainly wasn't religious in any recognisable traditional sense. Belief in God actually decreases with increased education, particularly scientific education. Scientists probably have the lowest percentage of religious belief of any profession.

Originally posted by adrenaline

It is irrational, but perhaps it is because even the most rational does not relinquish the idea that there is something greater than us.

Who could possibly deny that? But it is more honest to humbly let the truth reveal itself through evidence that to claim knowledge of the ultimate through direct personal insight.

adrenaline

Nov13-03, 07:56 PM

Malaysia is a predominantly Islamic country with a large proportion of Hindis and Buddists (the latter due to the Asian population.) So most of my peers were not Christians. However, My father is Quaker (essentilly Unitarian.) and my mother a born again christian who could never quite sell me her religion. So yeah, I questioned Christianity my whole life argueing with her. [:D]

I believe the scientists I mentioned were very religious with the exception of Einstein. Faraday was in his heydey a member of a literal small sect called the Sandemanians. Newton rejected the trinity but still believed in a God. Einstein definately rejected his formal Jewish beliefs and was more spiritual and pantheistic. You are right that todays modern thinkers are more and more areligious and there is a direct correlation with educational level.

Rader

Nov14-03, 04:51 PM

A direct proof that God does exist is the fact that we have evolved to ask the question does God exist. Nothing can not exist if we think that it might. The question and the answer is inbreed in the evolution of life everywhere in the universe. Something set exactly right, all the parameter of laws, precisely correct, for us to exist.
[8)]

Mumeishi

Nov14-03, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Rader
A direct proof that God does exist is the fact that we have evolved to ask the question does God exist. Nothing can not exist if we think that it might. The question and the answer is inbreed in the evolution of life everywhere in the universe. Something set exactly right, all the parameter of laws, precisely correct, for us to exist.
[8)]

Even if 'Godidit' was the only explanation we could come up with that wouldn't be proof, as there could always be possibilities beyond our imagination and intellect which we had not conceived of.

As it is, the 'Godidit' hypothesis is is competing with more powerful(and less self-contradictory and logically absurd) ideas and is no more plausible than 'Gravity Elves' or anything else I could think up after smoking a big joint.

psychosporin

Nov14-03, 06:02 PM

I personally dont believe in god per se, but definitely in a higher power. How this power came to be, i cannot be for sure, but the way the god of the bible "always was" is a little strange. I mean, he existed before anything, and when i ask people (parents, priests, ect)how this can be, they just say, because he is god.

Or maybe "god" is like how adrenaline says, that he DID create us and wants nothing to do with us, or, well...maybe well...maybe we all just picked the wrong religion and mormons might be right (like on South Park, not trying to be offensive).

Rader

Nov14-03, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Even if 'Godidit' was the only explanation we could come up with that wouldn't be proof, as there could always be possibilities beyond our imagination and intellect which we had not conceived of.

As it is, the 'Godidit' hypothesis is is competing with more powerful(and less self-contradictory and logically absurd) ideas and is no more plausible than 'Gravity Elves' or anything else I could think up after smoking a big joint.

I agree. There could always be possibilities beyond our imagination and intellect which we had not conceived of yet.
Solution stop smoking joints and you might come up with one.
[:)] [:D] [s(] [g)] [o)] [8)]

Mumeishi

Nov14-03, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by psychosporin
I personally dont believe in god per se, but definitely in a higher power. How this power came to be, i cannot be for sure, but the way the god of the bible "always was" is a little strange. I mean, he existed before anything, and when i ask people (parents, priests, ect)how this can be, they just say, because he is god.

Or maybe "god" is like how adrenaline says, that he DID create us and wants nothing to do with us, or, well...maybe well...maybe we all just picked the wrong religion and mormons might be right (like on South Park, not trying to be offensive).

Or maybe its all emotionally and politically driven feverish speculations of a bunch of small-brained humans without the wit or humility to realise that they can't have all the answers on plate - especially not answers they can pick from a menu to suit their emotional needs.

Why do you believe in a 'higher power' whatever that is?

psychosporin

Nov14-03, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Or maybe its all emotionally and politically driven feverish speculations of a bunch of small-brained humans without the wit or humility to realise that they can't have all the answers on plate - especially not answers they can pick from a menu to suit their emotional needs.

Why do you believe in a 'higher power' whatever that is?

Like I said, i wasnt trying to be annoying/offensive, sorry if i have offended you Mumeishi.

But anyways...what i mean by "higher power" is that I have not proven to myself that God exists. But I believe that there is something there, some creative source, not necessarily the god of the bible (Yahweh, or something). I guess the reason that i lost my faith in god and started believeing in a higher power is because i have seen alot of different beliefs among christianity, so i am trying to find a new religion(maybe even another denomination of christianity), hence the "higher power"

Mumeishi

Nov14-03, 08:50 PM

You didn't offend me in the least. Feel free to annoy me as much as you like - don't hold back.

What do you mean by 'creative source' and why do you believe in it?

psychosporin

Nov14-03, 09:36 PM

I guess I was a little vague in my post...What i meant, was people just told me to pray to god, not giving me a reason why. All they told me was that he loved me and that he made me. Until I prove to my self that he DOES love me and made me, i shall remain skeptical. Example, I was raised as a Seventh Day Adventist, for those of you who dont know what those are, they believe that Saturday is the sabbath, and that you shouldnt eat pork, ect. I dont like pork much anyways, but thats besides the point. i was just told to believe and follow those rules, thinking that that was the only way to get into heaven. What i should have meant is that i need to prove to myself these things about god.

i guess i shouldnt have used the terms "higher power" "creative force" ect, but i was frustrated by how many different beliefs of the different denominations of christianity, compared to the one denomination of the Islamic faith. But, i suppose that i would rather be christian than anything else, except some "Christian" denominations that are cult like.

ThOrNe

Nov14-03, 11:13 PM

Your reply kinda sounds like one i made earlier...that our beliefs are based largely on gullibility. And you didn't have to appologize pyscho [6)] (see ya monday lol)

Mumeishi

Nov15-03, 09:02 AM

We don't know if our universe (ie. visible universe - the space time continuum of which we are a part), has an external cause, ie is part of something greater or not. Nor does it seem impossible that an intelligent entity in another part of the multiverse caused a real or virtual universe to come into being. But what is clear is that there is no evidence to reasonable cause us to assume that or worse to assume the existence of something which the concept of which is unintelligible - what does infinitely good or infinitely powerful mean? It is nonsensical when you think about it.

Its also clear that 'a feeling of certainty' (ie faith) is not sufficient justification for belief (go visit a mental hospital to find out why). Nor is something being written down in an old religious text sufficient justification, otherwise we should all be learning the Pyramid Texts and worshipping Ra, Osiris, and Isis - it is significantly older than the bible after all.

If the idea of God answers the mysteries in life at all, it does so by avoiding explaining anything and pushing those mysteries further back - subsuming them in the 'ineffable mystery of God'.

How does reality look the way it does?
'Because there is a being that can do anything and he did it.'
How?
'He can do anything'
Why?
'He has a mysterious plan'

So why do people believe? Over time, the most appealing and socially powerful religious ideas have survived and become more and more effective at spreading by using strategies such as bypassing rational thought and manipulating people through their primal emotions of love, hate and fear.

Rader

Nov15-03, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
We don't know if our universe (ie. visible universe - the space time continuum of which we are a part), has an external cause, ie is part of something greater or not. Nor does it seem impossible that an intelligent entity in another part of the multiverse caused a real or virtual universe to come into being. But what is clear is that there is no evidence to reasonable cause us to assume that or worse to assume the existence of something which the concept of which is unintelligible - what does infinitely good or infinitely powerful mean? It is nonsensical when you think about it.

Its also clear that 'a feeling of certainty' (ie faith) is not sufficient justification for belief (go visit a mental hospital to find out why). Nor is something being written down in an old religious text sufficient justification, otherwise we should all be learning the Pyramid Texts and worshipping Ra, Osiris, and Isis - it is significantly older than the bible after all.

If the idea of God answers the mysteries in life at all, it does so by avoiding explaining anything and pushing those mysteries further back - subsuming them in the 'ineffable mystery of God'.

How does reality look the way it does?
'Because there is a being that can do anything and he did it.'
How?
'He can do anything'
Why?
'He has a mysterious plan'

So why do people believe? Over time, the most appealing and socially powerful religious ideas have survived and become more and more effective at spreading by using strategies such as bypassing rational thought and manipulating people through their primal emotions of love, hate and fear.

The only logical answer seems to be, that we do not understand his mysterious plan and all this fuss is part of the plan.

One hopefull note is that, the people who believe, also believe that mind body and spirit is evolving towards a greater perfection.
[8)]

Bariyon

Nov15-03, 04:13 PM

Mumeishi,

Regarding the belief that a theory of everything exists, or at least a more complete theory, I don't doubt this either.

But regarding the existence of god, there are people who believe that there must be more to life than there presently is.

It may be possible that these people are attempting to express an experiential sense of what lies beyond our present understanding.

It is possible that some scientists are involved in the same process of expressing intuitions that lie beyond the usual intellectual faculties. Such scientists would view that their laboratory is their own body.

The way I see things, the prophets were the ancient equivalents of the scientist, albeit with a different programme. The writings of the prophets are widely misunderstood, perhaps even more so these days. For example, if a prophet writes that we shall not wear garments that are a mixture of wool and linen, either this prophet is being extremely petty, or he is up to something else that is beyond some of us.

It is no coincidence that no one has a theory of everything, and no one understands the prophets.

Mumeishi

Nov15-03, 05:03 PM

Both of you,

It's all wishful thinking. There is no actual justification to believe any of this - only the desire to find something to combat a sense that the reality we do know is insufficiently fulfilling for many people.

phoenixthoth

Nov15-03, 11:55 PM

Mumeishi,

prove that God does not exist.

until you do, i will consider your apparent belief that God does not exist wishful thinking and irrational, not unlike those in a mental institution.

i'm wondering if the postulation of a hell is also wishful thinking.

is this something you believe that you can't prove?

Mumeishi

Nov16-03, 06:57 AM

Define 'God'.

phoenixthoth

Nov16-03, 07:20 AM

how about the definition you were using when you wrote this:
"If the idea of God answers the mysteries in life at all..."

Rader

Nov16-03, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Define 'God'.

We could define him as being a exellent scientist.

[8)]

Mumeishi

Nov16-03, 08:32 AM

I said 'if..'. Frankly, it's not a concept I have come across an intelligible definition for, which reflects its common usage, so to say 'God does or does not exist' is gobbledigook to me.

Why is it that people have no problem understanding that the onus of proof is on the assertor of an idea except when it comes to God, they seem to conveniently forget?

Can you prove that there is no such thing as invisible blue elephants?
No.
Does this mean that they exist?
No.
Does this mean that my belief in them is as valid as your lack of belief in them?
No.
Does this mean that believing in them is rational or justified?
No.

Now replace 'invisible blue elephants' with 'God'. Actually at least the former is an intelligible idea.

Mumeishi

Nov16-03, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Rader
We could define him as being a exellent scientist.
[8)]

Oh I believe in those. Einstein, Faraday, Hawking are all excellent scientists. Where does he live?

Rader

Nov16-03, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Oh I believe in those. Einstein, Faraday, Hawking are all excellent scientists. Where does he live?

Thats the million dollar question, you made my day. Thats the first time i had someone ask where he lives. He has a unlisted address this year. Try next year we might know.
[8)]

phoenixthoth

Nov16-03, 07:47 PM

Why is it that people have no problem understanding that the onus of proof is on the assertor of an idea except when it comes to God, they seem to conveniently forget?
same applies to an assertor of the idea "God does not exist." just out of curiousity, if God is a concept you consider "gobbledigook," then why would you talk about it? if someone started a thread entitled "what's the proof that )(*&!#0 exists," i wouldn't participate most likely. i have the feeling that you actually have some idea what God might be.

Can you prove that there is no such thing as invisible blue elephants?
No.
Does this mean that they exist?
No.
Does this mean that my belief in them is as valid as your lack of belief in them?
No.
Does this mean that believing in them is rational or justified?
No.
does this mean that one who believes in them is incorrect?
no.
does this mean that one who believes in them is correct?
no.

please tell my if i'm mischaracterizing your statements. i call this the santa clause argument:
SANTA CLAUSE ARGUMENT
1. belief in imaginary beings is illogical and delusional.
2. beliefs that are illogical and delusional are automatically wrong.
3. therefore, God does not exist.

you seem to be alternating between one who thinks 'God' is intelligible enough to talk about and then to decide it's not an intelligible subject when it's convienient for you.

suppose you can't prove God does not exist. what word do you use to describe when you believe something you can't prove?

Mumeishi

Nov16-03, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
same applies to an assertor of the idea "God does not exist." just out of curiousity, if God is a concept you consider "gobbledigook," then why would you talk about it? if someone started a thread entitled "what's the proof that )(*&!#0 exists," i wouldn't participate most likely. i have the feeling that you actually have some idea what God might be.

If someone told me that an entity existed with characteristics quantified as infinite, the consequences of which is isolation and combination lead to absurd conclusion I would have to say that I could not make sense of the proposed concept or entity.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

does this mean that one who believes in them is incorrect?
no.
does this mean that one who believes in them is correct?
no.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty in this world. We cannot eliminate the possibility of invisible blue elephants and we cannot eliminate the possibility of a 'higher power' (of some sort). That doesn't mean that it is justiified to believe in them without any evidence, especially when there are far more powerful and useful explanations for the phenomena they we originally dreamed up to explain.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

please tell my if i'm mischaracterizing your statements. i call this the santa clause argument:
SANTA CLAUSE ARGUMENT
1. belief in imaginary beings is illogical and delusional.
2. beliefs that are illogical and delusional are automatically wrong.
3. therefore, God does not exist.

Yes you are. Where did you pull that from? Try again.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

you seem to be alternating between one who thinks 'God' is intelligible enough to talk about and then to decide it's not an intelligible subject when it's convienient for you.

Perhaps I wasn't being very clear. I must be able to understand the concept enough to discuss it, but I certainly can't make sense of the supposed characteristics of that concept.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

suppose you can't prove God does not exist. what word do you use to describe when you believe something you can't prove?

'Sanity'.

The belief in X is not justified by reason or evidence.
It is not justified to believe in X.
I have absolutely no reason to believe in X, so I don't have a belief in X.
I believe (but cannot know) that there is no X. In other words, I'd be extremeley surprised if anything like X existed. And I'd be even more surprised if X existed as described since I cannot make sense of it.
It would be irrational to act as if X existed, when there are hypotheses with very real evidence and which are not self-contradictory.

There are an unlimited number of undisprovable concepts which can be entered where X is. God has exactly the same level of credibility as invisible elephants, elves, santa claus, and the purple unicorn from dimension X.

The thing that causes people to take this concept is that it is emotionally seductive and those who are introduced to it are also asked to give up their critical thinking faculties with regard to the concept.

phoenixthoth

Nov16-03, 09:17 PM

so belief in something you can't prove is both sanity and unjustified. interesting. in particular, belief in God though you can't prove it is sanity and unjusitified.

some would call it 'faith'.

Mumeishi

Nov17-03, 05:51 AM

Yes, please deliberately misunderstand me - good tactic.

There is indeed a certain element of faith involved in all beliefs. There is a gap between what is absoloutely knowable (very little or nothing) and the things we need to act as if true in order to have a reasonably accurate model of the world and thus hopefully survive in it.

If I wait for a bus, there is a degree of faith that one will eventually come. When I go to sleep there is a degree of faith that the sun will rise the next morning. When I drive a car, there is a degree of faith that the laws of physics won't suddenly change and make the tarmac fload off into the air.

The faith involved here is rational and based on evidence. It is just a matter of choosing the likelihood shown to be most probable by evidence and reason - for pragmatic reasons sometimes we need to close the hypothetical gap in our knowledge and act and think (at least for a while) as if something is certain. Otherwise we would remain in a state of permanent scepticism and indecision.

Now, believing something *entirely* on the basis of faith and, with a *lack* of any evidence or *contrary* to it, is *not* the same or symmetrical at all, which is what you are implying. Its an entirely different kettle of invisible purple fish.

Mumeishi

Nov17-03, 01:17 PM

Forgive me if I'm not being absolutely clear - I've recently adjusted my stance on this and I'm still clarifying the details in my own head.

Many atheists insist on 'weak atheism' (a statement of lack of belief) as the rational position and in a sense this is true. Until very recently I agreed. However, the reality of the situation is that I believe that the idea that God exists is false. Why is this? Can I justify it?

I don't claim to *know* that there is no God, as I am not omniscient and there may be something about the situation I'm missing - my belief is a working model. To the best of my knowledge there is no more justification for belief in the existence of god than thee is justification for belief in invisible pink elephants on Alpha Centauri. And if someone asked me if I believed there were such creatures I would have to say 'no'. This doesn't mean I claim to know that there are none, but without evidence it seems unlikely.

It is a statement of probability suggested by the available evidence and of what hypothesis I'm working with. It is not possible to function in the world in a state of complete agnosticism - we have to commit ourselves to an idea to be able to do anything.

I think there *is* an element of faith in this - the same sort of faith that gravity won't suddenly invert, or that the sun will rise each morning, in other words, faith justified by the high probabilities suggested by evidence and reason.

This is not the same as religious faith, which exists contrary to or at least in isolation from evidence or rational thought. Hypotheses are not accepted purely on faith except for God for some odd reason and the argument that God is an exception because he 'cannot be apprehended by reason' or some such, fails because it presupposes his existence and characteristics in order to prove them. Any number of ridiculous ideas can be constructed which would magically pull themselves up by their bootstraps in this way.

Wolf

Nov17-03, 02:09 PM

Aparently in the bible god said

"i shall not proof my existence because that denies faith and without faith i do not exist" this is saying that he exists as long as us humans choose to beleive in him and have faith in him or her i apologize for using he so much it is a force of habit

Mumeishi

Nov17-03, 02:21 PM

What sort of puny existence is that? Even God admits he is only an idea.

phoenixthoth

Nov18-03, 04:44 AM

are you saying that while it is likely that the sun will rise tomorrow, it is unlikely that pink elephants exist on alpha centauri and that God exists? while i can see how it might be unlikely that pink elephants exist on alpha centauri, mainly because it's probably too hot to support life (assuming the pink elephant in question is a type of life form we're accustomed to), i'm not sure how one goes about calculating the odds that God exists. how is this done? i would assume that in order to calculate the odds, or just estimate the odds and call the event "unlikely," that one would have to have a definition of God. what is the definition you're using?

Mumeishi

Nov18-03, 08:11 AM

Taking the common Christian definition of 'God' (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, disembodied intelligence or 'spirit' - whatever that is - that exists beyond our univese and created it and and gave us the purpose of being moral, and acknowledging him through faith, etc), how much reliable evidence is there for such a being? Here is a quick round-up of the evidence I'm aware of:

- private, subjective feelings of 'spirituality' (does not equal evidence that they are anything more than experiences caused by brain events)
- anecdotes of miracles (number confirmed by independent verification = 0)
- the Old and New Testament - claimed to be 'the word of God' (fails because the authority that they are the word of God is the texts themselves - it's circular, plus of course there are the internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with demonstrable reality and the fact that there are a range of other texts saying contrary things, all claiming to be the 'true word of God/Allah etc'
- The existence of the universe itself. (The existence of a thing is not evidence for one particular explanation for a thing - salt exists, therefor the salt-cellar of the gods must exist? No.)
- The existence of life. (Same argument above applie, plus there are other explanations which have substantial *actual evidence* are more powerful, and provide actual detailed explanation of the processes rather than sweeping, nonspecific ones, like 'God did it' or naive, implausible ones, like 'he made man out of clay, then made woman out of his rib').

Therefore the verifiable evidence is nil. There is certainly no more evidence for a Judeo-Christian account than there is for a Shinto, Hindu or Ancient Egyptian account.

What is the evidence for the hypothesis that invisible elephant-like creatures live on a planet orbiting Alpha-Centauri or that extra-dimensional pixies inhabit this planet? Hypothetically it should not be excluded, but again there is no verifiable evidence, so the possibility remains purely hypothetical.

Furthermore this 'God' entity is proposed to possess a number of characteristics which we have no other examples of and have difficulty even making sense of - so we don't even know if it is even possible for such a thing to exist. For example, he is said to exist outside of the universe - we don't know of any space, time or existence of any sort in which he could exist and without those concepts, in what sense can he be said to exist and to have causal relationships with our universe? If he is part of (or all of) some 'greater reality', where did it come from? This is not an explanation for the origin of everything at all its just a case of pushing the problem further backing into a transcendent reality and clouding it with 'mysterious unknowability'. If the greater reality 'always was' or 'is not subject to the concept of time' then why can't we say the same about our universe as a totality? Indeed, relativity shows time to be a *property of* the universe, not something which the universe *exists in*.

Another example is the concept of omnipotence and the conundrum this leads to. If He is all-powerful, and all-good, why is life so crappy sometimes and why is there evil? Freewill and suffering are necessary for our spiritual development and judgement I hear you say. But an all-powerful God would be able to perfect us without resort to such indirect, inefficient and painful means. And, does the concept of unlimited power actually mean anything? Can he create a rock that he cannot lift or not? Can he make a square circle? Can he make good actions evil and vice versa?

Faced with the logical absurdities even of the concept of God's existence let alone the absense of evidence, I'd have to put him into the vast category of vanishingly small possibilities and apparent impossibilities - probably some way below the invisible pink elephants and extra-dimensional elves. The fact that there are as many of these undemonstrated and untestable hypotheses as we have imagination to think of them is significant. If we accept them we would not be able to function due to uncertainty and indecision - our knowledge of reality would be effectively zero. The default state of our knowledge is not zero, ie. not a certainty that hypothesis X is false. This background of vanishing hypothetical possibilities is actually the default state. And the 'God' concept slides right into it along with unicorns and jabberwockys. What we need to find the 'real' as opposed to the merely 'conceived of' is something which will pull the proposed hypothesis out of this near-infinite mass of vanishing possibilities - that is why we seek verifiable evidence and how human understanding has advanced over the millenia. The thing that pulls the 'God' concept out of this background is not evidence or even reason, it is IMO that the memetic evolutionary complex that is religion has evolved a powerful emotional appeal and a doctrine which encourages people to circumvent the usual need for evidence and reason and accept this particular hypothesis on a faith-alone basis. See Richard Dawkins and Susan Blackmore for more details.

If, we are motivated to do so, we can redefine 'God ' in such a way that it avoids many of these logical problems. If we accept a finite entity of some sort, which nevertheless created our local universe and may have great power over it and exists in some sort of hypothetical transcendent reality, like a computer programmer who creates a simulated world, then we at least have a coherent idea. There is however, still no evidence for it, it still has no real explanatory power, it isn't the Judeo-Christian god and there is no verifiable way to acertain its intentions for our behaviour if any, no divine support (let alone absolute moral imperative) for the claim that homosexuality is evil, for example.

phoenixthoth

Nov18-03, 08:17 AM

private, subjective feelings of 'spirituality' (does not equal evidence that they are anything more than experiences caused by brain events)
what subjective experiences aren't caused by brain events? how was it determined that the brain events caused the spiritual feelings and not that something spiritual caused the brain events?

Mumeishi

Nov18-03, 08:46 AM

All experiences correspond to brain events. Experiences can be triggered by artificially stimulated associated brain areas, therefore a causal relationship in this direction is shown or more likely IMO an identity relationship - the brain event is the experience from a different perspective. There is no evidence even for a separate 'spirit' to cause these events - its pure conjecture.

We don't need divine intervention to cause these events - we can do it with magnets on the temporal lobes.

phoenixthoth

Nov18-03, 09:09 AM

that the experience can be simulated by other means (magnets or whatnot) proves what, even if it were possible? how was it determined that the brain events caused the spiritual feelings and not that something spiritual caused the brain events?

does subjective brain experience associated with perception of the outside universe provide evidence that it exists? why that and not the subjective brain experience associated with the perception of a spiritual presence? what makes some subjective experiences a more reliable indicator of reality than others?

Mumeishi

Nov18-03, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
that the experience can be simulated by other means (magnets or whatnot) proves what, even if it were possible? how was it determined that the brain events caused the spiritual feelings and not that something spiritual caused the brain events?

It has been done, many times, including artificial stimulation of the temporal lobes to invoke religious-type experiences. The neuroscientist's decision whether to and how to stimulate the brain produces a fairly predictable result. What's the alternative? That God 'secretly conspired' to give the person a religious experience at the exact same time as the neuroscientist or through his actions? Apart from being absurdly implausible and rather pathetic of God, that would violate the neurosurgeon's freewill and we all know how important God values that.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
does subjective brain experience associated with perception of the outside universe provide evidence that it exists? why that and not the subjective brain experience associated with the perception of a spiritual presence? what makes some subjective experiences a more reliable indicator of reality than others?

Because the former is verified by multiple observers.

phoenixthoth

Nov18-03, 09:42 AM

did you note the word "simulate" in my question? if i could concoct a drug (or some other stimulus) to simulate perception X does that mean that nothing else in reality gives rise to perception X independent of the drug?

Because the former is verified by multiple observers.
muliple people have had spiritual experiences. i don't see the relevance in that those multiple obervers are coming through in a subjective brain state. so if a million people say a horse exists (because they may have experienced it in some way/ways), then it does, while if a million people say God exists (because they may have experienced it in some way/ways), that is less reliable? if i could put a magnetic field around someone's head and they suddenly saw a horse when i did so, does that mean horses don't exist?

Mumeishi

Nov18-03, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
did you note the word "simulate" in my question? if i could concoct a drug (or some other stimulus) to simulate perception X does that mean that nothing else in reality gives rise to perception X independent of the drug?

We cannot make that assumption.

If the drug or other 'artificial' stimulus is the cause of an experience, then the experience will occur in the presence of the stimulus and not when it is absent. It is really IMO activity of a certain sort in the temporal lobes which *is* the experience and this activity can occur 'spontaneously' or artificially. Yes, the spontaneous activity could hypothetically have an invisible cause (like 'God'). But you are missing the point. These experiments show that 'God' is not a necessary factor for such experiences, therefor using such experiences as evidence for god is unsound, which was my original point.

The relationship seems to be an ordinary causal one:
stimulate temporal lobe > religious experience
stop stimulation > experience ends

It happens when the neuroscientist wills - it doesn't rely on God's will.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

muliple people have had spiritual experiences. i don't see the relevance in that those multiple obervers are coming through in a subjective brain state. so if a million people say a horse exists (because they may have experienced it in some way/ways), then it does, while if a million people say God exists (because they may have experienced it in some way/ways), that is less reliable?

if i could put a magnetic field around someone's head and they suddenly saw a horse when i did so, does that mean horses don't exist?

It means the 'horse' may only exist as a mental experience. Few would deny that 'God' exists as a concept and possible experience - it's whether He is more than this which needs to be proved. What sort of a God can be eliminated just by taking a magnet away from someone's head?

A million people saying that something is the case doesn't make it so, but if a million people conduct sound horse research (which is transparent and open to criticism) and conclude there is a horse then it is highly likely that there is, thus the existence of the horse is established as a recognised 'fact'.

You really want to get into this subjectivist/idealist nonsense? You must be getting desperate.

Rader

Nov18-03, 04:43 PM

Prove that God does exist or prove that he does not exist.. What is proof? Proof is local individual perception.. The proof of anything is only through the eyes of the observer.. Everything is fallible except the individuals proof.. The proof is set by the individuals paramenters for it.. Proof that God does or does not exist is provable only if you want to prove it to yourself.
[8)]

phoenixthoth

Nov18-03, 09:37 PM

We cannot make that assumption.
so we assume the contrary.

If the drug or other 'artificial' stimulus is the cause of an experience, then the experience will occur in the presence of the stimulus and not when it is absent. It is really IMO activity of a certain sort in the temporal lobes which *is* the experience and this activity can occur 'spontaneously' or artificially. Yes, the spontaneous activity could hypothetically have an invisible cause (like 'God'). But you are missing the point. These experiments show that 'God' is not a necessary factor for such experiences, therefor using such experiences as evidence for god is unsound, which was my original point.

the reason why those experiences occur spontaneously is what?

The relationship seems to be an ordinary causal one:
stimulate temporal lobe > religious experience
stop stimulation > experience ends

It happens when the neuroscientist wills - it doesn't rely on God's will.

what about this situation:
The relationship seems to be an ordinary causal one:
X > certain (consciousness/brain) state permitting > religious experience
X > certain (consciousness/brain) state preventing > experience ends

or
X > religious experience
X stops > experience ends

the idea is that there is some sense (call it the third eye for lack of better term) that can percieve aspects of God that the normal five senses can't perceive and some things facilitate the opening of the third eye and some things facilitate the closing of the third eye.

it's still logically unsound, as far as i can tell, to attribute divinity to whatever may be leading to religious experiences (the phrase spiritual experiences is more apt in some cases).

It means the 'horse' may only exist as a mental experience. Few would deny that 'God' exists as a concept and possible experience - it's whether He is more than this which needs to be proved. What sort of a God can be eliminated just by taking a magnet away from someone's head?why would you say God is eliminated when the magnet is taken away? if i close my eyes and no longer perceive a horse, is it no longer there?A million people saying that something is the case doesn't make it so, but if a million people conduct sound horse research (which is transparent and open to criticism) and conclude there is a horse then it is highly likely that there is, thus the existence of the horse is established as a recognised 'fact'.yes, and how do these researchers let you know they've done what you think is sound research? by either saying it or other communication. are you sure there's no sound research done in the arena of what you're talking about? the convienient notion perpetuated is that, as far as i know, few scientists are willing to investigate divinity and therefore adherents to science can say that no sound research has been done. i would like to get my hands on some of the work done by david hawkins, a scientist working in these areas.

You really want to get into this subjectivist/idealist nonsense? You must be getting desperate.

the idea was whether or not a perception being recreatable by something other than the object of perception being there proves that object does not exist.

Mumeishi

Nov19-03, 05:30 AM

so we assume the contrary.

Not at all. I think my argument is quite clear. Why is this so difficult? Let me repeat myself:
But you are missing the point. These experiments show that 'God' is not a necessary factor for such experiences, therefor using such experiences as evidence for god is unsound, which was my original point.

Are you with me?

the reason why those experiences occur spontaneously is what?

Seizures of the temporal lobe are thought to cause such experiences spontaneously. This is not dissimilar to an epileptic fit, which can also be localised. I don't have any knowledge of how such seizures start.

what about this situation:
The relationship seems to be an ordinary causal one:
X > certain (consciousness/brain) state permitting > religious experience
X > certain (consciousness/brain) state preventing > experience ends

or
X > religious experience
X stops > experience ends

the idea is that there is some sense (call it the third eye for lack of better term) that can percieve aspects of God that the normal five senses can't perceive and some things facilitate the opening of the third eye and some things facilitate the closing of the third eye.

Yes, I've come across this idea and if there is a 'third eye' the temporal lobe seems like a very good candidate (although there are two of them of course). Again, my point is that this structure and the resulting religious experiences have been shown to be activated 'artificially' by a magnetic field and presumably any seizure which happens to occur in that area may lead to such experiences. There is no evidence of your proposed mysterious undetectable agency 'X'. I would invoke Occam's razor to excise 'X' as unevidenced and unnecessary. There is no more reason to assume 'x' than there is to invoke 'football pixies' which intervene every time my foot makes contact with a ball at speed.

Anyway what sort of diety would allow his means of communion with man to be usurped in such a base manner? I was under the impression that religious experiences were supposed to be God making direct contact with the soul (or vice versa). Is the soul the temporal lobe? 'No but perhaps the TL is the bridge between the body and the soul I hear you say'. But then why should God need to go through the physical route to access the soul? And again, why should he let neurosurgeons access the soul with magnets?

it's still logically unsound, as far as i can tell, to attribute divinity to whatever may be leading to religious experiences (the phrase spiritual experiences is more apt in some cases).

I couldn't agree more! LOL

why would you say God is eliminated when the magnet is taken away? if i close my eyes and no longer perceive a horse, is it no longer there?yes, and how do these researchers let you know they've done what you think is sound research? by either saying it or other communication.

I may have misunderstood your point first time round. Again, this is getting into subjectivism and idealism. Do you really want to get into that argument too? The researchers publish their results along with specific details of methodology. Others can criticise this methodology or repeat the experiment. If they get different results then questions must be asked and more research done to clarify the matter. No research can ever be 100% objective, but much observer bias is removed in this way - research techniques are honed over time and greater objectivity becomes possible.

are you sure there's no sound research done in the arena of what you're talking about? the convienient notion perpetuated is that, as far as i know, few scientists are willing to investigate divinity and therefore adherents to science can say that no sound research has been done. i would like to get my hands on some of the work done by david hawkins, a scientist working in these areas.

Feel free to cite some if you find it. I take resorting to the claims of academic conspiracy as a sign of a crackpot theory. You find exactly the same sort of claims among those who claim that the pyramids were built by Atlanteans. The most powerful and wealthy nation on earth 9the US) is overwhelming theistic, including the President and many of the funders of the government. If there were any possibility of providing evidence which supported Christianity, the moticvation and possible funding would be high. And you are claiming there is a conspiracy *against* theism! A similar argument could be made about some Islamic states.

the idea was whether or not a perception being recreatable by something other than the object of perception being there proves that object does not exist.

I never said that this research 'proves God does not exist'. What it proves is that God is not a necessary factor for religious experiences to occur. It negates the value of such experiences as evidence for God. The 'God hypothesis' has no real explanatory power and is an unnecessary concept.

Mumeishi

Nov20-03, 08:09 PM

So is this like the moment in an action film where everything goes quiet, the hero surveys the battlefield and realises that he has won and that he is surrounded only by corpses and perhaps a few allies?

Or do I have a few more wounded theists to impale first?

Mumeishi

Nov20-03, 08:14 PM

And where's the love interest? I hope she was watching.

Merlin

Nov23-03, 01:55 PM

HIGHLYTOXIC you ask a deceptive question, looking for a true answer? Post a pure question for a pure answer.

Mumeishi

Nov23-03, 02:00 PM

Seems like a pretty straightforward question to me. How on earth is it deceptive?

Define 'impure' and tell us how can you demonstrate that it is 'impure'.

If 'pure' means 'in accordance with Christian doctrine' or 'not rocking the boat for Christian doctrine' then that's begging the question, because we are still trying to establish any credibility for Christian doctrine.

Merlin

Nov23-03, 04:36 PM

Ahhhh!.. a simple answer to that one is. Impure = deceptive as in you are sure no one can answer the God(s) question to your terms.

A deceptive question to elicit an unpure answer from you would be ...ummm ...Prove to me that the theory of evolution of the species is true.

You wont rock anyone's boat but the ignorant my fellow.

And all religious infrastructures are basically the same. So when you say Christianity I will substitute the word religion, because we mustn't flame on one sect without all the others that worship a deity(s) should we

Lastly we should examine that wobbly, creaky, change with the times "scientific" soap box (method) that you seem to put so much faith in? yes?....

Merlin

Nov23-03, 04:51 PM

Oh, and BTW,Mumeishi, I do apologize for not reading ALL the prior posts that you made on this subject. The ones I did fully read were faulty in their logic, to the point of being amusing.

Mumeishi

Nov23-03, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Merlin
Ahhhh!.. a simple answer to that one is. Impure = deceptive as in you are sure no one can answer the God(s) question to your terms.

A deceptive question to elicit an unpure answer from you would be ...ummm ...Prove to me that the theory of evolution of the species is true.

You're quite right. There is no such thing as proof in science, nor should that impossible standard be expected for God. I took the spirit of the question to be 'Is there any evidence for God?'. But you're quite right, that's not what it says.

Then again, no one has not even presented any valid evidence for God, so the question of proof is a long way off.

Originally posted by Merlin

And all religious infrastructures are basically the same. So when you say Christianity I will substitute the word religion, because we mustn't flame on one sect without all the others that worship a deity(s) should we

Very egalitarian of you.

Originally posted by Merlin

Lastly we should examine that wobbly, creaky, change with the times "scientific" soap box (method) that you seem to put so much faith in? yes?....

Scientific method 'proves' itself every day. The computer you are using to reply to me was not made by God. Unless, there is some sort of unexplained cosmic conspiracy to make the world behave exactly as it would if governed by natural rather than supernatural forces, there is little you can do to fault the rationale behind scientific method. Care to try?
Originally posted by Merlin

The ones I did fully read were faulty in their logic, to the point of being amusing.

Well as long as my posts are of some value to someone, even if its for entertainment. But really, unless you are going to support that accusation, it's worthless.

phoenixthoth

Nov23-03, 07:19 PM

contact, the movie.

joss asks ellie to prove that she loved her father.

points out the inherent difficulty in proving things that are (perhaps by definition) ephemeral in nature.

i've heard somewhere that while there's no evidence against God's existence, there's also no evidence against the existence of pink elephants on alpha centauri. while that may be true, the existence of pink elephants on alpha centauri contradicts what we know wheras the existence of God is a non-contradiction. i'm not, of course, saying that anything that is a non-contradiction exists. what would be a proof of existence in any context? observation? does (insert a country you've never been to here) exist? has any "sound research" been done on its existence? are the observations of observers constituting a proof? but observation will never reveal, for sure, that a God exists. it is impossible to observe an infinite trait in finite time; proof of an infinite trait would, if at all, not come through observation. so if observation won't prove a being with any infinite traits exists, that means something not based on observation will be required. that means science is not going to be helpful whatsoever. the next choice one may make is philosophy but the problem is always going to be the basis of a philosophical argument on unprovable assumptions (what constitutes a proof of existence, what constitutes knowledge, what is existence, etc.).

in general, how does one *prove* that something exists? i'm fairly convinced that observation, while sometimes useful, won't ever be able to observe an infinite trait and, hence, God won't be "proven" to exist observationally as one might "prove" that a computer screen exists through observation. but does observation always prove something exists? does it ever prove something exists? i'm thinking about people who see things that either no one does or only a few others do. do those things observed (that few others can observe, if any) exist? i'm assuming the answer is either yes or no. both seem to lead to consequences many many people wouldn't like; then again, perhaps many people didn't like finding out the earth was not the center of the universe, either. perhaps fuzzy logic is a perfect fit for ontology. instead of evaluating the truth of "X exists" with either 0 or 1, evaluate it with any value in [0,1]. but then again, there are different kinds of existence: "real" and "imaginary." interesting, to me, that the complex numbers (numbers with "real" and "imaginary" components) are just a higher dimensional version of the real numbers. other terms used are real and illusional, concrete and abstract, form and formless, iconic and conceptual, material and spiritual, lower dimensional and higher dimensional, nonfictional and fictional... the thing to note is that things of the second variety really do exist just in a way much different from the first kind of existence.

i had this idea that everything we observe (matter/energy) is just the icon for the full higher dimensional construct and what we observe is the projection of this higher dimensional space, or spirit world, onto the physical plane. and in some sense, the icon isn't as real, or as complete, as the full construct and is in some sense an illusion. illusions exist.

the universe would have to be the icon for God and God is the preimage of the universe under this projection. in short, God is all that is. from this, i can make a case for omnipresence and omniscience but not omnipotence. :(

sci-fi guy

Nov24-03, 02:21 AM

Hello Everyone! I'm kind of new to this forum, but I found this topic to be very interesting.

I have many questions about the existence of God. The main one being, why does God choose to keep himself hidden from us humans? I mean hidden in the sense that the only way one can know or feel God is through "faith" alone…no real, tangible way of sensing or feeling God. I would much rather make a decision based on a factual evaluation rather than faith. I haven't forged the relationships that I have in life based on faith. I've based my friendships and relationships on the behavior/traits that I observed in someone else. I THEN made my decision to pursue a friendship or relationship with those people that I deemed worthy, as we all do.

To me, it seems like God is a parent that has gone away on vacation and left a note on the table (the bible) with instructions on how his children should live. Then God reserves the right to cast us into Hell when we make bad/wrong decisions in life. I mean, it takes 18 years before a parent's job is done raising a child…and that's with hands-on interaction everyday!!! Imagine a parent leaving a note, coming back 18 years later and then casting judgment on their children because they're not happy with the choices that they've made.

Humans are born with all of the senses that are vital for living…touch, taste, smell, hearing and sight. Why no sense of absolute, innate, unquestionable FAITH? The one sense that will determine our eternal destiny. I'd say that's a pretty important sense!!! It just seems that if it's our very souls that are at stake here, why doesn't God make himself more visible are knowable? It certainly wouldn't change his word and I'm sure many, many people that were on the fence or non-believers would change their minds and reconsider their beliefs.

It seems that in the end, a belief in God is based more on fear of damnation rather than love of God… at least, that's how I've been feeling lately. So much hurt, pain and bad stuff in this world…it just makes me wonder. Why is there so much mystery involved with God…it doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. If God is God, then seeing, feeling, touching and talking directly to him wouldn't change a thing. Just things I've been thinking about lately. I wish I had answers as opposed to questions…

Merlin

Nov24-03, 09:58 AM

hmmmm ahhh ! well you seem to be talking at me rather than to me. Read on..if you would be so kind...

1st point. We do seem to have a misunderstanding... you were asking for "proof" that God exists when you can't prove the most fundamental and most coveted (scientific) theories are correct from the big bang to evolution of the species. Are we to have FAITH that these, and only these theories are correct? The answer? Yes.. Faith is required of the scientific method

two .... yes well you are not so egalitarian, so we balance nicely

Three.. The scientific method. Any moron would agree that science explains some of the world around us (for now) Yes, applied science works, (Sometimes). Hind sight is 20/20, Can you imagine a conversation with the Stephen Hawking of the day talking to a religious leader..." the celestial motions can be described thusly ...miles above this earth, there are crystal spheres with stars and planets (wondering stars) imbedded in it, yes dear student (and learned world), this is the paradigm that you will believe (Have FAITH in that scientific method).. for (pick a figure of how long this well meaning ignorance will last.mmmm 300 years is the norm). I would rather of been the pope, in that day. This is so old.

If we should come up with a TOE, it will be the first of many. Don't get me wrong! I love science. My formal study was in two scientific disciplines.However, most of the Darwinian faithful use it (science) as a pseudo religion. Science does not need to be in the business of religion or religious genocide.

FZ+

Nov24-03, 06:26 PM

you were asking for "proof" that God exists when you can't prove the most fundamental and most coveted (scientific) theories are correct from the big bang to evolution of the species.
Whoever gave you the idea that scientific theories are coveted and protected? Who said so?

It's hammering time....

Science is based on unfaith, a tacit assumption that all of our theories are wrong. The theories we hold right now are the ones that we haven't yet found the hammer to bash them into powder with. We have absolutely no faith in these - we just can't get rid of them without a reason to. That's why we keep looking.

I would rather of been the pope, in that day.
The pope was the guy who tortured people who disagreed with this. And because of this religious attitude, science died in europe for many years.

The scientific method is not about a set of ideas that we hold dogmatically close to our hearts. The scientific method is about an attitude of both wonder and skepticism. A child looking at the stars is a better scientist than a professor reciting from books.

The scientific favour for evolution comes from the fact that it gives results and that it is ultimately vulnerable. In fact, darwinism in its old form has long been destroy and replaced.

phoenixthoth

Nov24-03, 06:36 PM

there are roughly two kinds of people in relation to science and roughly two kinds of people in relation to spiritual matters/religion.

one type of science person basically would agree with what FZ+ just posted. i don't think most of the population knows this and i think most of (or much of) the population does treat science like dogma and it is believed in. science books can sometimes be treated like some people treat bibles: taking everything as true on faith without much thought. to a person who hasn't done the experiment for themselves, it is interesting to note that one will gladly accept/assume that water is H20 (or any result) while rejecting everything in the bible or accept everything in the bible but be skeptical of science.

then there's a nother kind of science person who actually thinks about what they're doing. perhaps the only faith maintained is that it is best to remain unfaithful to the "dogma". FZ+ is probably of the second variety.

there are, believe it or not, the same two types of religious/spiritual people as well.

sheep and ??????

Mumeishi

Nov25-03, 05:29 AM

Learning to challenge and think critically is more sophisticated than learning facts. That's why schoolchildren are initially taught about the world in terms of facts, as if the world was cut up into discrete and absolutely known units. The real world and the real state of human understanding is much more complex than this. Many people's scientific education doesn't go far beyond this rote teaching of facts and consequently they don't really grasp what science is.

I think that much of the anti-science / anti-rational counter-current we see is due to this as science is perceived as this leviathan of dogma and lifeless equations.

Perhaps its a shortcoming of the way we teach. Perhaps it's just an inevitability we have to accept.

Mumeishi

Nov25-03, 05:31 AM

Merlin,

I never asked for proof of God. Why would I when i know such things are impossible? That question was asked by the thread-starter.

radagast

Nov25-03, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Merlin
1st point. We do seem to have a misunderstanding... you were asking for "proof" that God exists when you can't prove the most fundamental and most coveted (scientific) theories are correct from the big bang to evolution of the species. Are we to have FAITH that these, and only these theories are correct? The answer? Yes.. Faith is required of the scientific method

Personally I disagree with the term 'prove', in both the scientific and theistic arenas. I prefer the ideas of evidence - good evidence, strong evidence, weak evidence, etc.

Some things must be taken as axiomatic, that we exist, that our senses do relate to the real world, that certain aspects of reality are consistent thru the majority of time and space. There is a large leap from accepting that my senses relate to actions in reality and to there being an all-powerful sentient being pulling the strings from behind the cosmic curtain.

While most things are not proven in science, most of the generally accepted concepts are supported by strong, objective evidence.

IMO, good, objective evidence to support the existence of an aware, all-powerful diety that interacts with humans doesn't exist.

However, I consider religion a highly personal affair. If you have had an experience that provides you with the evidence you need, that's fine.

The only objections I have with those of theistic religions is when they try to force thru laws to enforce some religious belief, manipulate school science curriculums to pervert scientific teaching to align with some particular religious view (eg creationism), or when trying to use specious evidence or logic to demonstrate that their position is the most rational.

Royce

Nov25-03, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by radagast

IMO, good, objective evidence to support the existence of an aware, all-powerful diety that interacts with humans doesn't exist.

It does exist. It is all around you, me, everyone. The logical highly organized universe itself is one example. Life itself is another. You and me are yet two more examples. All of these things are so unique, so unlikely and so little understood that there is little or no evidence of any kind to support any theory, hypothesis or belief in its origins or even what it is. I say that all of the above indcate intelligence, purpose and intent involved in their very exisence as well as there organization and functionality. this to me indicates and supports the believe in a higher being, creator. This evidence is supported by my personal experience of which there is no way you or anyone else could know or experience. All of this makes it logical for me to believe in a greater being/creator/God.

Some one else, you for instance, will look at these same things and say it is science and the laws of science and all that is is material objectivity. They say tha there is no evidence that logical supports any other conclusion.

Who is right? Who is logical and who is illogical. If these two opposite opinions are extremes the what of all the opinions in between? Is there degrees of logic? Logic has nothing to do with reality. With right or wrong. My logic is just as valid as your logic yet they point in opposite directions.

This indicates to me the logic is not applicable nor is the laws and rules of science. This is why it is philosophy, metaphysics. I reason one way, accept evidence to indicate and support one set of beliefs. You reason another way, accept the same evidence to indicate and support something entirely different. Who is wrong? Neither. Who is logical? Neither. Logic does not apply and right or wrong cannot yet be determined by objectivity and emperical evidence alone. The answer remains personal and depends on the way we look at the world and reality and what we are willing to accept.

radagast

Nov26-03, 01:40 PM

Royce,
The Argument by Design, which is how I read the above, suffers severe problems. Things are well organized by what scale? These are all extremely subjective reasonings.

True we live in a reality where certain physical constants, if randomly chosen, would make our reality improbable. This suffers from two troubling aspects: 1) we exist, so even if the constants were arrived at via chance, that can't be used to say it was a higher probability that our existence was designed; 2) it would be a gross assumption to assume that these constants were arrived at by chance, rather than dependent on unobserved, physical reality that dictates there values. eg - if you assume that atoms of sugar aggregate at random, upon solidification from solution, then crystals of sugar seem to defy all probability - yet there is an underlying principle that makes them form, as the lower energy state solution to the problem of how it solidifies.

Once life occurs, the trial and error of natural selection and evolution hones the 'well-organized' aspects of life.

Because there is no objective evidence for said designer that can't be explained just as easily by physical means, and that the designer actually adds complications and raises many added questions, it makes this the less rational choice (objectively speaking) due to Occams razor.

Most severe, of all the problems in the 'argument by design', revolve around the idea that all arguments applied to the universe, can be turned against the 'solution' of the designer. i.e. An intelligent designer, because of his higher complexity, would need an intelligent designer, ad-infinitum. Any (cop-out) idea, such as 'God has always been, so didn't need designing' can also be applied to the underlying reality that caused the physical universe we see, without the immense baggage an all-powerful, sentient creator.

These all apply only to objective inquiry - any personal, non-objective evidence may be quite valid, but in outside the scope of the arguments presented.

Royce, I do not consider your views illogical, however, Occams razor does point toward one view being the more rational - given the evidence we have at present. I would caution that there was a slight 'god-of-the-gaps' aspect to some of the things you said. Just because something is of unknown cause, doesn't lend credence to yet another specific unobserved, unevidenced, yet highly defined cause.

Rader

Nov26-03, 02:19 PM

Because there is no objective evidence for said designer that can't be explained just as easily by physical means, and that the designer actually adds complications and raises many added questions, it makes this the less rational choice (objectively speaking) due to Occams razor.

Occams Razor > One should not increase beyond what is necessary, the number of constructs required to explain anything.

Someday Occams razor, might be used to cut his own throat, if he finds out that, the only construct needed, is a magic wand, to explain everything.
[8)]

FZ+

Nov26-03, 08:45 PM

Someday Occams razor, might be used to cut his own throat, if he finds out that, the only construct needed, is a magic wand, to explain everything.
The trouble with this, and any "God which can do anything" argument, is the need for an infinite number of anti-magic wands to eliminate all the things that don't happen. In short, this sort of construct doesn't explain anything at all.

phoenixthoth

Nov26-03, 09:12 PM

neither does "God works in mysterious ways" whenever something can't be explained.

Rader

Nov27-03, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by FZ+
The trouble with this, and any "God which can do anything" argument, is the need for an infinite number of anti-magic wands to eliminate all the things that don't happen. In short, this sort of construct doesn't explain anything at all.

Not so. You missed my point let me explain. Using Occam´s razor, the one construct could be simple, a one unit SAS self aware structure. SAS would know how to build what is necessary and eliminate what is not. You do not need more magic wands, only one. SAS would contain in all its parts, as all its parts would contain SAS. Evidence, all biological units are constructed from only ACDT. A hand full of atoms make up matter. A or more protons neutrons and electrons make up an atom. A triangle of quarks make up fundamental particles. And a string vibrate to make quarks. We seem to be delving into simpler and simpler states. They all seem to know what there doing, or we would not be asking questions. All creations have a image buildt into them by the creator. Thats what makes the created identifiable by the creator. Ask an artist.
[8)]

Infomeantion

Nov27-03, 03:32 PM

I don't understand how you can ask for proof of something existing or not before you define the terms, but then again I don't understand much.

radagast

Dec1-03, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Rader
Not so. You missed my point let me explain. Using Occam´s razor, the one construct could be simple, a one unit SAS self aware structure. SAS would know how to build what is necessary and eliminate what is not. You do not need more magic wands, only one. SAS would contain in all its parts, as all its parts would contain SAS. Evidence, all biological units are constructed from only ACDT. A hand full of atoms make up matter. A or more protons neutrons and electrons make up an atom. A triangle of quarks make up fundamental particles. And a string vibrate to make quarks. We seem to be delving into simpler and simpler states. They all seem to know what there doing, or we would not be asking questions. All creations have a image buildt into them by the creator. Thats what makes the created identifiable by the creator. Ask an artist.
[8)]

I've no knowledge of any system that designs/creates something more complex (from intelligent means) than itself. Self awareness is hardly simple. This means that the introduction of an SAS adds much more constructs and complexity than originally existed, which begs the question - how/who created the SAS. If the SAS always existed, then the argument could also be made that the physical conditions bringing about the universe could have always existed.

The use of an SAS always complicates the issue (raising more questions), compared to physical cause and effect. A magic wand isn't a simple construct, quite the contrary, it is the most complex of constructs because of all the constructs that arise to explain the magic wand. We know physical cause and effect and physical laws exist. The same cannot be said of an SAS.

Rader

Dec1-03, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by radagast
I've no knowledge of any system that designs/creates something more complex (from intelligent means) than itself. Self awareness is hardly simple. This means that the introduction of an SAS adds much more constructs and complexity than originally existed, which begs the question - how/who created the SAS. If the SAS always existed, then the argument could also be made that the physical conditions bringing about the universe could have always existed.

You show in your profile that you are a chemist or interested in its studies.
The developement of a gene into a protein, is a good way to understand and comprehend SAS, as the units used in its construction, can be physically seen by us, in the objective world.
A gene can produce not only a protein but a exponential quantity of different types, to effect its end, that is for the biological entity to persist, develope and function. The knowledge in one unit seems to be in all units. On this level SAS is complex in its finished product and simple in its basic construct the gene. This same factor is seen on all levels of the evolutive chain from strings to humans. The farther we delve into the micro the simpler the basic constuct. The knowledge to build complexity is in the simplest constructs.

The use of an SAS always complicates the issue (raising more questions), compared to physical cause and effect. A magic wand isn't a simple construct, quite the contrary, it is the most complex of constructs because of all the constructs that arise to explain the magic wand. We know physical cause and effect and physical laws exist. The same cannot be said of an SAS.

If SAS was more complicated, the smaller we delve, that would be true, but we do not find the micro more complicated, than the macro, it is the opposite. Your making the word construct into the word axiom. A construct is a tool that links the laws of the axioms in the builing block. An example to build a wall of bricks you need a constuct=brick and you need fouraxioms=up,down,left,right

[8)]

radagast

Dec2-03, 09:05 AM

Radar,
The basic idea of a simple SAS is self-contradictory. Self-awareness involves vast complexities. Hell, simple brain functions are not simple (sentience), consciousness orders of magnitude more complex, and self-awareness an order of magnitude ahead of even that.

Many physical aspects of reality, similar to what you mention with genes, with the self-organizing nature of certain aspects of reality, and like, are all excellent examples of how the universe came into the state it's in now. The problem is when you start giving it high magnitutde properties, such as consciousness and self-awareness. Given we do know of physical mechanisms that are responsible for much of the current universe, and given no evidence (other than unknowns presented in the universes complexity - i.e. which is only interpreted as evidence by those wishing it to be evidence), then a non-aware physical mechanism is always a simpler, cleaner explanation, compared to created by an self-aware entity. Hence my invocation of Occam.

Simple would circumvent Occam, highly complex adds the questions and conditions that trigger Occam. If you can give me an example of a simple self-aware system, then I would be happy to concede Occam doesn't necessarily apply to this argument.

agnostictheist

Dec2-03, 09:33 AM

Not that I have read all the posts, but a small point:

Occam´s razor, IS not the simplist explination is simply the
best one. rather if we have two expinations, that say fit a given
set of data. We pick the one with the less premises, because simply
put we have to "back up" less!!

sometimes the simple answer is bassed on ignorance or worse still,
plane flat out wrong!

EvilPoet

Dec2-03, 10:28 AM

"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universe, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expences of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history." -Lazarus Long

Rader

Dec2-03, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by radagast
Radar, Rader
The basic idea of a simple SAS is self-contradictory. Self-awareness involves vast complexities. Hell, simple brain functions are not simple (sentience), consciousness orders of magnitude more complex, and self-awareness an order of magnitude ahead of even that.

Why is it? Everytime you drop to another evolutive level, SAS is simpler. I am talking about SAS on all levels not just biological levels with brains.

Many physical aspects of reality, similar to what you mention with genes, with the self-organizing nature of certain aspects of reality, and like, are all excellent examples of how the universe came into the state it's in now. The problem is when you start giving it high magnitutde properties, such as consciousness and self-awareness. Given we do know of physical mechanisms that are responsible for much of the current universe, and given no evidence(other than unknowns presented in the universes complexity - i.e. which is only interpreted as evidence by those wishing it to be evidence), then a non-aware physical mechanism is always a simpler, cleaner explanation, compared to created by an self-aware entity. Hence my invocation of Occam.

Self awareness is a gifted property, unique of humans, that for now, we can only test in humans. In can be argued though, that physical mechanisms are self aware, but not the way humans are. Is not the atom self aware of electo-magnetic covalent bonding. Its self aware of nothing else. The constuct is its bonding and the axioms are the properties of the atom. This is by far much simpler than a gene.

Simple would circumvent Occam, highly complex adds the questions and conditions that trigger Occam. If you can give me an example of a simple self-aware system, then I would be happy to concede Occam doesn't necessarily apply to this argument.

Any system that is simpler than the next complex system is an example.
[8)]

Rader

Dec2-03, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by EvilPoet
"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universe, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expences of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history." -Lazarus Long

The quickest way to convert an atheist is, send him on patrol in Iraq.
[8)]

Mumeishi

Dec2-03, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Rader
The quickest way to convert an atheist is, send him on patrol in Iraq.
[8)]

Yes, short out reason and critical, discriminating thought and the need for evidence by going straight for the primal drives: start with fear then introduce unconditional love and forgiveness as an escape from that fear.

phoenixthoth

Dec2-03, 06:28 PM

short it out?

it seem to me that there's a short if reason and critical, discriminating thought and the need for evidence is thought to be an infinitely powerful tool able to figure everything out.

seems to me that it's quite the opposite of it shorting out to realize that there are limits to reason and critical, discriminating thought. is that to say that reason and critical thought should be thrown out the window completely or just on something, one thing in fact, which, by definition practically, cannot succumb to the analytical knife?

Mumeishi

Dec3-03, 03:47 AM

Seems unlikely to me. ;)

Your argument is based on the word 'seems'.

Seems like your thoughts are being controlled by aliens from Uranus.

Royce

Dec3-03, 11:04 AM

The following is what I understand and believe to be true. The entity whom some of us call God, the creator is outside of time and space. This in not magical or special. It simply means that God is not of objective material reality. Thus there is no emperical evidence that he does or does not exist.
There is however more to the universe and reality than the objective material universe that we can see and measure. There is no emberical evidence that I exist either. Yes my body is material but what and who and where is Royce, the entity that dwells in that body, is conscious and self aware? There is no way that I or anyone can prove that they exist to another. Yet I am not hiding nor withdrawn. There is no evidence other than my posts that any of you can see or measure that proves that I, Royce, exist in objective reality. I assure you that I, or at least my body, do exist and interact with objective material reality.
I have often wondered why an agnostic or athiest would look at science, the objective material world for emperical evidence of the exiestence of a subjective spiritual being. Is this logical. It reminds me of an old joke: A drunk was down on his ands and knees under a street light looking for something. A cop comes by and asks him what he is doing. The drunk says I'm looking for my keys. The cop asks where he lost them. The drunk says over there pointing down the street. "Well if you lost them over there why are you looking here?"; the cop asks. "Because the light is better here."; says the drunk.
The point: Don't look where God ain't. Look where you will find him. He isn't hiding; he simply is not where your looking.

Mumeishi

Dec3-03, 06:09 PM

In other words, there's no evidence, but you have some excuses. Yet the validity of the excuses is based on the presupposition of the existence of this entity and of its having certain characteristics. You have to demonstrate the existence of the thing before you can show that it exists outside space and time and is totally (and conveniently) undetectable in various ways remember?

phoenixthoth

Dec3-03, 08:43 PM

Seems unlikely to me. ;)

Your argument is based on the word 'seems'.

Seems like your thoughts are being controlled by aliens from Uranus.

you're very incorrect if you thought that was an argument especially if it was meant to be an argument for the existence of God.

furthermore, the argument behind ALL arguments of science are based on the word 'seems.' gravity SEEMS to operate in an inverse sqare law or space-time SEEMS to be curved or my research SEEMS to be sound and SEEMS to be objective and my logic SEEMS to be limitless and what i wrote SEEMS to be an argument for the existence of God which SEEMS to be incorrect in addition to my thoughts being controlled by aliens SEEMS to be incorrect and we will SEEM to forget that what we consider "evidence" is what SEEMS to be evidence though we only underscore the word SEEM when we think it's a crackpot theory, suggesting that what is considered to be evidence is only what SEEMS to be evidence when it SEEMINGLY suits us and SEEM to forget that we always know that evidence only SEEMS to be evidence.

stop me if i seem to be wrong. i hope you can see the trap that seems to set. if you seem to think i'm wrong, then you may have proved the point that i only seem to be wrong and if you don't stop me then i'm right. either way, i win. at least i win until i underscore the word seems in, "i hope you can see the trap that seems to set."

Royce

Dec4-03, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
In other words, there's no evidence, but you have some excuses. Yet the validity of the excuses is based on the presupposition of the existence of this entity and of its having certain characteristics. You have to demonstrate the existence of the thing before you can show that it exists outside space and time and is totally (and conveniently) undetectable in various ways remember?
The words I wrote was that there is no emperical evidence, not that there was no evidence. I realize that nonemperical evidence is unacceptable to some and constitutes no evidence at all.
I do not presuppose the existence of God. When I was young I was agnostic. As I got older and began looking around and meditating I had personal experiences which convinced me of the existence of God, that God is the creator and master of the universe and the sourse of life, love, light and truth. I do not believe in biblical genesis or creationism.
Thru meditation and study I began to realize the the material universe was not all of reality but only one aspect of reality.
I don't have to do anything to demonstrate the reality of God; nor, can I in any way that would be acceptable to you or anyone else. You have to experience alternate realities and God for yourself in order to believe or be convinced. I am saying that we cannot and will not find God under a microscope or in a particle accelerator.
Yet if you believe, and that is the prerequisite, you will see God everywhere you look and wonder why others cannot see him/it.
Any and all material objectivists, as long as they refuse to look or accept that there is more to reality than what they can see and measure, will never find evidence of God. Nor, will they be able to understand those that do believe. It is appearantly a human condition to ridicule and belittle that which we can't understand.
Thus religion is the opiate of the masses, we who do know or believe are deluded or charlitans deluding others, or just plain stupid.
Need I say that it is a two-way road.
However, some of us who have been there, understand.

Mumeishi

Dec4-03, 10:17 AM

Phoenix,

Good point. We don't know anything with absolute certainty, so all our understanding is ultimately based on how things appear. But its essential to note that there are ways to eliminate much bias and subjective distortion, that science is based on objective verification meaning that the same experiment should produce the same relults no matter who does it. Purely subjective experiences are not admissable as evidence because they contradict one another and without additional verification they may be no more than psychological events.

Mumeishi

Dec4-03, 10:26 AM

Royce,

No matter how persuasive they seem, subjective experiences on their own have no value as evidence. Take a walk into a mental institution to find out why. Someone may have a personal experience that convinces him that he is John the Baptist, or that aliens are controlling his brain. Someone may have a personal experience that God loves her and another person may have a personal experience that he is the incarnation of Aten the one true god of the sun. They could have a subjective experience that they were flying or able to turn into a jaguar or invincible. I could go on.

Rader

Dec4-03, 10:32 AM

The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

The ontologic reason is human consciousness is aware of the I, the world and the God.

The epistemologic reason is knowlege of it is everywhere. The parameters for our existence are set so fine, that not time or chance or anything else but a creator can account for it. Creation is a mirror of its creator. Complexity can not evolve from simplicity without a reason. We are all aware of the reason. Goodwill and badwill do not mean what they do for no reaon. The world strives to be better not worse. Human consciousness increases not decreases.

If that was not the case. THEN GOD DOES NOT EXIST

Mumeishi

Dec4-03, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Rader
The [B]ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

Not only does that make no sense, but its pure supposition.

The ontologic reason is human consciousness is aware of the I, the world and the God.

Again, pure supposition. Anyway not eveyone is aware of (a sense of) God, because not everyone believes and not everyone was born into a Judeo-Christian culture.

[The epistemologic reason is knowlege of it is everywhere. The parameteres for our existence are set so fine, that not time or chance or anything else but a creator can account for it. Creation is a mirror of its creator. Complexity can not evolve from simplicity without a reason. We are all aware of the reason. Goodwill and badwill do not mean what they do for no reaon. The world strives to be better not worse. Human consciousness increases not decreases.

So, the evidence for God's existence is that the only explanation you can think of / comprehend is that a huge invisible being did it? I've never heard an adequate explanation of why anyway. Complexity emerges from simplicity all the time - the term is 'emergent complexity'. Look at the Mandelbrot set, look at the Game of Life, look at a game of chess.

Royce

Dec4-03, 10:44 AM

Mumeishi, of course you could go on and on (and frequently do[:D]) as could I. Your post affirms just what I said in my last post. My personal experience is unacceptable to anyone and everyone else just as are yours or anyone else's . I may well be just as crazy and deluded as those poor souls in the mental institution. I often wonder and have doubts myself.
My one and only point is that there is "more under the stars than is drempt of by your philosophers, Horatio." Just because you see no evidence of anything proves only that you are looking in the wrong place. If we look only at the physical we see only the physical.
If the only tool that we have is a hammer then we treat everything as if it is a nail (to borrow a phrase from Les). That is my point. As I said in my first post in this thread, there is no proof of God nor can anyone prove the existence of God to anyone else. The reality of God must be experienced by oneself.

Rader

Dec4-03, 07:40 PM

The reality of God must be experienced by oneself.

Never better stated. It comes down to consciounsess you either are or are not concscious that God exists. When you reach that level of consciousness you will be conscious of it.
[8)]

Mumeishi

Dec4-03, 07:43 PM

*sighs*

Infomeantion

Dec4-03, 08:27 PM

I have enjoyed reading these posts the past few days, but I wonder how similar a thread entitled "Whats the proof that proof exists?" would grow. Perhaps we could start one and see, hmm?

Merlin

Dec5-03, 09:04 AM

There should be a balance between religion and science. Neither can answer the big question conclusively. I agree with most contemporary cosmological models, and mainstream theories going back to the Big Bang.
The question is ,how does this infinite point become this universe, and what started the process? BTW,Mr. Scientist, what was "before" space time and the B.B.?

I have read and understand most of the major theories, all have fatal flaws. Science should strive to describe our universe,and embrace the metaphysical. I suspect (know) that the "spooky action at distance" (Einstein skeptically lamenting collapse of the wave function)and the metaphysical will become part of TOE!

Merlin

Mumeishi

Dec5-03, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Infomeantion
I have enjoyed reading these posts the past few days, but I wonder how similar a thread entitled "Whats the proof that proof exists?" would grow. Perhaps we could start one and see, hmm?

AFAIK,
(if you mean absolute proof as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt)
there is no proof that proof exists
there is no evidence that proof exists
there is evidence that proof does not exist (but not proof),

'Proof' is a much-misused term. There is no proof in science, except to mean 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Mumeishi

Dec5-03, 09:17 AM

BTW,Mr. Scientist, what was "before" space time and the B.B.?

The BB theory doesn't go beyond that point.

Time and the space dimensions of our universe are properties of it and not something that it sits in. Thus, there was no 'before' time began.

We can conjecture some other time-like dimensions outside the universe, but it may be intrinsically unknowable.

Infomeantion

Dec5-03, 04:14 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------
AFAIK,
(if you mean absolute proof as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt)
there is no proof that proof exists
there is no evidence that proof exists
there is evidence that proof does not exist (but not proof),

'Proof' is a much-misused term. There is no proof in science, except to mean 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Just some silly questions that come to mind:

Is there evidence that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' exists?
Is there evidence that evidence exists?
Is 'proof', meaning 'beyond reasonable doubt', a keystone in science or is it called reproducability?
How does that reproducability transmogrify into 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
What came first the chicken or the neutron? (Hint: which chicken?)

Sorry, but like I said, I've enjoyed these posts and yours as well, so you can just ignore the chicken one if you want.

Mumeishi

Dec5-03, 04:27 PM

I suppose you can go into an endless spiral of skepticism if you're really keen, but I don't think I'll be coming along.

agnostictheist

Dec5-03, 05:10 PM

lets ask what SEEMS to be a easier question, Whats the PROOF we exist?

Merlin

Dec5-03, 08:57 PM

The BB theory doesn't go beyond that point.

Time and the space dimensions of our universe are properties of it and not something that it sits in. Thus, there was no 'before' time began.

We can conjecture some other time-like dimensions outside the universe, but it may be intrinsically unknowable.

Hmmmm interesting, I was aware of conventional science allowing that space time is our universe and "we" can't be outside IT. It isn't a bubble because there isn't anything outside the bubble! But that's all science can give us now. so you are saying that space/ time is and "was" infinite. If you are saying that space/time "started" there must be something before the start. ( I don't trust the zero point vac fluc.scam) However If it was infinite (something that I may not accept), there would be NO beginning and NO end and BTW no big bang. I feel that there was something like a big bang. I tend to squash the Infinite parallel universe religion, because it takes more faith (for me) to believe it than intelligent design!

How hard would it be for an advanced race of beings (where, or better yet WHAT did THEY come from?), to make a universe? We will be nice and say that these beings are "just" 2.5 thousand million years more advanced than we. So we would be pond scum in their "eyes," no, WAIT! pond scum would be a hundreds of millions of years more advanced than we! (at that point)! Think of us as an amino acid base and they are the humans! We are aproxx. that advanced over the first stirrings of life on this planet. Hmmm, new query... How to talk to an semi alive acid goop ? With computer power increasing in exponential leaps, and the explosive implications of human genetic research in the last, Oh... 50 years, it isn't hard to imagine this unfolding much faster. Much faster! Say less than 100,000 years. Or 1000 years! oh yeah. But we wont be here more than 100 years..too bad for us!

Merlin

Mumeishi

Dec6-03, 04:07 AM

Hmmmm interesting, I was aware of conventional science allowing that space time is our universe and "we" can't be outside IT. It isn't a bubble because there isn't anything outside the bubble! But that's all science can give us now. so you are saying that space/ time is and "was" infinite. If you are saying that space/time "started" there must be something before the start. ( I don't trust the zero point vac fluc.scam) However If it was infinite (something that I may not accept), there would be NO beginning and NO end and BTW no big bang. I feel that there was something like a big bang. I tend to squash the Infinite parallel universe religion, because it takes more faith (for me) to believe it than intelligent design!

Not infinite, but finite and boundless like the surface of a sphere.

Mumeishi

Dec6-03, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by agnostictheist
lets ask what SEEMS to be a easier question, Whats the PROOF we exist?
Any chance we can subvert this thread and pretend its asking the reasonable question 'whats's the EVIDENCE that God exists?'

Mumeishi

Dec6-03, 04:23 AM

How does that reproducability transmogrify into 'beyond reasonable doubt'?

Occam's razor states that for any given set of evidence, if two hypotheses fit that evidence equally, the one which makes the fewest assumptions is more likely to be true.

If you don't accept the reproducibility of the research as evidence of a correlation of some sort, you would have to account for it by inventing hypothses which would have to become more and more elaborate as further research eliminated potential sources of interference. The simpler hypothesis is probably the original one.

The fewer assumptions you have to make, the more probable your hypothesis.

agnostictheist

Dec6-03, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Not infinite, but finite and boundless like the surface of a sphere.

Are you reffering to Imagnary time, and hawking-non boundary proposal?

if so I dont see this has a argument aganist God, hawking states that there was no specfic time, in which the universe came to be, also from what I think he says - its like there is no past future and present, for example:

A---------B

the movement to a - b is a passage from past to present, so Hawking does not deny there is a past and presnt, and what not - but then there is anther form of "time" which can be seen like this

C

D

and in this oriention, there is no past future etc!

hawking now claims (IF I am correct) that the universe simply is , no external is needed and thus the universe is "BE"

While this maybe have merit, it might be needless to ristrictive, if what I understand is correct, for starters God IF he exists does so out of time, thus attempting to added lines like "God frist did this" is somewhat a problem in the languge of everyday, and is applying some human concepts to a Godly prespective.

secondly, Why not argue that God "created" a system, that was set-up and also had some of his likeness, much in the same was has A balls relfection might be a circle, both may contain a likeness - eg circleness... a form of infinity, and likewise God and the universe are both enternal (yet of a different sort)?

in this senerio, the universe very much simply "BE" - but much like a relfection MUST have an object, the object does not need the reflection!! so the argument does not need time! for the argument steams for likeness, not the process of getting it.

Of course this is metaphyical and not science, but Hawkings never claims to be atheist, he himself claims to be a pantheist?? of sorts, or agnostic - maybe a deist?

the point is hawking makes claim that if God exists, its science can't answer a yes or a no, to the question

Any chance we can subvert this thread and pretend its asking the reasonable question 'whats's the EVIDENCE that God exists?'

Yes now we have a better question, asking for proof is an impossible task, within any worthwhile manner, Evidence is anther ball game, however Evidence itself to can be sub-setted, there are many different types of "evidence" some more realible than others, and it depends what type of philosophy you subscribe to (rationalists, empiricalists or even a combo of the two)

While I dont think there is any evidence for God... with the exception of POSSIBLE "personal revelations" etc - but one can argue aganist these, and there is a greater chance of been sucked into some scam, the universe does tend to have some, limits : eg its not that anything is possible, but anything that is possible no matter how unlikey will happen... this limition could be seen has a sort of "desgin" but it doesnt mean thus the only anwser by default is God...and even if it is doesnt mean a personal one?

I would like to see what Chroot, says of this... not coz I am having a debate elsewere.. but coz, some kind of review form other debators which hold more info on physics (and cosomology?) maybe able to add input... even those there is a strong philosophical and theological spin to this.

So my answer is Yes there is Evidence of sorts for IF God existence, this is how he might do it, but the evidence is only Yes or no.. on the basis of opinion. and to claim agnostism alone is somewhat unware that the same arguments for no, are the same for yes, depending on what spin you intailly put: (not spin in a physics sense)

to ask the question Does God exist would mean we must have an experiment of some sort, that can test from a godly point of veiw to, I wish people the best of luck in this... coz its not possible.

Please note: when I refer to God I mean a judo-christian God, i have note talked about the different types of God eg Bharma.. but asking who is God..is anther question!

Rader

Dec6-03, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Not only does that make no sense, but its pure supposition.

[QUOTE]The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe. [/QUOTE

The inadequacy of the answers we receive is a direct consequence of the limitation implicit in the viewpoints of the questioner. Paradoxes and ambiguities arise from confusing levels of consciousness; an answer is true only at its own level of consciousness. Thus a answer is “correct” but simultaneously” invalid” like a musical cord note that is correctly played but at the wrong place in the song. I am sorry you have to understand this for yourslelf.

Again, pure supposition. Anyway not everyone is aware of (a sense of) God, because not everyone believes and not everyone was born into a Judeo-Christian culture.

You may not want to admit it but you are conscious of it. Are you conscious of love?, then you are conscious of God. The existence of God is not physical it is subjunctive. What does Judeo-Christian have do do with this. God is not limited to a group of people.

"Spiritual truth" is beyond meaning; it doesn't 'mean' anything. It can only be known, and that knowledge can only come about by becoming. Meaning is a mentation and a definition. Spiritual truth is a subjective awareness which is innately beyond intellection. For instance, what does a beautiful sunset 'mean'? It doesn't 'mean' anything; it is just startlingly that which it is, complete and total in and of itself. God is a direct awareness and experience, a realization, a revelation, and the absolute perfection of pure subjectivity.

So, the evidence for God's existence is that the only explanation you can think of / comprehend is that a huge invisible being did it? I've never heard an adequate explanation of why anyway. Complexity emerges from simplicity all the time - the term is 'emergent complexity'. Look at the Mandelbrot set, look at the Game of Life, look at a game of chess.

The evidence of God can be in your mind, it is no where else.
[8)]

Mumeishi

Dec6-03, 07:57 PM

No matter how emotionally appealing it seems, 'evidence' that is purely a subjective feeling does not justify belief - as I already said, a visit to a mental institution will confirm that.

Mumeishi

Dec6-03, 08:06 PM

agnostictheist,

The point of my stating that time is theorised to begin at the big bang is not necessarily to exclude the possibility of God, but to answer the common and rather silly claim that there HAD to be something before the big bang and the latter had to have a 'cause' (with the obvious implication that somehow that cause could only have been old Jehovah).

While I dont think there is any evidence for God... with the exception of POSSIBLE "personal revelations" etc - but one can argue aganist these, and there is a greater chance of been sucked into some scam, the universe does tend to have some, limits : eg its not that anything is possible, but anything that is possible no matter how unlikey will happen... this limition could be seen has a sort of "desgin" but it doesnt mean thus the only anwser by default is God...and even if it is doesnt mean a personal one?

I don't understand your argument here. Can you make it again using sentences?

Netme

Dec6-03, 11:14 PM

God didnt create people, people created god. People believe in god bc they want to. Its not easy living in this rotten world. There is nothing certain while living on this world so people use god to create an imaginary illusion that helps keep them at peace. Without god, we are insignificant beings in a place without reason to our existence. Some people can accept this, while others need god as a reason to live.

Iacchus32

Dec7-03, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by HIGHLYTOXIC
whats the proof of existence of god?How can anyone believe? First off, to believe (or know) begins with consciousness, for without it, we wouldn't even know that we exist. In which case we have to ask ourselves, what is the nature of consciousness and where does it come from?

Indeed, isn't this the very idea which facillitates the plausibility of a Universal Mind which is Ever-Present and All-Knowing, and exists in the here and now?

For what is consciousness, but the quality of knowing? And how else do we experience it, except through that which is Ever-Present and Ever-Lasting? (i.e., in the here and now). Hence it would seem the qualities of consciousness are contingent with the qualities of a Universal Mind.

Think about it! [:)]

phoenixthoth

Dec7-03, 03:56 AM

No matter how emotionally appealing it seems, 'evidence' that is purely a subjective feeling does not justify belief - as I already said, a visit to a mental institution will confirm that.

is it always unjustified to believe you are in love because it is based on a purely subjective feeling and not something that has undergone a thurough scientific study (of course, by that it seems that that must not involve psychology)? granted, it may "really" be puppy love or infatuation, but sometimes it may even be the case that one is, in fact, in love though since they can't prove it to you it must be the case that ... what? that they can't prove it or that it's not true?

other questions: can you have an unjustified belief that happens to be correct or is that something you can prove to be impossible? is it possible for an illogical argument to accidentally end in a correct conclusion or are all conclusions of illogical arguments incorrect?

Someone may have a personal experience that convinces him that he is John the Baptist, or that aliens are controlling his brain. Someone may have a personal experience that God loves her and another person may have a personal experience that he is the incarnation of Aten the one true god of the sun. They could have a subjective experience that they were flying or able to turn into a jaguar or invincible. I could go on.

right, or one could have a series of subjective experiences leading them to believe any scientific theory, that they exist, that they think, that they have free will, etc., which leads into:

But its essential to note that there are ways to eliminate much bias and subjective distortion, that science is based on objective verification meaning that the same experiment should produce the same relults no matter who does it. Purely subjective experiences are not admissable as evidence because they contradict one another and without additional verification they may be no more than psychological events.

how is this objective verification performed? i guess what i'm really asking is how is it been proven to be objective and what is the definition of reasonable in "beyond a reasonable doubt"? seems to me that though you can't really prove it's objective yet still believe it is, you're falling into the category of it being emotionally appealing to believe that science removes the taint of subjectivity.

what isn't a psychological event, really? what isn't coming in through the ego, subject [;)] to misinterpretation? maybe you think that doubting everything is absurd, especially when it comes to doubting the objectivity of science and/or doubting what our senses tell us (eg when we *look* at readings on a measurment tool). that brings us back to what reasonable doubt means. one person's reasonable is another's absurdity.

interesting how God is goobledegook or not depending on what's convienient for you. for any belief, a stubborn person will refuse to accept it no matter what. the thing is that i am an agnostic theist of sorts and i believe that neither logic nor observation is going to ever prove God exists (with certain caveats). i also believe that neither logic nor observation are infinite in an ultimate sense: of course logic is potentially infinite in that one can construct infinitely many formulas to study but its scope is limited. and observation won't ever establish any infinite trait as far as i know, at least not in finite time. in short, i think "God exists" is undecidable though true nonetheless. so is that belief unjustified? of course but then again so is belief in the opposite position. the logical option is to neither believe God exists nor God does not exist.

in regards to other posts, to be a smart aleck, even if man created god, then god exists. btw, not everyone who believes in God does so for emotional or psychological satisfaction. i find writing "God exists" no more and no more less emotionally rewarding than writing "1+1=2" or "God does not exist." i'm not expecting reward in the afterlife for good deeds nor am i expecting bad deeds to be punished (by God). so at least in my case, it's not like i'm a doggie who does tricks for treats and goes to the doghouse when i'm bad.

interesting that you mention mental institutions. delusion is kind of interesting. there apparently is such a thing as a shared psychotic episode and so i wonder if every scientist who performs one experiment is deluding themselves into believing a certain outcome. that's probably as integrous as suggesting that all people who believe in God are delusional. of course, popularity has nothing to do with how credible theism is yet it does have something to do with how credible a scientific theory is. it seems that you think it's a near certainty that everyone who believes in God is deluding themselves and each other and a near certainty that scientists aren't doing the same thing.

you may want to check out the phd thesis "quantitative and qualitative analysis and calibration of the levels of human consciousness" by david hawkins, published in 95 by veritas along with "the eye of the i: from which nothing is hidden" and "i: reality and subjectivity" by the same author.

i wonder if there was supposed evidence of God, would you even bother to look into it or would you presume it to be incorrect, assume it's wrong, and not check it out because it seems emotionally appealing to you to not believe in God or at least appear to not believe proof of God exists. (after all, i'm not sure you ever said you didn't believe in God; you may have just been making the point that there is no scientific evidence for it.)

Rader

Dec7-03, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
No matter how emotionally appealing it seems, 'evidence' that is purely a subjective feeling does not justify belief - as I already said, a visit to a mental institution will confirm that.

Mumeishi, i know you like to use that mental intitution excuse, but you can not argue that if we all needed shrinks, we would all be in the hospital. You and i are not, you can not use that excuse.

The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

You have a very good chance of understanding some day. I did not give that ethical reason for scorn. That reason can be given through scorn or love but it was not.

Here is a link to help you understand.
http://www.stjohndc.org/beatitud/beatitud.htm

To say that nothing is real unless it is measurable is already an abstract position, is it not? This proposition itself is nowhere tangible, visible or measurable; the argument of tangibility is itself created from the intangible. Everything has its derivitive in the subjunctive. God, thoughts, emotions, material world.
[8)]

Mumeishi

Dec7-03, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
is it always unjustified to believe you are in love because it is based on a purely subjective feeling and not something that has undergone a thurough scientific study ....that they can't prove it or that it's not true?

Believing that you are 'in love' is only a statement about being in a particular psychological state and not a statement about the objective world. Few would deny that 'experiencing God' exists as a psychological state.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
other questions: can you have an unjustified belief that happens to be correct or is that something you can prove to be impossible? is it possible for an illogical argument to accidentally end in a correct conclusion or are all conclusions of illogical arguments incorrect?
Of course that is possible. You can be right 'for the wrong reasons'. It could be a coincidence or a correlation which arose from natural selection or some such. Again, I'm not trying to do the impossible by proving that there is no God (whatever that means), I'm trying to show that there is no valid evidence for belief.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
right, or one could have a series of subjective experiences leading them to believe any scientific theory, that they exist, that they think, that they have free will, etc., which leads into:

They could but none of those beliefs would be justified on that 'evidence' alone. None of them.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
how is this objective verification performed? i guess what i'm really asking is how is it been proven to be objective and what is the definition of reasonable in "beyond a reasonable doubt"? seems to me that though you can't really prove it's objective yet still believe it is, you're falling into the category of it being emotionally appealing to believe that science removes the taint of subjectivity.

I've already covered this. The scientific method is proven (whenever I use this word I don't mean it in an absolute sense) historically. If an experiment provides the same positive results when repeated by others, you either accept that there is some correlation that needs explaining or you have to invoke some sort of political or cosmic conspiracy theory to explain it. The more assumptions you have to introduce to explain it, the more uncertainty you are necessarily introducing, therefore the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions has a greater probability of being correct. This is the basis od Occam's Razor, I think. It is simpler, and thus more probable, to accept that there is some force that acts on apples and other objects on earth, each time we drop one, rather than invoke complex, question-begging, assumption-making explanations such as that there is a race of invisible beings which are moving the apples in order to trick us or that the apples fall because we expect them to.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what isn't a psychological event, really? what isn't coming in through the ego, subject [;)] to misinterpretation? maybe you think that doubting everything is absurd, especially when it comes to doubting the objectivity of science and/or doubting what our senses tell us (eg when we *look* at readings on a measurment tool). that brings us back to what reasonable doubt means. one person's reasonable is another's absurdity.

The alternative explations would be more complex, beg more questions and make more assumptions. If 'everything is subjective', I can control reality with my thoughts and not only fly etc, but make subjectivism false just by disbelieving in it. It seems to me that subjectivism is not only absurd, but a philosophy of desperation. It's inherent skepticism (even if successful) would undermine theism as much as science and even erode its own truthfulness. Its based un an insistence on absolute certainty, which is not available. Our relationship to reality is more fuzzy and probabalistic than that. I prefer a more pragmatic approach which actally engages with reality to this sort of vanishing-up-ones-own-rectum sophistry.

Everything we are aware of is necessarily a psychological event, yes. But the issue is which of those events is also an event which occured externally to the brain and mind.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
interesting how God is goobledegook or not depending on what's convienient for you. .

I understand approximately what God is supposed to be but cannot reconcile his supposed qualities with each other or with reality or scripture. Nor can do ideas like infinitely powerful seem to make sense under scrutiny. I understand the term 'God' in a similar way to 'unknowable square circle'.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
for any belief, a stubborn person will refuse to accept it no matter what.

Or, refuse to disbelieve no matter what. This is why we need actual evidence not just conviction. Got any?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
the thing is that i am an agnostic theist of sorts and i believe that neither logic nor observation is going to ever prove God exists (with certain caveats). i also believe that neither logic nor observation are infinite in an ultimate sense: of course logic is potentially infinite in that one can construct infinitely many formulas to study but its scope is limited. and observation won't ever establish any infinite trait as far as i know, at least not in finite time.

This sort of thinking (which is based on the presupposition of God in order to justfy belief aka. 'pulling yourself up by your bootstrap' aka. 'begging the question' aka 'circular reasoning') creates a very favourable environment for the virus-like meme-complex to continue to flourish in your mind. Best of luck to it.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
in short, i think "God exists" is undecidable though true nonetheless. so is that belief unjustified? of course but then again so is belief in the opposite position. the logical option is to neither believe God exists nor God does not exist.

How can they both be justified when only one of them can be true?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
in regards to other posts, to be a smart aleck, even if man created god, then god exists. btw, not everyone who believes in God does so for emotional or psychological satisfaction. i find writing "God exists" no more and no more less emotionally rewarding than writing "1+1=2" or "God does not exist." i'm not expecting reward in the afterlife for good deeds nor am i expecting bad deeds to be punished (by God). so at least in my case, it's not like i'm a doggie who does tricks for treats and goes to the doghouse when i'm bad.
I'm not convinced. And I don't think you can necessarily be fully aware of the psychological impact of a belief system.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
interesting that you mention mental institutions. delusion is kind of interesting. there apparently is such a thing as a shared psychotic episode and so i wonder if every scientist who performs one experiment is deluding themselves into believing a certain outcome.

Even when they do so independently or are trying to prove competing theories? There is no evidence for this proposed (invented) phenomenon, so you are introducing complex assumptions as an alternative to there simply sometimes being repeatable correlations between phenomena. I do see self-induced psychosis at work in some places though [8)]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
that's probably as integrous as suggesting that all people who believe in God are delusional. of course, popularity has nothing to do with how credible theism is yet it does have something to do with how credible a scientific theory is. it seems that you think it's a near certainty that everyone who believes in God is deluding themselves and each other and a near certainty that scientists aren't doing the same thing.

You need evidence to support either of these hypootheses, in the absense of this you can always clutch at straws as you are doing. Science is not decided by votes.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i wonder if there was supposed evidence of God, would you even bother to look into it or would you presume it to be incorrect, assume it's wrong, and not check it out because it seems emotionally appealing to you to not believe in God or at least appear to not believe proof of God exists. (after all, i'm not sure you ever said you didn't believe in God; you may have just been making the point that there is no scientific evidence for it.)

Of course I would look at the evidence. In fact, I'd say that I have quite strong natural religious tendencies, its just that I have strong critical thinking tendencies too and I find the idea of deluding myself abhorrent. I've been looking for ways to express and explore those tendencies without tasking on nutty beliefs, through paganism and later through Zen Buddhism, so far unsuccessfully, but exploring it through art is looking promising. What do you think the emotional appeal of atheism is? I suppose I find the idea of exploring actual reality to the best of my ability appealing, rather than blindly accepting dogma or delusion, and learning about science can be quite wonderful in a quasi-religious way, when you start to form a single, unified picture of everything unfolding from a common source.

Mumeishi

Dec7-03, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Rader
Mumeishi, i know you like to use that mental intitution excuse, but you can not argue that if we all needed shrinks, we would all be in the hospital. You and i are not, you can not use that excuse.

Some forms of delusion are more socially acceptable than others.

Originally posted by Rader

The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

And the ethical reason for Santa existing is that some kids are naughty. Therefore Santa exists.

Originally posted by Rader
You have a very good chance of understanding some day. I did not give that ethical reason for scorn. That reason can be given through scorn or love but it was not.

I shall pray to understand one day and to stop being so scornful.

Originally posted by Rader
To say that nothing is real unless it is measurable is already an abstract position, is it not? This proposition itself is nowhere tangible, visible or measurable; the argument of tangibility is itself created from the intangible. Everything has its derivitive in the subjunctive. God, thoughts, emotions, material world.
[8)]

This is a strawman argument, because I've never said this. Try again.

phoenixthoth

Dec7-03, 08:38 AM

Believing that you are 'in love' is only a statement about being in a particular psychological state and not a statement about the objective world. Few would deny that 'experiencing God' exists as a psychological state.

love exists.

They could but none of those beliefs would be justified on that 'evidence' alone. None of them.

so is looking at readings on a measurment device and reading reports of supposed others who supposedly have similar data subjective experiences or not?

I've already covered this. The scientific method is proven (whenever I use this word I don't mean it in an absolute sense) historically. If an experiment provides the same positive results when repeated by others, you either accept that there is some correlation that needs explaining or you have to invoke some sort of political or cosmic conspiracy theory to explain it. The more assumptions you have to introduce to explain it, the more uncertainty you are necessarily introducing, therefore the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions has a greater probability of being correct. This is the basis od Occam's Razor, I think. It is simpler, and thus more probable, to accept that there is some force that acts on apples and other objects on earth, each time we drop one, rather than invoke complex, question-begging, assumption-making explanations such as that there is a race of invisible beings which are moving the apples in order to trick us or that the apples fall because we expect them to.

proven to be what? objective? as objective as possible, whatever that means? perfect?

The alternative explations would be more complex, beg more questions and make more assumptions. If 'everything is subjective', I can control reality with my thoughts and not only fly etc, but make subjectivism false just by disbelieving in it. It seems to me that subjectivism is not only absurd, but a philosophy of desperation. It's inherent skepticism (even if successful) would undermine theism as much as science and even erode its own truthfulness. Its based un an insistence on absolute certainty, which is not available. Our relationship to reality is more fuzzy and probabalistic than that. I prefer a more pragmatic approach which actally engages with reality to this sort of vanishing-up-ones-own-rectum sophistry.
how about two assumptions: (1) Is and (2) there are no reasons.
one question: why ask why?
how complex is that?

"If 'everything is subjective', I can control reality with my thoughts" umm... how does that follow?

absolute certainty is available.

what if what was really objectively true wasn't pragmatic at all? would you still want to be objective? do you want to know what the truth is at any cost?

I've already told you that I understand approximately what God is supposed to be but cannot reconcile his supposed qualities with each other or with reality or scripture. Nor can do ideas like infinitely powerful seem to make sense under scrutiny.
well, even the smallest kind of infinity in math, the set of natural numbers, is hard to comprehend. consider all the open problems in number theory. and that's just level uno. so it's not hard to understand why a limited mind would have trouble grasping the infinitely powerful which one would imagine would at least rival N in complexity. perhaps you're wondering about such questions as "can God create a stone it can't lift?" is that what you mean? there are a couple of ways to deal with this, including the analogy to the undecidability of certain statements in N and the relaxation of there being two truth values. in a three truth value system, T, F, and mu, the answer yes has truth value mu and the answer no has truth value mu; no contradiction. on the other hand, it doesn't really matter if logic can grasp something which is practically by definition, if there were one, that is ungraspable.

a pantheist believes that God is the totality of all that is. i've been told that spinoza is similar to this but i haven't really checked that philosopher out much.

seems like if you define God "weakly," like by saying God is love or God is perfect or God is all that is, it obviously exists but one has trouble attributing such things as consciousness, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, etc, to it. on the other hand, if one defines God "strongly," by defining it to be conscious, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, etc, then one runs into the problem with proving it exists.

Or, refuse to disbelieve no matter what. This is why we need actual evidence not just conviction. Got any?
what would constitute evidence either for or against the existence of God?
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
in short, i think "God exists" is undecidable though true nonetheless. so is that belief unjustified? of course but then again so is belief in the opposite position. the logical option is to neither believe God exists nor God does not exist.
How can they both be justified when only one of them can be true?
i said that both were UNjustified. besides, the answer to the question "does God exist" could be yes with truth value mu and no with truth value mu. it's not the case that either of them has to be true.
I'm not convinced. And I don't think you can necessarily be fully aware of the psychological impact of a belief system.
oh, and anyone else is? why would i desire to believe in God? why would i need to believe in God?

Even when they do so independently or are trying to prove competing theories? There is no evidence for this proposed (invented) phenomenon, so you are introducing complex assumptions as an alternative to there simply sometimes being repeatable correlations between phenomena. I do see self-induced psychosis at work in some places though

so since living in a matrix, for example, would be a more complex assumption than we are not, that proves that we're not?

You need evidence to support either of these hypootheses, in the absense of this you can always clutch at straws as you are doing. Science is not decided by votes.
neither is theism.

what i mean is that there is some correlation between how many scientists have adopted a belief vs whether or not it is considered scientifically valid by both scientists and the general public.

Of course I would look at the evidence. In fact, I'd say that I have quite strong natural religious tendencies, its just that I have strong critical thinking tendencies too and I find the idea of deluding myself abhorrent. I've been looking for ways to express and explore those tendencies without tasking on nutty beliefs, through paganism and later through Zen Buddhism, so far unsuccessfully, but exploring it through art is looking promising. What do you think the emotional appeal of atheism is? I suppose I find the idea of exploring actual reality to the best of my ability appealing, rather than blindly accepting dogma or delusion, and learning about science can be quite wonderful in a quasi-religious way, when you start to form a single, unified picture of everything unfolding from a common source.
are your critical thinking abilities infinite? do you think it's even infinitesimally possible that you will ever be able to wrap your head around God? i went through belief systems like a junkie through heroin, starting and ending with some form of theism. the end state was not the result of an inner debate. if it were, i might share it, but it wasn't. i'm not sure atheism has an emotional appeal, at least not the same appeal for everyone. there are a host of reasons why someone would be athiest. it's not that i think critical thinking or science should be thrown out the window. indeed, i think they should be exploited to their maximum benefit whereas others i won't mention would rather your critical thinking skills be dulled. but i also believe that not only is science completely irrelevant to God one way or the other, critical thinking skills in general lead me, at least, to believe that critical thinking skills won't solve the issue. being that real life is more complex than math, in a sense, and some statements in math are undecidable, it seems plausible that not only do undecidable statements exist, but that "God exists" is one of them. that means trying to decide it logically is no more than an exercise in logic and will never be finished. i believe that even if there were a logically correct proof of God, or a being who exhibited finite traits it great abundance, there will always be someone who refuses to accept it.

not that you'll find a proof either way (i don't mean it to be), but you may or may not find what's on my discussion forum relevant:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi

Mumeishi

Dec7-03, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
love exists.

As a psychological event with a series of corresponding neurological events, not as a substance I can buy by the pound. God exists to Judeo-Christian types in the same way, just as Santa exists to kids, and Amun existed to the ancient Egyptians. All of these are dependent on our minds having a particular nature - this is far from the sort of reality being ascribed to God by theists.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
so is looking at readings on a measurment device and reading reports of supposed others who supposedly have similar data subjective experiences or not?
Yes, but not JUST a psychological event. That's the point.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
proven to be what? objective? as objective as possible, whatever that means? perfect?
As objective as possible. That's all that can be done.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
how about two assumptions: (1) Is and (2) there are no reasons.
one question: why ask why?
how complex is that?
I don't understand.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
"If 'everything is subjective', I can control reality with my thoughts" umm... how does that follow?
Because if there is no objectivity, then if I believe something is true then it is true. Therefore I can make things true by decis=ding that they are true. There is no external reality to inhibit this. [/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
absolute certainty is available.
Not justified absolute certainty.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what if what was really objectively true wasn't pragmatic at all? would you still want to be objective? do you want to know what the truth is at any cost?
Do you mean that the truth might be metaphysical? What have you got?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

well, even the smallest kind of infinity in math, the set of natural numbers, is hard to comprehend. consider all the open problems in number theory. and that's just level uno. so it's not hard to understand why a limited mind would have trouble grasping the infinitely powerful which one would imagine would at least rival N in complexity. perhaps you're wondering about such questions as "can God create a stone it can't lift?" is that what you mean? there are a couple of ways to deal with this, including the analogy to the undecidability of certain statements in N and the relaxation of there being two truth values. in a three truth value system, T, F, and mu, the answer yes has truth value mu and the answer no has truth value mu; no contradiction. on the other hand, it doesn't really matter if logic can grasp something which is practically by definition, if there were one, that is ungraspable.?

Yes, 'Mu' would be a good answer to that question. And you know what 'Mu' means (assuming you are using it in the sense originating from Zen)? It means you are asking an absurd question. It is an absurd question in the same way that 'how many corners does a square circle have?' is an absurd quastion. You are asking a question about an incongruous, absurd concept. By the way, I have 'mu' in my name - it means 'nobody'.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
seems like if you define God "weakly," like by saying God is love or God is perfect or God is all that is, it obviously exists but one has trouble attributing such things as consciousness, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, etc, to it. on the other hand, if one defines God "strongly," by defining it to be conscious, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, etc, then one runs into the problem with proving it exists.

Seems I missed your argument to show that a 'weakly defined' God 'obviously exists'. Do you mean:
-God is love
-Love exists
-Therefore God exists?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! No, please..... tell me that's not what you mean.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

what would constitute evidence either for or against the existence of God?

I don't think there could ever be evidence against the existence of an entity which is defined as 'unknowable' (that's why I believe in the Unknowable Unicorns of Ulan Bator). In terms of evidence, for God, all he would have to do it perform some easily accomplished and indisputable miracle and I'd be convinced. If I and thousands of others witness a thousand angels lift the White House and drop it on Osama Bin Laden's head. Or really anything else clear which was not better explained in naturalistic terms. Jesus came back and didn't die this time and performed miracles we could all see and even scrutinise etc. I would certainly reassess my beliefs. If Jesus did it for Thomas, why won't God do it for me?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i said that both were UNjustified. besides, the answer to the question "does God exist" could be yes with truth value mu and no with truth value mu. it's not the case that either of them has to be true.
I see (I think). And that means God exists in a way that Santa and the 'Unknowable Square Circle of Zog' don't because...?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

oh, and anyone else is? why would i desire to believe in God? why would i need to believe in God?
Because you are afraid of death. Because you are afraid of the responsibility of being the arbiter of your own morality. Because you don't feel comfortable not knowing all the answers. Because you like the idea that the moral decisions you make in life are part of some grand cosmic drama. Because you felt more secure when you had a daddy to tell you what was right and wrong. Because you are genetically disposed towards religiosity... etc

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

so since living in a matrix, for example, would be a more complex assumption than we are not, that proves that we're not?
No it just makes it less credible. Just like the idea that we are the daydream of a giant space-goat. That movie has a lot to answer for in terms of propagating BS philosophy.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
neither is theism.
That would be besides the point, but anyway how do you think theism is decided? Well researched reference to scripture? Who's to say that scripture is correct unless its just consensually (word?) accepted?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

what i mean is that there is some correlation between how many scientists have adopted a belief vs whether or not it is considered scientifically valid by both scientists and the general public.
If one scientist can show that his hypothesis fits the evidence better than that accepted by the majority, then his hypothesis (all else being equal) is the better hypothesis whether the majority like it or not. This is how some scientific revolutions begin, eg quantum mechanics, sun-centred solar system etc. To not accept it would be to violate scientific principles.
A 'fact' in scientific terms is a piece of information which is widely-accepted enough to be taught intact eg. the earth is round, evolution etc. Reality is more fuzzy than that, but learning facts is far easier for school-kids etc than learning the complexities of dispute, which is usually reserved for higher levels of education.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

are your critical thinking abilities infinite? do you think it's even infinitesimally possible that you will ever be able to wrap your head around God? .

I cannot justifiable 'know' there is no God. But the 'God hypothesis' is just one of an unlimited and equal body of unknowable untestable hypotheses some theistic, some not. This background of vanishingly small hypothetical possibilities is the default state of knowledge. If we believed things just because their possibility could not be excluded we would be like extreme schizophrenics with as many beliefs as they have thoughts. We would be paralysed with indecision. There is no rationality to believing in any one of these ideas or acting as if they were true, when there are other alternatives supported by actual evidence. It is only the persistent, consistent existence of supporting evidence that can pull a hypothesis from this virtual froth.

phoenixthoth

Dec7-03, 10:44 AM

Yes, but not JUST a psychological event. That's the point.
prove it.

I don't understand.
which part(s)? btw, i'm not saying that that's my position.
Because if there is no objectivity, then if I believe something is true then it is true. Therefore I can make things true by decis=ding that they are true. There is no external reality to inhibit this.
i'm not getting how "if I believe something is true then it is true" follows from "there's no objectivity."
Not justified absolute certainty.
is that what i said?
Do you mean that the truth might be metaphysical? What have you got?
what do you mean by metaphysical? i think it's possible that there are truths that are non-physical and non-energetic unless one has real lose definitions of what physical means. even with those lose definitions of physical, it's possible that there are metaphysical truths.
Yes, 'Mu' would be a good answer to that question. And you know what 'Mu' means (assuming you are using it in the sense originating from Zen)? It means you are asking an absurd question. It is an absurd question in the same way that 'how many corners does a square circle have?' is an absurd quastion. You are asking a question about an incongruous, absurd concept. By the way, I have 'mu' in my name - it means 'nobody'.
once i was in a phase where i wanted to believe in God but i clinged to rationality and critical thinking as the end alls and be alls and so i really, deparately wanted an answer to the question "can God create a stone it cannot lift." the response i got was something like, "can uga buga widget a buga uga?" i think his point was that talking about God is a waste of time; in some sense, it transcends description.

Seems I missed your argument to show that a 'weakly defined' God 'obviously exists'. Do you mean:
-God is love
-Love exists
-Therefore God exists?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! No, please..... tell me that's not what you mean.
yup, that's what can happen when one defines God weakly. existence is the easy part but consciousness, perfection, and the three omni's are "hard" to prove. on the other hand, if you define God to have those properties, then existence is the problem. i'm using unused cpu resources to look at whether or not there's a way the carpet can fit the room without a corner of the rug coming up in one of the corners. with a pantheistic approach, consciousness is pretty weak, perfection is seemingly a matter of opinion, and i can only get two of the three omni's.

I don't think there could ever be evidence against the existence of an entity which is defined as 'unknowable' (that's why I believe in the Unknowable Unicorns of Ulan Bator). In terms of evidence, for God, all he would have to do it perform some easily accomplished and indisputable miracle and I'd be convinced. If I and thousands of others witness a thousand angels lift the White House and drop it on Osama Bin Laden's head. Or really anything else clear which was not better explained in naturalistic terms. Jesus came back and didn't die this time and performed miracles we could all see and even scrutinise etc. I would certainly reassess my beliefs. If Jesus did it for Thomas, why won't God do it for me?
is that the definition of God? i think it would be more correct that one can know all about God but the only way to know God is to be at least omniscient. in some sense, many people don't even know themselves completely yet they evidently exist though all one seems to be able to do is know about themself and not truly know themself. there is no such thing as an indisputable miracle. it would have to be finite in nature, albeit big. and then you would have to wonder if God caused the miracle or not or if it was just a really weird coincidence that spawns generations of research until it can be "explained" (you know, like creation). even if thousands of others witness something, that still doesn't prove they're not all experiencing a mass hallucination. again, popularity is not proof. in addition to "why won't God do it for me," why not also ask:
1. would i want to have the choice taken away
2. do i really want God to do it for me
3. does there have to be a reason you can possibly understand
4. can God be pursuaded to do anything
5. do i know the best way for myself for God to do it
6. is God not already doing it (related to 1 and 2)?
etc, etc

I see (I think). And that means God exists in a way that Santa and the 'Unknowable Square Circle of Zog' don't because...?
the "evidence" that seems to indicate that santa doesn't exist is that, at least as far as i know, no one is going around once a year distributing presents to homes. and so that while "God exists" may have truth mu, "santa exists" seems to have truth value false unless existence includes fictituous existence, in which case it's true, evidently. seems to me that in order for a square circle to have any "sense" whatsoever, the "law" of identity must be violated. eg, let S be the unit circle and let S be the boundary of [0,1]x[0,1]. S!=S but S is a square circle. in order to talk about a square circle, one must yank that rug up from the room rather brutally. if you assume that the rules of logic are inviolate (meaning that even an omnipotent being can't violate them yet i just did), then the truth value of "a square circle exists" is not mu but false thus differentiating that from the truth value of "God exists" which is possibly mu.

having said that, could it be that there is a santa but just one whose nature is inaccurately described in myth? in other words, a santa (and i don't just mean some guy named santa) that exists but isn't at all like he is descibed? oh wait, those are the same words pretty much... well, that's what some theists think about God: one exists but just one whose nature is inaccurately described in myth.

Because you are afraid of death. Because you are afraid of the responsibility of being the arbiter of your own morality. Because you don't feel comfortable not knowing all the answers. Because you like the idea that the moral decisions you make in life are part of some grand cosmic drama. Because you felt more secure when you had a daddy to tell you what was right and wrong. Because you are genetically disposed towards religiosity... etc
what does God have to do with death? why would you think i'm afraid of death? i don't get morality from God whatsoever. i don't believe absolute right or wrong exist. believing God exists doesn't give one all the answers (or even very many answers), at least not for me. in fact, the more i think about it, the more i wonder if "why" always has an answer. covered morality: it don't exist. as hamlet said, "nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so." everything would seem to be apart of the cosmos whether you believe in God or not and one is free to see things as a drama or not. actually, my dad never told me much of anything and neither does God. the genetic thing is interesting... out of the set of six parents and grandparents, only one was religious so i guess it isn't a dominant gene. is this what your "critical thinking" assumes about all theists or just me? i'm sure you've seen these characteristics before so i guess that makes it always true.
No it just makes it less credible. Just like the idea that we are the daydream of a giant space-goat. That movie has a lot to answer for in terms of propagating BS philosophy.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
That would be besides the point, but anyway how do you think theism is decided? Well researched reference to scripture? Who's to say that scripture is correct unless its just consensually (word?) accepted?
my own personal choice had nothing to do with what i believe in being "voted on" by anyone. while your generalizations no doubt apply to at least some people, i do doubt they apply to all.

I cannot justifiable 'know' there is no God. But the 'God hypothesis' is just one of an unlimited and equal body of unknowable untestable hypotheses some theistic, some not. This background of vanishingly small hypothetical possibilities is the default state of knowledge. If we believed things just because their possibility could not be excluded we would be like extreme schizophrenics with as many beliefs as they have thoughts. We would be paralysed with indecision. There is no rationality to believing in any one of these ideas or acting as if they were true, when there are other alternatives supported by actual evidence. It is only the persistent, consistent existence of supporting evidence that can pull a hypothesis from this virtual froth.
well, what i mainly would like to say that believing "God exists" and "God does not exist" is not logically justified. someone's going to be correct, i bet, without having a justification.

btw, slippery slope. if we believe in God, we have to believe everything a crazy person says and everything we can't disprove. in short, believing in God would result in the world collapsing. is that something that will happen only when all people believe in God, because a lot do already, even einstein, kaku, hawking, etc, and i don't think they believe everything they can't disprove.

Mumeishi

Dec7-03, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
prove it.
I've already argued that the alternative (philosophical idealism) would require more assumptions and thus is less credible, and that it is self-defeating. Another criticism is that the neural pathways that provide our experiences can be traced physically, as can other physical>mental causal relationships such as the fact that if I put drugs into my bloodstream it would affect the nature of my consciousness and the fact that a neaurosurgeon can directly influence the nature of consciousness in a fairly predictable way by stimulating or interfering with specific areas of the brain. the only idealist explanation for that would be that some cosmic conspiracy is trying to make us think that there is a physical basis for consciousness. This begs so many questions that it is absurd. And even if it were true, we would have no hope of seeing through the deception.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

which part(s)? btw, i'm not saying that that's my position.
I don't understand it at all. Try putting it a different way.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

i'm not getting how "if I believe something is true then it is true" follows from "there's no objectivity."
My mind is subject to will. If all is mind, all is potentially subject to will.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

is that what i said?
You said that absolute certainty is possible. I'm saying that it doesn't matter because such certainty is unjustified. What is not achievable is absolute knowlege.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

what do you mean by metaphysical? i think it's possible that there are truths that are non-physical and non-energetic unless one has real lose definitions of what physical means. even with those lose definitions of physical, it's possible that there are metaphysical truths.
Perhaps - like mathematical and logical truths for example.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

once i was in a phase where i wanted to believe in God but i clinged to rationality and critical thinking as the end alls and be alls and so i really, deparately wanted an answer to the question "can God create a stone it cannot lift." the response i got was something like, "can uga buga widget a buga uga?" i think his point was that talking about God is a waste of time; in some sense, it transcends description.
Perhaps, but just because it 'transcends description' doesn't mean it exists or is true. There is still no difference in principle from the concept of the Unknowable Square Circle or the Ineffable Pink Elephant which also 'transcend description'.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

yup, that's what can happen when one defines God weakly. existence is the easy part but consciousness, perfection, and the three omni's are "hard" to prove. on the other hand, if you define God to have those properties, then existence is the problem. i'm using unused cpu resources to look at whether or not there's a way the carpet can fit the room without a corner of the rug coming up in one of the corners. with a pantheistic approach, consciousness is pretty weak, perfection is seemingly a matter of opinion, and i can only get two of the three omni's.
Why are you so determined to believe, when you are struggling to demonstrate its existence?

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

is that the definition of God? i think it would be more correct that one can know all about God but the only way to know God is to be at least omniscient. in some sense, many people don't even know themselves completely yet they evidently exist though all one seems to be able to do is know about themself and not truly know themself. there is no such thing as an indisputable miracle. it would have to be finite in nature, albeit big. and then you would have to wonder if God caused the miracle or not or if it was just a really weird coincidence that spawns generations of research until it can be "explained" (you know, like creation). even if thousands of others witness something, that still doesn't prove they're not all experiencing a mass hallucination.

What's the difference between knowing about God and knowing God. You mean you can know something exists without knowing what that something is? Is that possible? And if you don't know what it is, you might be mistaken something for 'God' when it is actually something else like 'activity in your temporal lobe'.

Mass delusion is only possible under some circumstances. If you filmed an event and a variety of 'unprimed' people came and saw first hand and the vast majority agreed there could be no reasonable grounds for dispute.

1. would i want to have the choice taken away
It wouldn't be - I'm still free.
2. do i really want God to do it for me
Of course! Why is he hiding anyway?
3. does there have to be a reason you can possibly understand
Well, theist seem able to claim to understand well enough to insist that people live in a particular way. Anyway, all I was after was a simple demonstration of his existence, not an insight into the way he thinks. If he's hiding and even creating a false picture of a universe which is entirely naturalistic, for a reason you can't explain then I would have to question what else he is deceiving us about. Perhaps its all a test to eliminate the gullible people (theists) who will accept things unquestioningly. Perhaps he is evil or indifferent. What right do theist have to claim the know the intentions of a being that is unknowable (as well as unevidenced and incredible)?
4. can God be pursuaded to do anything
Evidently not. But what chance do I have of seeing 'the truth' when 'the truth' is pulling the wool over my eyes? How can I have responsibility for not accepting God when it is his secretiveness or even deceptiveness which has damned me?
5. do i know the best way for myself for God to do it
See above
6. is God not already doing it (related to 1 and 2)?
No
etc, etc
Yadda yadda Yadda

the "evidence" that seems to indicate that santa doesn't exist is that, at least as far as i know, no one is going around once a year distributing presents to homes.
...
then the truth value of "a square circle exists" is not mu but false thus differentiating that from the truth value of "God exists" which is possibly mu.
In that case God exists to the same extent that I can clap with one hand.

having said that, could it be that there is a santa but just one whose nature is inaccurately described in myth? in other words, a santa (and i don't just mean some guy named santa) that exists but isn't at all like he is descibed? oh wait, those are the same words pretty much... well, that's what some theists think about God: one exists but just one whose nature is inaccurately described in myth.
So you claim to know it exists but you don't know what it is. It amazes me that a bright person like you is prepared to accept this claptrap.

is this what your "critical thinking" assumes about all theists or just me? i'm sure you've seen these characteristics before so i guess that makes it always true.
It was a list of suggestions that's all. You tell me why you believe in God and not other untestable hypotheses? Does it give you a nice feeling inside?

http://www.simulation-argument.com/
If we are pat of a simulation, there's no way we could think our way out of it, so we are forced to accept some things as given. ie. that physics is real.

well, what i mainly would like to say that believing "God exists" and "God does not exist" is not logically justified. someone's going to be correct, i bet, without having a justification
While we cannot know there is no X (when X is only partially defined and defined as unknowable) I'd say that I've already shown that believing in God is no more justified than believing that space aliens are controlling our thoughts and will use the most well-fed humans as fodder in the year 2013. It is irrational to remain in a state of indecision, the most rational action is to suspend doubt and pick the most well-evidenced hypothesis and act as if it were true.

btw, slippery slope. if we believe in God, we have to believe everything a crazy person says and everything we can't disprove. in short, believing in God would result in the world collapsing. is that something that will happen only when all people believe in God, because a lot do already, even einstein, kaku, hawking, etc, and i don't think they believe everything they can't disprove.
I don't know about Kaku, but certainly Einstein and Hawking do not believe in God in any recognisable Judeo-Christian sense - more a shorthand for an unknown cause outside the universe, if it exists, whatever it might be - seems quite reasonable to me. People (including a minority of scientists) believe in God because the idea is appealing, not because it is rational.

And as Richard Dawkins put it:
If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them?

Merlin

Dec7-03, 08:58 PM

agnostictheist, I will agree with most of what you've posted. I don't agree with Mumeishi. This debate has, like Mumeishi's universe, become a sphere that takes us back to the start.With nothing resolved.

It is much easier (for me and my universe or paradigm) to place faith in intelligent design than unproven theories. When the big bang or any cosmological model becomes fact, I'll accept it or any TOE, Only when is fact. And as I've said before, the metaphysical will merge with the physical, (and all physics) in the correct TOE.
MERLIN has the flu....

phoenixthoth

Dec7-03, 09:48 PM

I've already argued that the alternative (philosophical idealism) would require more assumptions and thus is less credible...
that's not a proof.
I don't understand it at all. Try putting it a different way.
assumptions: 1. something exists (be it an illusion or not, be it all in the mind or not). 2. there are no reasons.
the only question: 1. why ask why?
how complex is that? and what i mean by that is that you say that alternatives involve MORE assumptions and MORE questions are "begged."
You said that absolute certainty is possible. I'm saying that it doesn't matter because such certainty is unjustified. What is not achievable is absolute knowlege.
this goes back to your quote in the beginning. you believe something, evidently not with absolute certainty, without any more than a plausibility argument. absolute knowledge is achievable, though i doubt absolutely and absolutely complete knowledge is achieveable.
Perhaps, but just because it 'transcends description' doesn't mean it exists or is true. There is still no difference in principle from the concept of the Unknowable Square Circle or the Ineffable Pink Elephant which also 'transcend description'.
of course. btw, nothing i say (or at least, not much that i say if anything) is intended to be taken as evidence for or against God. as i've said, i don't believe that's possible.
Why are you so determined to believe, when you are struggling to demonstrate its existence?
why? i don't know. i guess it's not that different from being "determined" to believe that the computer screen i'm looking at exists or that i exist. i'm not struggling to demonstrate its existence, actually. i don't think it's possible to.
What's the difference between knowing about God and knowing God. You mean you can know something exists without knowing what that something is? Is that possible? And if you don't know what it is, you might be mistaken something for 'God' when it is actually something else like 'activity in your temporal lobe'.
well that concept may be better illustrated by analogy. what's the difference between knowing about genius and knowing genius (or insert any concept instead of genius). for one thing, a sudden leap in knowledge can occur when one is a genius. you can know all about a concept but until you walk a mile in that concept's shoes, metaphorically speaking, you don't know that concept. you can know all about love but something changes in how well you know love when you actually experience it for yourself. or sex. or drugs. examples abound.

the computer screen i'm looking at could also be actually something else like activity in my temporal lobe but as you've alluded to, that possibility requires more assumptions, begs more questions, and makes it less credible. i can want money real bad, but how often do people who want money real bad will start hallucinating a pile of gold in their garage? how many people are hallucinating God? while i think that for many, in fact, they may be hallucinating, i doubt that all of them are.

Mass delusion is only possible under some circumstances. If you filmed an event and a variety of 'unprimed' people came and saw first hand and the vast majority agreed there could be no reasonable grounds for dispute.
recording miracles has never seemed to convince everyone in the past. (eg the bible.) film of ufo's hardly convinces everyone that ufo's exist, so why would this be any different? people are just going to assume that the film has been cgi'ed by industrial light and magic. besides, who is to say what the source of the miracle is? why would it have to be God?
It wouldn't be - I'm still free.
what i meant was that if you saw what was indisputable evidence for you. so if you saw such evidence, you would technically still have the choice to not believe it but you'd then be choosing between being rational and being free. the rest of the questions could possibly be more delicate and/or complex than you think. then again, possibly not.

In that case God exists to the same extent that I can clap with one hand.
correction: you can prove God exists to the same extent you can prove you can clap with one hand. being able to prove it exists has NOTHING to do with whether or not it does exist. btw, i can clap with one hand.

So you claim to know it exists but you don't know what it is. It amazes me that a bright person like you is prepared to accept this claptrap.
i've said this before. one can know about God but the only way to know all about God or to know God is to be at least omniscient. i realize what my limits are.

Does it give you a nice feeling inside?
in the theology section on my discussion forum, there's a "why i believe in God" thread. it may answer your questions. sometimes, it gives me a nice feeling inside but other times, i does not. you can't possibly know what i'm talking about; trust me, it has not always been a "nice feeling inside."

if there is no way to get out of the simulation, then it doesn't seem to matter whether or not it is a simulation. but what if we can get out of it?

I don't know about Kaku, but certainly Einstein and Hawking do not believe in God in any recognisable Judeo-Christian sense - more a shorthand for an unknown cause outside the universe, if it exists, whatever it might be - seems quite reasonable to me. People (including a minority of scientists) believe in God because the idea is appealing, not because it is rational.

i'm not much of a abrahamic religion adherent myself though i used to be a while ago. i understood the thread title to be "what's the proof that god exists" and not "religions are correct."

Mumeishi

Dec8-03, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Merlin
agnostictheist, I will agree with most of what you've posted. I don't agree with Mumeishi. This debate has, like Mumeishi's universe, become a sphere that takes us back to the start.With nothing resolved.

It is much easier (for me and my universe or paradigm) to place faith in intelligent design than unproven theories. When the big bang or any cosmological model becomes fact, I'll accept it or any TOE, Only when is fact. And as I've said before, the metaphysical will merge with the physical, (and all physics) in the correct TOE.
MERLIN has the flu....

So you'll accept one unproven hypothesis (ID) on faith, but not others, even though the latter have evidence and the former has none. OK, well you're a free man, you can think what you like.

Mumeishi

Dec8-03, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
that's not a proof.
There is no such thing as absolute proof in such matters, only evidence and probability. I've been over this several times now.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
assumptions: 1. something exists (be it an illusion or not, be it all in the mind or not). 2. there are no reasons.
the only question: 1. why ask why?
how complex is that? and what i mean by that is that you say that alternatives involve MORE assumptions and MORE questions are "begged."

In science, really the question 'why?' is not asked, only 'what?' and 'how?'. It is simply an investigation into the nature of what all this is, whatever it ultimately is.

this goes back to your quote in the beginning. you believe something, evidently not with absolute certainty, without any more than a plausibility argument. absolute knowledge is achievable, though i doubt absolutely and absolutely complete knowledge is achieveable.

Do go on.

of course. btw, nothing i say (or at least, not much that i say if anything) is intended to be taken as evidence for or against God. as i've said, i don't believe that's possible.
There is no justification for believing in gods in this day and age.

why? i don't know. i guess it's not that different from being "determined" to believe that the computer screen i'm looking at exists or that i exist. i'm not struggling to demonstrate its existence, actually. i don't think it's possible to.
I don't have to try to believe these things. The evidence is so strong, consistent, and verifiable that believing these things did not exist would be more of a challenge.[/QUOTE]

well that concept may be better illustrated by analogy. what's the difference between knowing about genius and knowing genius (or insert any concept instead of genius). for one thing, a sudden leap in knowledge can occur when one is a genius. you can know all about a concept but until you walk a mile in that concept's shoes, metaphorically speaking, you don't know that concept. you can know all about love but something changes in how well you know love when you actually experience it for yourself. or sex. or drugs. examples abound.
'Knowing about' genius does not necessarily mean you understand its true nature. And being regarded as one by society doesn't either - its just something that happens to you.

the computer screen i'm looking at could also be actually something else like activity in my temporal lobe but as you've alluded to, that possibility requires more assumptions, begs more questions, and makes it less credible. i can want money real bad, but how often do people who want money real bad will start hallucinating a pile of gold in their garage? how many people are hallucinating God? while i think that for many, in fact, they may be hallucinating, i doubt that all of them are.[QUOTE]
Visions of God are not common. Most people's belief is based entirely on faith, perhaps accompanied by a warm fuzzy feeling or an imagined feeling of company. These are quite simple to imagine and I've done it myself.
There is some evidence that our brains are hard-wired to give us religious feelings even visions. And these can be induced artificially my neuroscientists stimulating the temporal lobes with a magnetic field. They also often arise if the lobes go into spontaneous seizure.

[QUOTE]recording miracles has never seemed to convince everyone in the past. (eg the bible.) film of ufo's hardly convinces everyone that ufo's exist, so why would this be any different? people are just going to assume that the film has been cgi'ed by industrial light and magic. besides, who is to say what the source of the miracle is? why would it have to be God?
I thought God could do anything. It would be a simple matter for him to clarify his existence to billions of people. Your excuses for him are unconvincing.

what i meant was that if you saw what was indisputable evidence for you. so if you saw such evidence, you would technically still have the choice to not believe it but you'd then be choosing between being rational and being free. the rest of the questions could possibly be more delicate and/or complex than you think. then again, possibly not.[QUOTE]
Don't really know what you mean. Sounds like you're clutching for more excuses. If God 'showed up' I'd believe he existed and would then have a choice whether to follow him or reject him. Right now I don't have that choice because I am aware of no such entity to worship.

[QUOTE]correction: you can prove God exists to the same extent you can prove you can clap with one hand. being able to prove it exists has NOTHING to do with whether or not it does exist. btw, i can clap with one hand.

Yeah, and again this belief is based entirely on nothing more than 'a strong but unsupported conviction'. There is no proof, there is not even any valid evidence, (private, subjective experiences are not valid even to those who have them), but there sure are a lot of beleivers.

if there is no way to get out of the simulation, then it doesn't seem to matter whether or not it is a simulation. but what if we can get out of it?
First you would need evidence that it is a simulation. Got any?

i'm not much of a abrahamic religion adherent myself though i used to be a while ago. i understood the thread title to be "what's the proof that god exists" and not "religions are correct." [/B]
The concept of 'god' we are discussing comes primarily from Abrahamic religion. Most other religions are polytheistic (Hindu) or atheistic (Buddhism).

agnostictheist

Dec8-03, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
agnostictheist,

The point of my stating that time is theorised to begin at the big bang is not necessarily to exclude the possibility of God, but to answer the common and rather silly claim that there HAD to be something before the big bang and the latter had to have a 'cause' (with the obvious implication that somehow that cause could only have been old Jehovah).

I don't understand your argument here. Can you make it again using sentences?

Ok Mumeishi, I accept the reason for this thread, and agree with you - butit doesnt stop me adding anther view!

your right that people tend to ask these questions with the tent to pin God behind it, personally I think its silly for theists, and well has other parties.

agnostictheist

Dec8-03, 12:49 PM

There is no such thing as absolute proof in such matters, only evidence and probability. I've been over this several times now.

I have not read the whole thread, so I make this a general comment, there is no such thing has absolute proof, depending on context and prespective - eg: ours (doesnt disagree with Mu statement)

But that does not mean thus there is no absolute proof.

In science, really the question 'why?' is not asked, only 'what?' and 'how?'. It is simply an investigation into the nature of what all this is, whatever it ultimately is.

argeed, why..etc, is more concered with philosophy, and ontology and metaphysics.

- some people or groups eg: Logical postivism, hold that concepts such as these are meangless, personaly I find this far to restrictive, but on the other hand, this sort of reasoning type does yeild reliable data/evidence and interprations.

I thought God could do anything. It would be a simple matter for him to clarify his existence to billions of people. Your excuses for him are unconvincing.

If reffering to a xtian type God, this is missleading, rather God can do anything that is Good, and is all powerful (infinite- in his natures and attrubies) infinity comes in many forms and does not nesscerly mean without any except..eg: MUST be Good and Evil etc...

Yeah, and again this belief is based entirely on nothing more than 'a strong but unsupported conviction'. There is no proof, there is not even any valid evidence, (private, subjective experiences are not valid even to those who have them), but there sure are a lot of beleivers.

correct, on the other hand this could be again missleading, you would think a transcdant type God would not nesscerly be subject to OUR measurments, while may do so, has a contigent, God is not the kind of father that comes running in when the kids start to cry or want something.

The concept of 'god' we are discussing comes primarily from Abrahamic religion. Most other religions are polytheistic (Hindu) or atheistic (Buddhism).

then you would be more careful with the difference between God and god.

Hence my argument, but one that does not really say God does exist, for to answer that we need to be in a different prespective, for me God MAY exist, and if so How using for the most part deductive reasoning, and except the altertnative possiblities also. but to use only logic, science etc... is a gross error in finding ones way to God, one has to adimt that this also may easly lead us astray.

radagast

Dec8-03, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Rader

Posted by Radagast --------
giving it high magnitutde properties, such as consciousness and self-awareness. Given we do know of physical mechanisms that are responsible for much of the current universe, and given no evidence(other than unknowns presented in the universes complexity - i.e. which is only interpreted as evidence by those wishing it to be evidence), then a non-aware physical mechanism is always a simpler, cleaner explanation, compared to created by an self-aware entity. Hence my invocation of Occam.
--------

Self awareness is a gifted property, unique of humans, that for now, we can only test in humans. In can be argued though, that physical mechanisms are self aware, but not the way humans are. Is not the atom self aware of electo-magnetic covalent bonding. Its self aware of nothing else. The constuct is its bonding and the axioms are the properties of the atom. This is by far much simpler than a gene.
[8)]

In the examples you give, there is no reason, whatsoever, to consider them self-aware. There is no decision making, on there part, that cannot be explained easier by deterministic behaviour.

Just so we don't argue at cross-definitions: Self-awareness - to be aware of one's own existense.

In this regards, then most apes are self-aware. Humans gain self-awareness at about the age of two. The test used for this involves a mirror. When the individual in front of the mirror realises that the image is themselves, this is taken as 'de-facto' evidence of self-awareness. It is understood that they are self-aware, using this experiment, because their behaviour is markedly different from when they encounter another person/entity. Given this is what is used my the psycology papers I've read, it's the definition I use.

This property is, in no way, simple. It requires much brain/computation power. Machines have not yet attained any form of consciousness, much less self-awareness. This is not found in the simpler life forms.

Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a simple self-aware system, then I consider this dismissable on grounds that Occam's razor would deign it less rational.

Mumeishi

Dec8-03, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by agnostictheist
I have not read the whole thread, so I make this a general comment, there is no such thing has absolute proof, depending on context and prespective - eg: ours (doesnt disagree with Mu statement)
But that does not mean thus there is no absolute proof.
To be honest, I'm having again I don't understand what you are saying here. What absolute proof do you think there can be? The nearest we seem to have IMO is logical or mathematical proof - truths which are neccessarily the case by given definition, but these sorts of proofs cannot be directly applied to the world - they are just self-consistent systems and the symbols they use have an 'Aristotlian' distinctness which the world rarely or never has. Even mathematical and logical proofs could be mistaken because there is always a possibility that the system used to make the calculation is in error. I don't see how you can get around this in any situation. And claims about rality have even more hurdles to absolute knowledge.

Originally posted by agnostictheist
some people or groups eg: Logical postivism, hold that concepts such as these are meangless, personaly I find this far to restrictive, but on the other hand, this sort of reasoning type does yeild reliable data/evidence and interprations.
I'm not a fan of logical positivism as a whole, although I do find many of the things Wittgenstein said compelling. It seems quite simple to me - 'why?' means 'what is the purpose of...?', ao asking 'why' about the world would be meaningful if the universe had a purpose and meaningless if it did not. Easy.

Originally posted by agnostictheist
If reffering to a xtian type God, this is missleading, rather God can do anything that is Good, and is all powerful (infinite- in his natures and attrubies) infinity comes in many forms and does not nesscerly mean without any except..eg: MUST be Good and Evil etc....
What would be 'evil' about giving us a level-playing field? He is not testing people's goodness or how much they would support him if they realised he was real, he is testing their gullibility, the extent to which they accept emotionally appealing ideas without question. What kind of sick test is that?

Originally posted by agnostictheist

correct, on the other hand this could be again missleading, you would think a transcdant type God would not nesscerly be subject to OUR measurments, while may do so, has a contigent, God is not the kind of father that comes running in when the kids start to cry or want something.
Sure but I don't think he would be any sort of decent father at all if he disappears before the kids are born, never calls and then thrashes them (for eternity) when they don't even think he exists. And this father is supposed to be perfect goodness and love incarnate?!

Originally posted by agnostictheist
then you would be more careful with the difference between God and god.
The capital 'G' is a term of respect and adoration used by the followers of one god who now insist is the only one, and which it would be inappropriate for me to use.

Originally posted by agnostictheist

Hence my argument, but one that does not really say God does exist, for to answer that we need to be in a different prespective, for me God MAY exist, and if so How using for the most part deductive reasoning, and except the altertnative possiblities also. but to use only logic, science etc... is a gross error in finding ones way to God, one has to adimt that this also may easly lead us astray.

Gravity elves MAY exist. Osiris MAY exist, Santa MAY exist, God MAY exist and really be waiting to reward those who make the most money or live the most fully and freely. There are as many of these untestable hypotheses as you can think of.

radagast

Dec8-03, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Rader
The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

non-sequitur, the existence of god, which according to legend existed prior to humans, could therefore not be contigent on humans not believeing the it exists.

The ontologic reason is human consciousness is aware of the I, the world and the God.

Simpler alternate views exists.

The epistemologic reason is knowlege of it is everywhere. The parameters for our existence are set so fine, that not time or chance or anything else but a creator can account for it. Creation is a mirror of its creator.

This has a basis that's flawed. It assumes probabilities, which there are no basis to assume. Factors are assumed to have been arrived at by chance, just because no mechanism is known. - aka "God of the Gaps" argument flaw.

...Human consciousness increases not decreases.
Individually, human consciousness can increse/decrease. A coma is the lack of consciousness. Sleep is a reduced state of consciousness. Waking life is state of enhanced consciousness.

Other than this, explain how consciousness can increase. Intelligence would be hard pressed to equate to consciousness.

Complexity can not evolve from simplicity without a reason. We are all aware of the reason. Goodwill and badwill do not mean what they do for no reaon. The world strives to be better not worse.

Actually, this has been shown to be incorrect. There are many simple systems that can be shown to be self-organizing. Simple computer systems can be shown to be self-organizing, without being programmed specifically to be self-organising.

If that was not the case. THEN GOD DOES NOT EXIST [/QUOTE]

I consider it definitely not the case.

Mumeishi

Dec8-03, 01:59 PM

There was a good article in the news a couple of days ago about research which showed that some animals were cable of 'thinking about thinking' and knowing when they didn't know. I can't find the darn thing now.

selfAdjoint

Dec8-03, 03:14 PM

I saw it too, and can't find it either. But I do recall the general basis of the research.

The premis was, that if you can show that animals have doubts about a future course of action, then you have at least partially shown that they have consciousness.

They worked with chimps and bottle nosed dolphins (and humans). They gave each set of animals a series of cognitive tests of various difficulties. There were rewards for successful performance but they also provided a mechanism for the testee to skip any of the tests. Skipping was interpreted as showing that the testee had doubts about being able to solve that particular problem.

They studied the patterns of solution and skips for the three groups and showed that the chimps' and dolphins' patterns were similar to the human one. From this they concluded that the two animal groups had shown doubts, and hence that they were perhaps conscious.

radagast

Dec8-03, 03:40 PM

selfAdjoint,
Before you go too much into that line of thought, perhaps we would do well to have a good working definition of 'consciousness'. I tend to think of most cordata as having consciousness, where as self-awareness (at least in my mind) is more easily defined and demonstrated, and more restricted.

Rader

Dec8-03, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by radagast
In the examples you give, there is no reason, whatsoever, to consider them self-aware. There is no decision making, on there part, that cannot be explained easier by deterministic behaviour.

I can agree to that. Deterministic > The philosophical doctrine that every event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedents that are independent of the human will.

Everything that occurs in the objective world, is a choice. The wave funtion collapses every time there is a observation, choice, decision

Just so we don't argue at cross-definitions: Self-awareness - to be aware of one's own existense.

Yes, on the same evolutionary level of it. The sef-awareness, which i am referring to, is existance of it, on all levels of evolution.

In this regards, then most apes are self-aware. Humans gain self-awareness at about the age of two. The test used for this involves a mirror. When the individual in front of the mirror realises that the image is themselves, this is taken as 'de-facto' evidence of self-awareness. It is understood that they are self-aware, using this experiment, because their behaviour is markedly different from when they encounter another person/entity. Given this is what is used my the psycology papers I've read, it's the definition I use.

Self-awareness of the individual human varies, in time and place but it has a human level. We are not talking about the same thing. Self-aware on the evolutinalry level only.

This property is, in no way, simple. It requires much brain/computation power. Machines have not yet attained any form of consciousness, much less self-awareness. This is not found in the simpler life forms.

We can make that statement but simple systems that are less self=aswre, do evlove to higher systems, more self-aware and of the previous.

Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a simple self-aware system, then I consider this dismissable on grounds that Occam's razor would deign it less rational.

I did that. Where does the gene get its instructions from? The previous level and where does that level get it from the previous ect ect ect.

My thesis that all things contain SAS, self-aware on there own evolutionary level is, based on the postulate that a creator leaves in its creations, the laws the form and the knowlege and the creation chooses its direction.
A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof. But then there is no proofs of anything. A proposition that is maintained by argument and observation. We observe that there are levels of awarenss, evloution and consciousness. We are the most self-aware entity, we can make this observation down the scale.
[8)]

Rader

Dec8-03, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by radagast
[B]non-sequitur, the existence of god, which according to legend existed prior to humans, could therefore not be contigent on humans not believeing the it exists.

By being created in the image and likeness of the creator, that would desolve that statement.

Simpler alternate views exists.

Yes there always is but thats mine.

This has a basis that's flawed. It assumes probabilities, which there are no basis to assume. Factors are assumed to have been arrived at by chance, just because no mechanism is known. - aka "God of the Gaps" argument flaw.

Whats your aternative solution, to answer the question then?

Individually, human consciousness can increse/decrease. A coma is the lack of consciousness. Sleep is a reduced state of consciousness. Waking life is state of enhanced consciousness.

Yes true but there is a level of human consciousness and awareness that is unique to all others.

Other than this, explain how consciousness can increase. Intelligence would be hard pressed to equate to consciousness.

The physcial reason complexity of the entitiy. Spritual reason through grace.

Actually, this has been shown to be incorrect. There are many simple systems that can be shown to be self-organizing. Simple computer systems can be shown to be self-organizing, without being programmed specifically to be self-organising.

All systems are built from subsystems of prior SAS.

[QUOTE]I consider it definitely not the case.

My conclusion is based on a logical sequence of observation.
[8)]

agnostictheist

Dec8-03, 04:13 PM

"To be honest, I'm having again I don't understand what you are saying here. What absolute proof do you think there can be? The nearest we seem to have IMO is logical or mathematical proof - truths which are neccessarily the case by given definition."

Proof: has in that what IS - existence

annoyingly is worthy unuseful!

"but these sorts of proofs cannot be directly applied to the world -"

some mathemtical proof can so, for example many systems of maths actually had there origin or represent the world, and thus direct or indirect they are still "proofs"

However having said that, one can bring up Godels incompelteness theorm which fundermentally states that something within a system can not prove or disprove certain premises in a system: and this applies to all of mathematics. (and logic, which most regard has a subset of maths)

the point is we are part of this nice system, so I have no intention of providing an example of a proof, because then the arguement I present will thus need to inturn need to be "proved"

if you ask me, there is still a proof of sorts, in the form of self reffering statements, however they tend to be anayltical - and ciruclar and while again not very satisfing or useful, it is a start.

consider the phase:

all things are relevetive (and within that we have a constant)

"they are just self-consistent systems"

yes

"And claims about rality have even more hurdles to absolute knowledge."

I have a distinction between Knowledge, and truthal [true knowledge ] like I said the problem arise in comman languge.

"What would be 'evil' about giving us a level-playing field? He is not testing people's goodness or how much they would support him if they realised he was real, he is testing their gullibility, the extent to which they accept emotionally appealing ideas without question. What kind of sick test is that?"

your making the assumption, that God setted the system in such a way, when it could have arisen has a result of "sin" or people going aganist the intail intent.... people are responsible for the gullibility, and in most cases can over come it, if they were not so pre-assumptious and rigid. or one track minded.... why does this have to be Gods fault?

"Sure but I don't think he would be any sort of decent father at all if he disappears before the kids are born, never calls and then thrashes them (for eternity) when they don't even think he exists. And this father is supposed to be perfect goodness and love incarnate?!"

Now has he disppeared, or simply appear not to be there, has a result of one being onsided? in that I mean you might expect him to stand at the door, when in fact he could be with you in heart.

actually thrashing is a result of them knowing of God but its were he is not, becuase they have to reject the truthal way.

"The capital 'G' is a term of respect and adoration used by the followers of one god who now insist is the only one, and which it would be inappropriate for me to use."

actually its more to it, is also a cultural thing, for example a god.. can reffer by some defintions has a shining one, much like some vedic practices and even Greek, while God is very different.

Gravity elves MAY exist. Osiris MAY exist, Santa MAY exist, God MAY exist and really be waiting to reward those who make the most money or live the most fully and freely. There are as many of these untestable hypotheses as you can think of.

arguement I have seen time and time again, has for santa he DOES exist, anyone whom read history would of know who saint Nick is, and thus while this argument can for my faith or aganist, it is true that at last some of what santa stands for does exist!

Osiris cults, span probably back to older myths pre-egyptian such has in other parts of africa (using an example like this was probably a poor pick has I read much acient egyptology )

and anyone whom beleives God, in the christian type- sense would matain that God shows himself slowly and in many ways, throughout history, disargees with a affinity with nature...

the thing is while God can not be tested, in the normal sense - the concept of God would be unfair to subject to the test, unlike santa, and even osiris (you see osiris and horus make the dead, a living God often reffered to has the phaoroh) becuase God is beyond it, and even a materalist would argee that infinite knowelege [human] is not possible.

and finally simply becasue something can not be varified does not mean by defult is false, .... o how Godelian systems show up in the most unlikely of places!

radagast

Dec8-03, 04:35 PM

----------
Originally posted by radagast
In the examples you give, there is no reason, whatsoever, to consider them self-aware. There is no decision making, on there part, that cannot be explained easier by deterministic behaviour.
----------

I can agree to that. Deterministic > The philosophical doctrine that every event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedents that are independent of the human will.

Well, I personally was speaking of your self-aware eletrons and subatomic particles. You have given zero reason to believe that they show any behaviour that indicates they are self-aware. Or for that much, that anything below the level of chimpanzees are self-aware. Until such time, I can't see your SAS module surviving Occam.

-------
This has a basis that's flawed. It assumes probabilities, which there are no basis to assume. Factors are assumed to have been arrived at by chance, just because no mechanism is known. - aka "God of the Gaps" argument flaw.
-------
Whats your aternative solution, to answer the question then?

We have found, through trial and error, that apparently random factors and constants were often dependent on simpler physical laws.

To assume that anything unexplained is just the work of a designer, is a mental cop-out. aka god of the gaps.

Self-awareness of the individual human varies, in time and place but it has a human level. We are not talking about the same thing. Self-aware on the evolutinalry level only.

Since you seem to want to rewrite dictionary meanings, without warning, then I will have to invoke the equivocation argument flaw.

Yes true but there is a level of human consciousness and awareness that is unique to all others.

This is not a generally accepted fact/truth, so invalid to use as an accepted fact within a debate. If you wish to make carte-blache statements, feel free, but please make it clear you are not debating.

All systems are built from subsystems of prior SAS.

A statement, not a debating point. This is what I thought you were endeavoring to show via logical debate. I can state that angels come kiss my butt every evening, but if I plan on making it part of logical discourse, I have to back it up by showing it, thru logical argumentation from generally accepted evidence.

I'm here because I like to debate, share ideas, and have my ideas challenged. Not to listen to someone on a soapbox. If you veer back into logical debate, let me know.

Sir Adam

Dec9-03, 10:28 PM

It doesnt matter really.... religion brings out the good in lots of people and gives lots of morals, without it, the world would be darkened. Also: I think that the whole issue with "God" and "how the universe began" is beyond the human mind. I dont think we can ever find THE answer.... and prove it....

radagast

Dec10-03, 09:46 AM

Sir Adam,
Your position is one I have no problems with.

I take exception when someone tries to 'prove' something they accept on faith, using faulty logical arguments.

Regarding Morals and religion:
I, personally, do not believe that if religions didn't offer moral values, that no one would act morally. Most, in the west, are not strongly religious - i.e. when they do something, the religious implications are not generally considered (short of being a very major act, such as murder, adultery). A more empirical way of looking at it would be to look at the religious views of the populace corrolated with the time spent in jail. The percentage of non-theistic folk in jail is lower or equal to that of the populace in general. Obviously the moral teachings of the religious segment didn't keep them from prison.

Morals arise in all cultures, regardless of religion. Religion will always have some association with morals, simply because the spiritual is antithetic to debauched behavior, just as moral action is antithetic to debauched behavior. I this example, I'm using debauched behavior to mean behavior where one submits to their basest, most short term desires, regardless of the long term consequences. Sort of the opposite of asceticism.

Morals can be seen as the subconscious group realization that behaviors that benefit the group benefit everyone, long term, at the expense of some short term, personal gains. These type 'morals' can be seen in primate groups, canine packs, and most groups of 'social' mammals. These morals may not map, one to one, with the general human 'morals', but they do play an important function in improving the overall well being of the individuals in the group.

Mumeishi

Dec11-03, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by agnostictheist
your making the assumption, that God setted the system in such a way, when it could have arisen has a result of "sin" or people going aganist the intail intent.... people are responsible for the gullibility, and in most cases can over come it, if they were not so pre-assumptious and rigid. or one track minded.... why does this have to be Gods fault?

God made the world, God formed this Grand Plan, God peopled the world with... people, God made human nature. If the system has gone so badly wrong that bilions will be damned because of the 'sins' of others, who's fault could it possibly be apart from God's. Anyway, there is no evidence that the world was ever different, that at any time Mr Yahweh made himself universally evident, across one nation, let alone the world.

Originally posted by agnostictheist
Now has he disppeared, or simply appear not to be there, has a result of one being onsided? in that I mean you might expect him to stand at the door, when in fact he could be with you in heart.
No that's heat-burn. Should I conclude the existence of the God of Indigestion from this feeling or should I take an Alkaseltzer?

Originally posted by agnostictheist
actually thrashing is a result of them knowing of God but its were he is not, becuase they have to reject the truthal way.
According to Christianity, atheists like me will go to hell. Atheists do not 'know of' God except as a sociological/psychoogical fairy tale with no more reality than Thor, Spiderman, Santa Clause or unicorns. You are claiming that people like me really do believe there is a 'God' yet reject him. This is false. Apart from anything else, what possible benefit would I get from rejecting God if he existed? And why would I have to pretend that I didn't believe he existed?

Originally posted by agnostictheist
actually its more to it, is also a cultural thing, for example a god.. can reffer by some defintions has a shining one, much like some vedic practices and even Greek, while God is very different.
It seems to be a strategy employed by Yahwehists to semantically enforce their monotheistic revolution. I won't help them. Yahweh to me is on exactly the same mythical level as Baal and Astaroth. How is 'God' different?

Originally posted by agnostictheist
arguement I have seen time and time again, has for santa he DOES exist, anyone whom read history would of know who saint Nick is, and thus while this argument can for my faith or aganist, it is true that at last some of what santa stands for does exist!
Yes, and the same can be said of Yahweh. Yet theists claim a different sort of reality for their god than a cultural one.

Originally posted by agnostictheist
Osiris cults, span probably back to older myths pre-egyptian such has in other parts of africa (using an example like this was probably a poor pick has I read much acient egyptology )
It was a good example because it made my point well. Myths evolve from other myths. This is the case with all myths. The Osiris myth formed out of an amalgam of local mythical characters - Sokar, Khentiamentiu and probably others, as the nation became increasingly unified and cultural ideas intermingled. The myths changed during this process and evolved with time of course. It is a fact of Egyptology that there is no identified Osiris cult earlier than the 5th Dynasty. Do you think that the existence of precursors somehow means Osiris is real or makes him real?

Originally posted by agnostictheist

and anyone whom beleives God, in the christian type- sense would matain that God shows himself slowly and in many ways, throughout history, disargees with a affinity with nature...
Repeat in English please. Why does God consider ancient myth and occasional unreliable anecdote to be sufficient for supposedly sane people to believe in the existence of something they have never experienced themselves directly?

Originally posted by agnostictheist

the thing is while God can not be tested, in the normal sense - the concept of God would be unfair to subject to the test, unlike santa, and even osiris (you see osiris and horus make the dead, a living God often reffered to has the phaoroh) becuase God is beyond it, and even a materalist would argee that infinite knowelege [human] is not possible.
This is circular logic because you are using the presupposition of his existence and the presupposition of his (oh-so-convenient-this-will-get-us-off-the-hook) 'immunity to normal rules of evidence and logic' in order to demonstrate or defend his existence. This is known as 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. It is also called the 'Special Pleading' fallacy. All existential claims have the same criteria of evidence needed in order to support them.

Originally posted by agnostictheist
and finally simply becasue something can not be varified does not mean by defult is false, .... o how Godelian systems show up in the most unlikely of places!
Seems like a pretty good place for a Godelian system. This is why it is so important to have actual evidence and not rely entirely on the sophistry of philosophy.
The default is not certain falseness. The default is the background noise of vanishingly small hypothetical possibilities where live the doughnut trolls, gravity elves, invisible unicorns and the like. Only actual evidence can pull a hypothesis out of that froth of virtual entities.

Mumeishi

Dec11-03, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Sir Adam
It doesnt matter really.... religion brings out the good in lots of people and gives lots of morals, without it, the world would be darkened. Also: I think that the whole issue with "God" and "how the universe began" is beyond the human mind. I dont think we can ever find THE answer.... and prove it....

When the Christian Church was at the height of its power the world was darkened - that's why it was called the 'Dark Ages'.

Rader

Dec11-03, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
When the Christian Church was at the height of its power the world was darkened - that's why it was called the 'Dark Ages'.

It was not until 500 years later that the Catholic Church realized that Copernicus was right. There was persecution of knowledge because the Catholic Church had the power in the Middle Ages. Now in the New Age, science has the power. Atheism and liberalism are at there heights. Nothing has changed, just two sides of the same coin. There were great saints in those days as there is today. There was evil in the world then and there is now. Yet human consciousness has advanced to a greater self awareness of what direction to take. We have made progress.
[8)]

Rader

Dec11-03, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by radagast
Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a simple self-aware system, then I consider this dismissable on grounds that Occam's razor would deign it less rational. [/B]

Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom
The old two slit experiment has replicable evidence of bizzare particle wisdom.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A gun is able to fire one atom every hour at a plate with photographic emulsion on its surface. If an atom hits the plate it makes a spot on the film. If a solid plate is placed in front of the back emulsion film, any atom striking the front solid plate is stopped and seen no more. If the atom happens to pass through the slit on the front plate it continues to the photographic emulsion.

When only one slit is open, the gun continues to fire one atom an hour and a large number of spots accumulate on the emulsion and one can notice the expected fuzzy diffraction pattern. Now if the first slit is closed and the second slit is opened in the front solid plate, the repeated atom firings produce the same pattern but offset by the distance that separates the the two slits. The atoms are producing the diffraction pattern characteristics of waves passing through a narrow harbor opening.

Now when both slits are opened and again the gun fires one atom at a time the individual atoms no longer land randomly within the usual diffraction pattern. Instead they fall only within the specific "allowed' regions where the light bands of the interference pattern appear and never in the dark band regions. Seems reasonable doesn't it?

But wait! This cannot be. A single atom was fired at a time. There is no other atom, be it wave or particle with which to interfere and cancel each other. Yet the interference pattern occurs and the dark bands appear. A single particle can only go through one of the slits. Already noted that atoms going through the single slit falls everywhere with the diffraction pattern with none of the alternating light and dark bands that result from the interference of waves at the emulsion screen. Although both slits are open, and still firing only one atom at a time,it must travel to only one of the two slits and go through that slit. If the other slit is closed it lands anywhere within the diffraction pattern. If the other slit is open, it never lands in the dark (forbidden) regions originally seen in the interference pattern which developed when there were two slits open.

The atom is a single entity, with a fixed locality. In its passage through one slit, why should opening or closing the other slit have any effect upon its passage? How can it "know' if the second slit is open or closed? But it does know !!!! Somehow the atom is aware of its environment.

The identical results are obtained with firing single photons. Photon particles of light that travel at the speed of light, the now considered maximum speed attainable in our universe. Even if the photon is infinitely extended, in the time it travels from the photon gun to the open slit it cannot have 'felt' the second slit, check to see if that second slit was open or closed, communicated that information to the portion passing through the first slit and then decided where on the screen it was permitted to land and where it was forbidden. There was no time for the feeler to make the round trip.

This is bizarre.

Attribution: Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. physics department MIT

Sign up for free and check these links:

http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6888-1.html
http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6921-1.html
http://www.nature.com/physics/physics.taf?file=/physics/highlights/6855-2.html
[8)]

agnostictheist

Dec11-03, 07:49 PM

"God made the world, God formed this Grand Plan, God peopled the world with... people, God made human nature."

God made human nature, mind defining that. just what is human nature? that can mean many things!

God made the "world", correct but your point fails to complelety capture the point that the world we are in - is not what was "formed" by God.... you also seem not to undertake the possiblity that God had a hand in shaping, but did not make it like "clockwork". thus your statement is very missleading.

if you want to use anther logical fallacy try being to specfic in ones example.

"If the system has gone so badly wrong that bilions will be damned because of the 'sins' of others, who's fault could it possibly be apart from God's."

what about the people whom helped to make it the way, going aganist Gods intent.

"Anyway, there is no evidence that the world was ever different"

Doesnt have to be, thats one very narrow minded specfic reading of christian theology mainly in taken the bible to literuly, those not exclusively.... for example one can argue that the world is a process, and that Gods has an intent, that we could of chosen.

"No that's heat-burn. Should I conclude the existence of the God of Indigestion from this feeling or should I take an Alkaseltzer?"

Have I said God thus MUST exist, no.

I was just disagree with your point, that doesnt thus mean God does exist.

"According to Christianity, atheists like me will go to hell."

Then I suggest you should read christian variants before asserting such a big claim, for example there are many defintions of the term "atheist" - not just yours - which are externally used from christanity too, and so one can argue that it means one that lacks a beleif in God... what about some tribes whom never heard of God, some christians beleive that because they dont know, or heard of God, they thus have not rejected, nor is fault of there own so therefore they dont go to hell... yet they can be termed "atheist" - under the one defintion I added above, they are of course more. But it indicates why you point is dangerously incomplete.

(you also seem blissfuly unaware I dont no your own stance of your atheism, so I didnt comment on it)

"Atheists do not 'know of God except as a sociological/psychoogical fairy tale with no more reality than Thor, Spiderman, Santa Clause or unicorns."

No not at all, unless you want to put words into ALL atheists mouths - Some simply beleive that there is a lack of "evidence" to support the claim of Gods existence, THAT doesnt mean they nesscerly all reject Gods existence, but has your so determined to speak for the whole atheist comunity by all means do so...

"You are claiming that people like me really do believe there is a 'God' yet reject him. This is false."

That is true, it is false -- but then again I never said that people like you really do beleive, you simply putting the cart before the horse.

"Apart from anything else, what possible benefit would I get from rejecting God if he existed?"

wouldnt that vary from person to person, I am not you - I dont know what you might gain or not, and would it actually matter, unless that to reject would thus generate a gain? so what doesnt validate in invalid the arguments.

"And why would I have to pretend that I didn't believe he existed?"

you dont - never said you did.

"It seems to be a strategy employed by Yahwehists to semantically enforce their monotheistic revolution. I won't help them. Yahweh to me is on exactly the same mythical level as Baal and Astaroth. How is 'God' different?"

The claim presented by Yahweh is beyond the "natural", yet IF the exists this God, the natural spun from him thus to argue something is naturalistic Does not argue for or aganist Gods existence, but IF he does exist (which is a different question) then the natural is simply PART of the reason for if God existed HOW would he of done "this".

"Yes, and the same can be said of Yahweh. Yet theists claim a different sort of reality for their god than a cultural one."

what makes you so sure that the cultural one is nesscerly exclusive form a "theist" one.

"It was a good example because it made my point well. Myths evolve from other myths. "

Intresting claim, now back it up - the point is your provided a argument that lies within the context of the "provable" God IF there exists a transcedent one, is beyond this, that doesnt mean we cant use science - in some form, those not about God himself, but science does not say anything for or aganist God.

"This is the case with all myths. The Osiris myth formed out of an amalgam of local mythical characters"

unlikely its more possible it had its origins with some kind of "life circle" hence in early osiris myths he was concerned with a fertilty god ( christians will argue that other gods were simply constructed by man - or unless one is a fundie, or maybe not always a fundie, a fallen angel - but God was beyond all this "natural", that doesnt mean that the early monotheistic traditions are thus the true faiths, while I personally beleive being a catholic that one is VERY VERY generally correct. the faith, and religion is a "process", and simply stating by natural means does not mean its thus the exclusive opposite, nor does it prove my arguement... notice why I am AGNOSTIC.

- "Sokar, Khentiamentiu and probably others, as the nation became increasingly unified and cultural ideas intermingled. The myths changed during this process and evolved with time of course. It is a fact of Egyptology that there is no identified Osiris cult earlier than the 5th Dynasty. Do you think that the existence of precursors somehow means Osiris is real or makes him real?"

Not that it really would matter anyway< i am all for evolution and dont pinn it down to thus MUST be God.

"This is circular logic because you are using the presupposition of his existence and the presupposition of his (oh-so-convenient-this-will-get-us-off-the-hook)"

I talked about circular reason already, and againt the point is I never Use the argument to thus declare Gods existence, never argee in doing so either.

assume we have the mere concept of a transdent God (for argument sake he does not exist - this is the given premise, but is not known) how do you suggest we make a fair test for it? we cant nor can one provided evidence for the non-existent (negative claims), so shall we now conlude he thus exists? - NO! should we thus conlude he doesnt NO! But thats slighty different from actually asking for EVDIDENCE for Gods non-existant, right subject matter but they are not the same thing.

The point is simple, thats the claim of God, thats different to the vast majority of other gods!, but unlike you I won't attempt to oversimplfiy things sure, other gods have had character aspects of this sort, but it does not change what is important - that the tests we provide are not suitible.

"immunity to normal rules of evidence and logic'"

evidence has many forms, it does not proof things, unless beyond a resonible doudt, but evidence has for has Yahweh is concered can always be argued - reason - with doudt (if the claim is for or aganist) and logic by itself many merely make one wrong with authority.

"in order to demonstrate or defend his existence. This is known as 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. It is also called the 'Special Pleading' fallacy. All existential claims have the same criteria of evidence needed in order to support them."

there is also a fallcy of providing the wrong examples: in this case I didnt claim God exists, and also the fallacy that nor do I assert that logic alone can "prove" Gods existence, or logic alone should really on how one gets to God, one would look very stupid if in fact God does not act always logically, or in a manner of logic that we can not see.

"The default is not certain falseness. "

stop putting words into my mouth. how could an angostic in this case be certain?

Mumeishi

Dec12-03, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by agnostictheist
God made human nature, mind defining that. just what is human nature? that can mean many things!
Yes, many things - including our selfishness, lust, hate, aggression, greed etc.

God made the "world", correct but your point fails to complelety capture the point that the world we are in - is not what was "formed" by God.... you also seem not to undertake the possiblity that God had a hand in shaping, but did not make it like "clockwork". thus your statement is very missleading.
...
what about the people whom helped to make it the way, going aganist Gods intent.
Whether it worked 'by clockwork' or not, God supposedly made the entire system, including the nature of the ones who supposedly spoiled it. If he wanted it to remain as a paradise, why did he give 'freewill' to a bunch of flawed creatures? That's just irresponsible.

Imagine a future scenario where a scientist genetically engineered a population of intelligent creatures and then disappeared, leaving only rumours that he even existed and a whole range of 'rulebooks' none of which were unambiguously authorised by him, and unsurprisingly members of the population had different ideas about whether he existed or what he was or which rules were right and there was violence and terrible battles. The responsibility for creating that situation would be with the scientist.

Doesnt have to be, thats one very narrow minded specfic reading of christian theology mainly in taken the bible to literuly, those not exclusively.... for example one can argue that the world is a process, and that Gods has an intent, that we could of chosen.
When, as a species, could we have chosen this? In the Garden of Eden? There is no eidence of such a time. Our ancestors back in the Pre-Cambrian era? If you believe in evolution. Or another time? Did we have freewill and face divine judgement when we were slimy amphibians crawling on the mudbanks and fighting over mates and food?

I was just disagree with your point, that doesnt thus mean God does exist.
Yes, and can you justify your disagreement?

Then I suggest you should read christian variants before asserting such a big claim, for example there are many defintions of the term "atheist" - not just yours - which are externally used from christanity too, and so one can argue that it means one that lacks a beleif in God... what about some tribes whom never heard of God, some christians beleive that because they dont know, or heard of God, they thus have not rejected, nor is fault of there own so therefore they dont go to hell... yet they can be termed "atheist" - under the one defintion I added above, they are of course more. But it indicates why you point is dangerously incomplete.
Your use of the term 'rejected' is misleadingly close to 'rebelled', which is certainly not the case. I have not 'rejected' God in any emotional sense of shunning allegiance, the only sense I could be said to have rejected him is that I have rejected the hypothesis as a credible one, based on the available evidence. I have rejected the idea that the earth is hollow, and the existence of elves and the god Vishnu in similar ways.

No not at all, unless you want to put words into ALL atheists mouths - Some simply beleive that there is a lack of "evidence" to support the claim of Gods existence, THAT doesnt mean they nesscerly all reject Gods existence, but has your so determined to speak for the whole atheist comunity by all means do so...
Of course I am speaking primarily of atheists like me, however I was unaware the the all-loving one had a different torture in store for those who simply lack belief in God.
For clarity - here is a summary of my position: Until very recently I would have been classed as a 'weak atheist' ie I simply lacked any beliefs in gods. It is not rational to absolute exclude an untestable hypothesis, but there is no evidence to justify a belief in any gods. However, I realised that that in real terms I did have a belief that there was no God, or almost certainly no God. People need to make decisions in order to function otherwise we would be perpetually paralysed with indecision and doubt. It is rational to pick the hypothesis with the most verifiable evidence, greatest logical consistency etc. (This is the difference between rational and irrational belief). So, I do think or believe that there is no God, but a belief should never be an absolute thing, more of a working hypothesis, which is potentially subject to alteration or even complete abandonment - all of my beliefs have a little 'hole' in them. So I believe, but don't know that there is no God.

The claim presented by Yahweh is beyond the "natural", yet IF the exists this God, the natural spun from him thus to argue something is naturalistic Does not argue for or aganist Gods existence, but IF he does exist (which is a different question) then the natural is simply PART of the reason for if God existed HOW would he of done "this".
I have no idea what you are saying.

what makes you so sure that the cultural one is nesscerly exclusive form a "theist" one. "
Because the cultural existence of God, ie' the idea of God can exist independently of the actual existence of a God. No one sane would deny the former, but theists are claiming much more than this for their hypothetical entity. Did he or did he not create the universe, give evolution a helping hand/create mankind 'out of clay', punsh people with floods and plagues, send his 'son' to earth in a botched attempt to 'save' them and does he or does he not judge us in the afterlife? These are critical questions. If God is no more or less than a cultural phenomenon, then the atheists are correct not the theists. Do you think we can make things real just by believing? If that's true we can change God and change the world just by believing differently.

Intresting claim, now back it up - the point is your provided a argument that lies within the context of the "provable" God IF there exists a transcedent one, is beyond this, that doesnt mean we cant use science - in some form, those not about God himself, but science does not say anything for or aganist God.
There is no scientific evidence for God and plenty of scientific evidence that many aspects of the theistic story, as given in the Bible etc, is simply wrong.

unlikely its more possible it had its origins with some kind of "life circle" hence in early osiris myths he was concerned with a fertilty god

Sokar was a fertility god.

christians will argue that other gods were simply constructed by man - or unless one is a fundie, or maybe not always a fundie, a fallen angel - but God was beyond all this "natural", that doesnt mean that the early monotheistic traditions are thus the true faiths, while I personally beleive being a catholic that one is VERY VERY generally correct. the faith, and religion is a "process", and simply stating by natural means does not mean its thus the exclusive opposite, nor does it prove my arguement... notice why I am AGNOSTIC.
Many religious ideas are mutually exclusive. How do you diffentiate the very very generally correct from the incorrect if not on the basis of evidence?

I talked about circular reason already, and againt the point is I never Use the argument to thus declare Gods existence, never argee in doing so either. Evidence is the most reliable way to discriminate between a credible possibility and a purely hypothetical one. There is no more for God than there is for the tooth fairy and that's the bottom line. Your faith is probably just evidence of the way this particular viral meme-complex has subverted your thinking processes.

assume we have the mere concept of a transdent God (for argument sake he does not exist - this is the given premise, but is not known) how do you suggest we make a fair test for it? we cant nor can one provided evidence for the non-existent (negative claims), so shall we now conlude he thus exists? - NO! should we thus conlude he doesnt NO! But thats slighty different from actually asking for EVDIDENCE for Gods non-existant, right subject matter but they are not the same thing.
I already pointed out that this is the same level of credibility as for any untestable hypothesis we can construct and there are as many as we have imagination to think of them. Do you think it is equally valid as invalid or equally probable as improbable that there are invisible whales in space or that the world was made by a malevolent computer programmer? If not, why not?

The point is simple, thats the claim of God, thats different to the vast majority of other gods!, but unlike you I won't attempt to oversimplfiy things sure, other gods have had character aspects of this sort, but it does not change what is important - that the tests we provide are not suitible.
This makes no sense.

evidence has many forms, it does not proof things, unless beyond a resonible doudt, but evidence has for has Yahweh is concered can always be argued - reason - with doudt (if the claim is for or aganist) and logic by itself many merely make one wrong with authority.
Don't beat abvout the bush. What evidence have you got?

Mumeishi

Dec12-03, 09:01 AM

CONTINUED:

there is also a fallcy of providing the wrong examples: in this case I didnt claim God exists, and also the fallacy that nor do I assert that logic alone can "prove" Gods existence, or logic alone should really on how one gets to God, one would look very stupid if in fact God does not act always logically, or in a manner of logic that we can not see.
Alright, so you are saying you believe God exists, but cannot know? Well, no one can argue with that, but I am saying that your belief is unjustified by evidence or logic and that faith alone is not justification.

stop putting words into my mouth. how could an angostic in this case be certain?
I'm not - you have misunderstood. These are words from my mouth.

radagast

Dec12-03, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Rader
Evidence that Atoms Have Bizzare Wisdom
The old two slit experiment has replicable evidence of bizzare particle wisdom.

Let see, you apply macro world rules to the quantum arena, and when you don't get the common sense, macro world response, so you label it wisdom. You know, I usually have a higher standard for wisdom than that, but that's just me.

Usually for something that is both conscious and self-aware, I would expect the ability to make more than one simple yes/no decision.

I would agree that much in the world is unknown, much acts in ways that are so far from common sense as to appear inexplicable. Attributing it to god, SAS, or gremlins, is a varient of the god of the gaps argument flaw - attribution of characteristics and causes due to lack of knowledge, with no basis for making such an attribution.

onycho

Dec12-03, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Royce
God can not be proven. No one can prove to you or anyone else that God does or does not exist. We experience God within ourselves and know God and know that he exists. It is beyond belief and beyond what is normally thought of as faith. Once God is experienced within ourselves there is no longer any need for proof.
The way this has happened to a number of us is through meditation and acceptance and asking while meditating.

Oh but the proof lies within the obvious.

Statistically, the fact that consciousness appears to exist outside of any mathematical probability or measurement.

Experimentally replicable evidence that sub-atomic particles(of which we indvidually seem to be composed) have an innate wisdom as seen in the split screen firing of photons gives rise to indirect evidence of an unseen hand in everything.

Finally, for us mortals to visualize a singularity or timelessness wherein a Creator has existed with no past, prsent or future timefrane, no substance or attributes or needs to be created out of something on any level. But for the human mind to comprehend things outside of our own experience can lead to relating everything to what humans perceive.

Ergo, you must have verifiable proof that no Creator exists to exclude the obvious.

Rader

Dec12-03, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by radagast
Let see, you apply macro world rules to the quantum arena, and when you don't get the common sense, macro world response, so you label it wisdom. You know, I usually have a higher standard for wisdom than that, but that's just me.

Radagast the macro world, is a result of the quantum arena, the rules could appear to be different because we observe on our level of SAS. Its not as if i was pulling a rabbit out of a hat, there is experimental observation of choice on the atomic level as there is on all levels. On no level of evolution is there a clear explantion of how complexity from less complexity knows how to arrnge itself. A mathematical SAS self aware structure can be accountble for this.

Usually for something that is both conscious and self-aware, I would expect the ability to make more than one simple yes/no decision.

Again i will try and explain my thesis to you, in away you might understand it. Mathematical SAS can be simple or complex it depends on the amount of axioms and the construct. Using simply the numbers 0 and 1 an infinitely long amount of commands can be built up to evolve complexity.

I would agree that much in the world is unknown, much acts in ways that are so far from common sense as to appear inexplicable. Attributing it to god, SAS, or gremlins, is a varient of the god of the gaps argument flaw - attribution of characteristics and causes due to lack of knowledge, with no basis for making such an attribution.

You are making three choices here. In order to have a SAS structure you would need a creator, so both then would not be excluded.

I would tend to argee with you if we were posting 500 years ago, but today we have direct observation of these things and experimental confirmed data that something strange is going on in the quantum world that appears to be observation and decision of atomic particles.
[8)]

agnostictheist

Dec14-03, 01:00 PM

"Yes, many things - including our selfishness, lust, hate, aggression, greed etc."

and why assert that these are thus due to God?.. you proced by saying:

"Whether it worked 'by clockwork' or not, God supposedly made the entire system,"

If the systems were made in clockwork fashion, then God is at fault, but if it is not, then one cant even say indirectly the faults of the system are actually a result of God, the responce to what you say next may present a philosophical reason as to why...

"including the nature of the ones who supposedly spoiled it. If he wanted it to remain as a paradise, why did he give 'freewill' to a bunch of flawed creatures? That's just irresponsible."

If God did not give us freewill, then we are simply a bunch of worthless -zombie like - machines, with great limitations, it is quite possible that we are a machines of sorts,eg our genes play are major part: but you fail to note that if we have freewill we could of been "created" perfect, and that we had the potential, without an external infulence - but not nesscerly exluding it, to chose to do Good or Evil, and even make our own defintions of this. Your comment basicly is attempting to argue against a christian theology - which is fair enough, but in doing so ignores other aspects of it.

"Imagine a future scenario where a scientist genetically engineered a population of intelligent creatures and then disappeared"

the scenario is already grossly incorrect, very few christians beleive that God created a system and then just let it be, even may argument does not exclude this, and was in fact just to highlight that the "universe" NOW does not need its created after the point of creation and external to time.

Most xtains hold that God still plays a role in some form or anther in ever ourselfs, has a form of guide, or even throw science means, and finally by ways that we can not know of - after all God is supose to be transcedent so one can't measure all of Gods "acts". so the last two points can be used together, though not at the same time and in the same context and measure.

"leaving only rumours that he even existed and a whole range of 'rulebooks' none of which were unambiguously authorised by him, and unsurprisingly members of the population had different ideas"

the point about many people having different ideas is somewhat worthless, for starts YES ok its true, but with this great diversity there are SOME convergence of ideas, and simlairties! also I dont claim that I can thus understand God, may understand certian aspects in some context, but thats very different so i would expect to see this, and Finally culture would colour my veiw (yes this can swing both ways)

"about whether he existed or what he was or which rules were right and there was violence and terrible battles. The responsibility for creating that situation would be with the scientist."

or maybe the created "objects" responsiblity may dwell in the passage not the end points or the distinations themselfs.

"When, as a species, could we have chosen this?"

we didnt, it was already placed within the what was to be created, we did not have full freewill, I didnt have a choice to be born. but that doesnt mean I thus have no freewill.

"In the Garden of Eden? There is no eidence of such a time."

I dont mean to be rude, but frist I stated that not to take the bible lituerally then you ask me a question that assumes a sort of bible fundermentalist veiw, in short your applying fundermentalist reasoning or interprations to a non-fundermentalist arguement!

has for the Garden of eden,hit the books! while it is true that an eden in the biblical sense, there is no evidence - eden probably in some form of anther did exist, for example Adam was a word from pre-sumerian myths. and probably orginated from ubadian culture, and if I recall means fertile settlement on the plain - of something like that.

"Our ancestors back in the Pre-Cambrian era? If you believe in evolution. Or another time? Did we have freewill and face divine judgement when we were slimy amphibians crawling on the mudbanks and fighting over mates and food?"

Did I say that our precusors had freewill no!, rather freewill EVOLVED out of the "natural world", and has I regard natural has not nesscerly exclusive oppostite form theism, those not exclusively for I have no problem with this.

you simply pushing may argument to the extremme, if you want to beleive even for that matter "WE" are some kind of pre-cambrian/cambrian worm then thats your lookout, sure your not claiming it but,it begs the question has to why bring it up. the WE is reffering to a retro-respect look at the "development" of life, and that freewill etc develop, and so simply looking AT one point of time, is a rigid look at the universe, and only a narrow minded look has to If there is a God, why not create a system that yes, we could be at the "top" but may also still develop, yet we were NOT the only "objectve", in which case all the metozia that are now extinct, we also an objective.

and before one says that this is a hallmark of a sloppy worker, it most certianly is not, a sloppy worker is one that does something and the work he does comes out badly respective of the object, Evil and what not, while ruins the work, is not at fault of a sloopy worker, has described above.

onycho

Dec14-03, 09:47 PM

The following is a quote from an MIT physicist who is now well known about the subject at hand.

There are any number of unanswerable, uncomfortable questions a person can ask, but the first one, the question from which all other questions are descended, is "Why is there an 'is'?" Why is there existence in the first place? In our fascination with life's origin and evolution, we bypass this most fundamental of conundrums. Does the very fact of existence in itself provide proof that some metaphysical non-thing. perhaps even the Godly, some undefined whatever-it-is, produced the physical by transcending it?

If we consider the finite aspects of the world we see around us, the limited nature of the time, space and matter from which we are constructed, the answer is certainly yes. Some non-thing, above or outside of the physical, must have preceded our universe or has our universe embedded in it.

But what is the material world, that which frames the puzzle of our existence? Why even bother with the existence of empty space, or even time? The basic enigma is not whether we evolved from apes or not, but why is there "being" in the first place? The very existence of existence is mind boggling. Yet we are so much a part of existence that we take it for granted—it's a "given," to use a scientific term. But step back from the subjectivity and think about it. What caused the Big Bang? What caused existence? What is existence?

"We must form a conception of the existence of the Creator according to our capacities; that is, we must have a knowledge of metaphysics (the science of a Creator), which can only be acquired after the study of physics; for the science of physics is closely connected with metaphysics and must even precede it in the course of studies. Therefore, the Almighty commenced the Bible with the description of the creation, that is, with physical science."

One might conceive of a science without religion, but it is an oxymoron to conceive of religion without science. Revelation and nature are the two aspects of one creation. Yet some two hundred and fifty years ago, the idea that science might have something to add to our understanding of spirituality was so anathema to the religious establishments that his book was burned by the religions of that time.

Some 250 years ago, a great philosopher taught that when the 'blueprint of the universe' came into the world it split into two parts. Only one part was revealed directly, the prophetic experience. The other part was hidden in the wisdoms of nature and the time will come, he said, when those hidden wisdoms will be discovered, revealing aspects of this 'blueprint' never before understood. That time has come. The hidden wisdoms of nature and science are being discovered. At the turn of the century, a physics professor would have lost tenure on the spot if caught teaching the concept that matter in all its forms of solids, liquids and gases was actually condensed energy. What hokum it would have seemed! Then came Einstein, relativity and E = mc^2, the theory that matter, m, intrinsically represents a specific amount of energy, E. And the type of matter was immaterial. As bizarre as it seems, a gram of rose petals and a gram of uranium contain identical amounts of energy. The constant in the equation, c^2 is the speed of light squared or multiplied by itself. It is a massive value, telling us that even a tiny amount of matter contains a huge quantity of latent energy. Having personally witnessed the detonation of six nuclear weapons. I suggest that we pray for peace. The fractions of a gram of matter converted into energy during those tests turned the mountain on which I stood into a quivering Jello-like substance.

In 1923, almost a decade after Einstein published his general relativity theory (no longer a theory, of course: now it is a law), the French physicist Louis de Broglie introduced an idea that was even more bizarre in its assertions than Einstein's claim that matter really was a form of energy.

De Broglie claimed that all matter has related to it a wave length and a frequency of that wave, a certain number of wave cycles per second. Not only had humanity learned that matter was not matter, we now had to believe that everything is a wave. Everything—you and I included. Seventy years of experiments have sustained both Einstein's and de Broglie's preposterous, counter intuitive claims.

The floor upon which you stand and the bedrock that supports a skyscraper are 99.999% empty space. What we perceive as solid matter is actually de Broglie's waves separated by open space, made impermeable by invisible, immaterial fields of force that somehow pervade the space. The world simply is not as it seems. A superficial reading of nature finds differentiation and disparate entities—stars and stones and bottled water and even life and death. Reading that same nature at a deeper level reveals that it's all a manifestation of a single underlying unity. I'm on our balcony. The afternoon Jerusalem sun is filtering through the yellow-green finger leaves of a eucalyptus tree planted a century ago to mark the property line. De Broglie tells me the leaves and the light are one. Not poetically—though that also—but physically, they are one.

It took humanity millennia before an Einstein discovered that, as bizarre as it may seem, matter is actually condensed energy. It may take a while longer for us to discover that there is some non-thing even more fundamental than energy that forms the basis of energy. In the words of John Archibald Wheeler, the renowned former president of the American Physical Society, recipient of the Einstein Award and Princeton professor of physics, underlying all existence is an idea, the "bit" of information that gives rise to the "it" of matter.

The substructure of all existence, we suddenly realize, is totally ethereal, an idea, wisdom. Or in Hebrew emet — an all encompassing reality. Emet is the ultimate building block from which all we see and feel is constructed. Just as the secondary substructure of all matter is something as ethereal as energy, as per Einstein's fantastic insight, so, the primary substructure of energy is still more elusive. Existence is the expression of an idea, an eternal consciousness made tangible. We are the idea of a Creator.

If we can discover that idea, we will have ascertained not only the basis for the unity that underlies all existence, but most important, the source of that unity.

radagast

Dec15-03, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Rader
[COLOR=blue]I would tend to argee with you if we were posting 500 years ago, but today we have direct observation of these things and experimental confirmed data that something strange is going on in the quantum world that appears to be observation and decision of atomic particles.
[8)]

This line of argumentation is no longer making progress. To simplify my position, I will only state this. You see certain observed behaviour in the quantum world and attribute this to something you consider self-aware. This is a position that, as far as I've seen and know, is only held by you. I and, AFAIK, the rest of the physicists engaged in the field have interpreted the evidence differently. This makes your claim extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.

onycho

Dec16-03, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by radagast
This line of argumentation is no longer making progress. To simplify my position, I will only state this. You see certain observed behaviour in the quantum world and attribute this to something you consider self-aware. This is a position that, as far as I've seen and know, is only held by you. I and, AFAIK, the rest of the physicists engaged in the field have interpreted the evidence differently. This makes your claim extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.

Radagast you make assumptions that only you and the rest of the world's physicists are somehow in possession of truths which also have no supporting evidence. The seemingly inconsistent quantum particle actions have the audacity to challenge you and a few other's long held preconceived realities. There are a number of respected physicists whose redundant experimentation and observation of quantum particle activity which hints at independent wisdom needs to be explained.

"As far as you know" no one has the right to question your own long held theories as fact. As you say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence. The supporting evidence has been duplicated by many independent reputable researchers who only make observations.

Single Slit: when a particle stream, whether light or matter, is reduced to where only one particle at a time passes through a single slit, then, after a number of particles have passed through and hit the target, a centralized grouping is found on the impact screen.

Multiple Slits: However, when a similar reduced particle-stream is passed through two or more parallel slits, a characteristic diffraction pattern develops on the impact surface. This indicates the presence of wave interference. Thus, both light radiation and matter particles have wave characteristics, even when only one particle passes through the diffraction grating at a time.
In terms of particle-wave theory, this indicates that after passing through the diffraction grating, the particle’s path must be affected by wave interference, from its own wave. As the particle passes through a slit, its associated wave front, in passing through adjacent slits, creates wave interference thus, affecting the path of the particle, and resulting in a diffraction pattern on the target.

This reinforces the premise of the wave’s physical nature. Specifically, it indicates the wave front has a degree of independence from its source-particle, and, objects in its path can affect the form of the wave front. (In other words, the wave may be reflected, refracted, or diffracted.)Generally stated, the particle-wave may be primarily wave-like – when the particle’s path is directed by its associated wave; or, particle-like – when the path of the particle-wave is directed by the path of the particle.

The more authentic illustration of the physical world became possible only when the ego-centric concept of objective and universal human perception was abandoned.

radagast

Dec17-03, 10:07 AM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.

With the observed behaviour is more being simple supporting the current explanation, compared to your SAS model, (when including all the implications of a self-aware quantum particle) Occams razor would choose the current model.

If your SAS model was that compelling, then I'm sure you would have more adherents than now. But I'm sure you are right and the rest world is wrong, an unrecognized genius that will be lauded long after you are dead...

onycho

Dec17-03, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by radagast
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.

With the observed behaviour is more being simple supporting the current explanation, compared to your SAS model, (when including all the implications of a self-aware quantum particle) Occams razor would choose the current model.

If your SAS model was that compelling, then I'm sure you would have more adherents than now. But I'm sure you are right and the rest world is wrong, an unrecognized genius that will be lauded long after you are dead...

Please forgive me for being so bold as to question your current generally accepted wholly physical model. As you have stated, "I usually have a higher standard for wisdom than that, but that's just me."

For your information the Self-Aware Substructure model is not mine. The Principle of Parsimony might well choose your current physical model but the SAS model actually appears to be the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, one that requires the fewest leaps of logic.

Because you and AFAIK find current physical theories with absolute certainty, you may also be found to be the true genius of all time. How many great physicists’ work went unrecognized by the current theorists of their day?

Few people have the wisdom to prefer the criticism that would do them good, to the praise that deceives them.

ATTRIBUTION: François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld

radagast

Dec17-03, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by onycho
For your information the Self-Aware Substructure model is not mine. The Principle of Parsimony might well choose your current physical model but the SAS model actually appears to be the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, one that requires the fewest leaps of logic.

Unless our definitions of self aware differ, self aware involves consciousness. Consciousness requires sensory mechanisms, the ability to think and reason (to some degree) just to be able to make decisions, and, argueably, memory.

This is the baggage introduced into this debate when quantum entities are said to be self-aware.

This is not simplest. When I say simplest, with regard to Occam, it always includes all that is implied by such statements.

To say "God did it" would be the simplest explanation for the universe, as long as questions that arise when examining "god" don't arise.

I apologize for my earlier sarcasm. It wasn't warranted, my irritation level was a bit high due to other causes.

onycho

Dec17-03, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by radagast

Unless our definitions of self aware differ, self aware involves consciousness. Consciousness requires sensory mechanisms, the ability to think and reason (to some degree) just to be able to make decisions, and, argueably, memory.

This is the baggage introduced into this debate when quantum entities are said to be self-aware.

I also apologize for being impudent in my last response. But I don't believe I referred to the fact that quantum entities are said to be self-aware but simply that this phenomenon appeared to be present when found by different independent investigators. Consciousness, memory and all associated mechanisms you mentioned might even be suggested in an SAS model which could account for the possibility that all the particles in the universe have an ability to instantly communicate with one another no matter the distance between them.

This is not simplest. When I say simplest, with regard to Occam, it always includes all that is implied by such statements.

Actually the pure simplicity of such SAS activity would explain a great many nano particle and atom events that currently remain statistically impossible.

Example: The inexplicable creation of a double helix arrangement of four base elements Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. A seemingly innate ability for these elements to replicate on a consistent basis and with such complexity that all life forms on this planet use as a base model. Mathematically what are the odds that the original formation that DNA occurred by pure chance during the entire time span of this universe since the moment of a Big Bang event?

To say "God did it" would be the simplest explanation for the universe, as long as questions that arise when examining "god" don't arise.

I'm not certain why "a god" would necessarily be the simplest explanation for the universe or for the physical laws of the universe. The SAS model does not necessitate a Creator when all one has is experimental observations of the apparent self-aware nature in quantum entities.

I apologize for my earlier sarcasm. It wasn't warranted, my irritation level was a bit high due to other causes.

No problem....

radagast

Dec18-03, 10:44 AM

I don't see this debate going anywhere so I will withdraw. Our positions are just too extreme, with respect to each other.

From my point of view, you are finding a small quartz crystal, deducing a jeweler made this crystal, then coming up with names for his children and wife. As I say, my point of view.

To me, the unexplained is better than multiplying entities (reasons), without bound nor supporting evidence, for the purpose of explaining the unexplained.

Mumeishi

Dec18-03, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by agnostictheist
and why assert that these are thus due to God?.. you proced by saying:
...If the systems were made in clockwork fashion, then God is at fault, but if it is not, then one cant even say indirectly the faults of the system are actually a result of God, the responce to what you say next may present a philosophical reason as to why...

God made the system
God gave man all his nature including destructive aspects
God gave man freewill
The system produces a lot of suffering, etc
Whose fault could it possibly be apart from God's?
If he intentionally let the system get out of his control leading to a lot of problems that's still his responsibility. Why can't you see that?
Not only that, but He is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so he has absolute control whether he asserts it or not. And he already knows what will happen (this contradicts the idea that man has freewill by the way)

If God did not give us freewill, then we are simply a bunch of worthless -zombie like - machines, with great limitations, it is quite possible that we are a machines of sorts,eg our genes play are major part:

This is an assumption. what do you think freewill is? Your idea of 'absolute' and 'physical' freewill seems naive.

but you fail to note that if we have freewill we could of been "created" perfect, and that we had the potential, without an external infulence - but not nesscerly exluding it, to chose to do Good or Evil, and even make our own defintions of this. Your comment basicly is attempting to argue against a christian theology - which is fair enough, but in doing so ignores other aspects of it.

A perfect being with freewill would freely act according to its nature. Your idea of freewill makes no sense. There is no external influence of evil. If evil exists it exists by God's permission or action.

the scenario is already grossly incorrect, very few christians beleive that God created a system and then just let it be, even may argument does not exclude this, and was in fact just to highlight that the "universe" NOW does not need its created after the point of creation and external to time.

An increasing number of Christians believe this. Anyway, if he intervenes every now and again he does so ineffectually - the system is already 'imperfect' acording to your own moral standards. He lety it get destructively out of control. He set it up, knowing that it must be corrupted under the nature he gave it.

Most xtains hold that God still plays a role in some form or anther in ever ourselfs, has a form of guide, or even throw science means, and finally by ways that we can not know of - after all God is supose to be transcedent so one can't measure all of Gods "acts". so the last two points can be used together, though not at the same time and in the same context and measure.

Its just a big fairy tale. I'm amazed sometimes that people in first world countries in the 21st century still believe this sort of mythology (often in a quite literal way)... then again sometimes when I talk to people it doesn't surprise me that much.

the point about many people having different ideas is somewhat worthless, for starts YES ok its true, but with this great diversity there are SOME convergence of ideas, and simlairties! also I dont claim that I can thus understand God, may understand certian aspects in some context, but thats very different so i would expect to see this, and Finally culture would colour my veiw (yes this can swing both ways).

Well, whether you should live a meek life and believe that Jesus is the messiah to get to heaven or whether you should fight to death and die a glorious on the battlefield to join Odin in the halls of Valhalla seems like quite a fundamental difference. What they do have in common is that they are both untestable belief systems with myths that enforce social control.

or maybe the created "objects" responsiblity may dwell in the passage not the end points or the distinations themselfs.

HE made them what they are.
HE gave them freewill - ie. the ability to act freely according to their nature.
HE knew what that nature was and (in God's case at least) must have known what they would do.
HE left them to it (apart from punishing them with plagues and floods for not doing what he 'intended')

I dont mean to be rude, but frist I stated that not to take the bible lituerally then you ask me a question that assumes a sort of bible fundermentalist veiw, in short your applying fundermentalist reasoning or interprations to a non-fundermentalist arguement!

So you pick and choose which bits of this religion you like then? You'll have to explain what your particular interpretation says about this topic then.

Did I say that our precusors had freewill no!, rather freewill EVOLVED out of the "natural world", and has I regard natural has not nesscerly exclusive oppostite form theism, those not exclusively for I have no problem with this.

So not only is freewill a matter of degree, but we have genes for freewill. Oh this is getting more and more funny. What is freewill and how can we have genes for it? The common interpretation of freewill of theists is that it is a property that allows being to act independently of determining factors. Those factors include the atoms of our bodies. So freewill must be a metaphysical property. Now please explain how we can have genes for a metaphysical property.

you simply pushing may argument to the extremme, if you want to beleive even for that matter "WE" are some kind of pre-cambrian/cambrian worm then thats your lookout, sure your not claiming it but,it begs the question has to why bring it up. the WE is reffering to a retro-respect look at the "development" of life,

huh?!

and that freewill etc develop, and so simply looking AT one point of time, is a rigid look at the universe, and only a narrow minded look has to If there is a God, why not create a system that yes, we could be at the "top" but may also still develop, yet we were NOT the only "objectve", in which case all the metozia that are now extinct, we also an objective.

huh?!

and before one says that this is a hallmark of a sloppy worker, it most certianly is not, a sloppy worker is one that does something and the work he does comes out badly respective of the object, Evil and what not, while ruins the work, is not at fault of a sloopy worker, has described above. [/B]

Your argument makes no sense. God (supposedly all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing so he has no excuses) created the initial situation. There can be no evil force which is independent of his influence. The system got messed up. He cannot blame the ignorant, stupid, imperfect creatures he made for messing it up - only he has ultimate responsibility.

Your ideas really don't make any sense, but you insist on believing in them. Well, good luck to you.

onycho

Dec18-03, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by radagast
I don't see this debate going anywhere so I will withdraw. Our positions are just too extreme, with respect to each other.

From my point of view, you are finding a small quartz crystal, deducing a jeweler made this crystal, then coming up with names for his children and wife. As I say, my point of view.

To me, the unexplained is better than neither multiplying entities (reasons), without bound nor supporting evidence, for the purpose of explaining the unexplained.

You have every right to withdraw from a debate you find futile.

Actually your personal perspective that the 'unexplained is better' than attempting to propose unsupported reasons or entities are a form of retreating back to those theories which are currently thought to be valid.

Personally I find it interesting to conceptualize unsupportable alternatives to the vast amount of accumulated evidence which may or may not be valid.

Take care...

agnostictheist

Dec21-03, 01:15 PM

"God gave man all his nature including destructive aspects"

you see this is why I suggested to to be familar with "christian" variants, and not to sinmply state something that argees with you,
most christian systems me inc, do not argee with this, rather they had the POTENTIAL to "develop these", yet you simply want to restate the same thing simply dressed differently.

"God gave man freewill"

Yes

"The system produces a lot of suffering"

Again same problem, some doctrines hold that suffering is merely Gods way of teaching us, or making us even more perfect, that we started from pefection, and again more orders of perfect. - not that I agree with this doctrine, but it goes to show you why you must be more specfic rather than asserting a particlar doctrine, then appearing from your body of text to be the only one..... much like you treated "atheism".

I have already addressed on this question is somewhat begging the question. the question you phased assumes some framwork that God created a system that will creat suffering.

"Whose fault could it possibly be apart from God's?"

God's... sadly those that your axioms are NOT consistent with many theological doctrines - some yes!

"If he intentionally let the system get out of his control leading to a lot of problems that's still his responsibility. Why can't you see that?"

I can, which brings me to the point why couldnt you see what you wrote is a different theological/philosophical argumentm to mine and much of christians, I am not asking you to accept mine, or discard yours, but i do disagree with your one. on the basis that your theology is ignorant.

"Not only that, but He is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so he has absolute control whether he asserts it or not. And he already knows what will happen (this contradicts the idea that man has freewill by the way)"

by the way it doesnt, God is supose to be transcedent right? in order to condradict freewill our omnipotent, omniscient God would have to have some context in "time"... but he DOESNT!

While God has "absolute control" is doesnt mean he thus "controls" our freewill. to a christian.. and this is why before you push rather fancy words around you should be aware of there speical context, God can only be defined by "him-self" - thus God is all powerful in accordance to his nature.

"This is an assumption. what do you think freewill is? Your idea of 'absolute' and 'physical' freewill seems naive."

what are you talking about, "physical freewill" i never stated freewill is physical!

"A perfect being with freewill would freely act according to its nature. Your idea of freewill makes no sense."

Yet above you seemed to ask what is my defintion of freewill and now you state it makes no sense... thats a bit odd.

"There is no external influence of evil. If evil exists it exists by God's permission or action."

please support this?, by the way "external evil" was a contigent, not a nesscery.

"So you pick and choose which bits of this religion you like then? You'll have to explain what your particular interpretation says about this topic then."

this will be intresting:

"So not only is freewill a matter of degree,"

No I said freewill as a matter of degree to it not freewill is a matter of degree. yes there is measure and amount to freewill but freewill but stating thus freewill is the above is wrong.

"but we have genes for freewill."

I never said that, but has you say...

"Oh this is getting more and more funny."

Yes it is.. Now show me were i stated that there are genes that generate freewill...? provided reason has to why you conclused this:

zoolander

Dec31-03, 11:16 PM

I see no proof though of evolution. The fact that chimps and humans hold similarities is no different than 2 models of cars designed by the same team.

With all mankind’s "intelligent" intervention s/he has still not been able to reproduce evolution of one species to another. A dog can be mated with a wolf but if you did succeed in mating a wolf with a chimp it would be a hybrid. Mules are a hybrid of horses and donkeys. How do you think they make pip less oranges?

Darwin disproved and genetic science confirmed that the then popular theory was that God miraculously individually created each baby.

Geologist’s disproved the idea that the world was created in 7 literal days. Interestingly the bible doesn’t portray these as literal days because Genesis 2:4 says “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens” indicating that in this context the meaning of the word “day” is a time period.

Darwin and evolutionists have done much to enlighten the world and give a solid argument against what used to be a single minded belief. It seems a pity that evolution is now considered by the media and schools as a fact without any real evidence.

onycho

Jan1-04, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by zoolander

Darwin and evolutionists have done much to enlighten the world and give a solid argument against what used to be a single minded belief. It seems a pity that evolution is now considered by the media and schools as a fact without any real evidence.

If you want a little perspective on Darwinian evolution you should read the book, 'Darwin's Black Box' which logically debunks evolution for some of the very same concepts you noted in your post.

http://www.sciencebooknet.com/DARWINS_BLACK_BOX_THE_BIOCHEMICAL_CHALLENGE_TO_EVO LUTION_0684834936.html

Prof Michael J. Behe, Biochemist
Released: March, 1998
ISBN: 0684834936

This scholarly text neatly debunks evolutionary theory which "to be true, has to account for the molecular structure of life. This book to show that it does not."

Behes goal is to convince the general reader that the logical foundations of evolution cannot reach back into the cell itself because a number of intra-cellular subsystems and processes are "irreducibly complex."

The detractors who KNOW evolution to be true because it so simple and elegant give no proofs to the contrary. Prof Behe's very lucid in his logic which apparently is so compelling with the EVOLUTIONIST crowd that he has striken a NERVE (evolved or designed).

Evolutionists just know that his findings are wrong, well just because there can be no other conclusion.

losang

Jan25-04, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Royce
God can not be proven. No one can prove to you or anyone else that God does or does not exist. We experience God within ourselves and know God and know that he exists. It is beyond belief and beyond what is normally thought of as faith. Once God is experienced within ourselves there is no longer any need for proof.
The way this has happened to a number of us is through meditation and acceptance and asking while meditating.
First you say that God can not be proven they you say '...and know that he exists.' Second all your experiences are not valid and therefore can not establish God as existing. What you are implying is that that is your proof.

Now my view. God can be shown to not exist and it is elementary. The common statement that it can not be established or refuted is an indication of limited thinking. God is permanent and partless. Something that is permanent can not produce a result and therefore could not produce the world. Additionally, if something is partless it exists independetly of anything else. So therefore, God can not be in the East and at the same time, in the West. God believers claim God is everywhere but this can not be the case.

losang

Jan25-04, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why do you need proof? He either is or He isn't. If He is then we should inherently know this. But then again if we don't, perhaps it's because we've taken someone else's word for it? [;)] Hmm ... Hey, don't look at me man!
So if the atom exists (i.e. 'is') all people should have known this inherently at all times in history? Think first, write second.

onycho

Jan25-04, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by losang

Now my view. God can be shown to not exist and it is elementary. The common statement that it can not be established or refuted is an indication of limited thinking. God is permanent and partless. Something that is permanent can not produce a result and therefore could not produce the world. Additionally, if something is partless it exists independetly of anything else. So therefore, God can not be in the East and at the same time, in the West. God believers claim God is everywhere but this can not be the case.

So you say that G-d cannot exist and that as præcognitum 'it is elementary.'

Your logic is definitely specious. You say 'something that is permanent and cannot produce a result and therefore couldn't produce a world' on its face belongs to the 'flat earth society.' Perchance you have no knowledge or understanding of the latest theory of Quantum Mechanics. One subatomic particle here on earth effects a similar particle instantaneously 50 billion light years across our universe. Ergo your flawed premise is invalid. This quantum effect has been proven by different investigators araound the world. What is impossible to you is not impossible.

What you are implying is that that is your proof.....

losang

Jan25-04, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by onycho
So you say that G-d cannot exist and that as præcognitum 'it is elementary.'

Your logic is definitely specious. You say 'something that is permanent and cannot produce a result and therefore couldn't produce a world' on its face belongs to the 'flat earth society.' Perchance you have no knowledge or understanding of the latest theory of Quantum Mechanics. One subatomic particle here on earth effects a similar particle instantaneously 50 billion light years across our universe. Ergo your flawed premise is invalid. This quantum effect has been proven by different investigators araound the world. What is impossible to you is not impossible.

What you are implying is that that is your proof.....
First of all your example has nothing to do with my statement.

Second, were you there for the experiement?

Third, what you consider as 'proven' I would not accept.

Lastly, if you accept that something permanent can produce a cause you need to explain why flowers don't suddenly appear in the sky.

onycho

Jan25-04, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by losang

First of all your example has nothing to do with my statement.

I only quoted your own statement!!!

Second, were you there for the experiement[sic]?

What experiment?

Third, what you consider as 'proven' I would not accept.

You can accept your own reality or that which has been currently been mostly accepted by the leading physicists in the world. Let me see who should I accept, you or those who have proven these effects by multiple real experiments? Hard choice.....

Lastly, if you accept that something permanent can produce a cause you need to explain why flowers don't suddenly appear in the sky.

Actually flowers do suddently appear and fall from the sky. Just like the strange events of frogs, fish and other objects raining down in recent past history and documented. No explanation has been given for these events and yes there is more in this universe than you or I will even know for certain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/weather/raining_cats_dogs.shtml

losang

Jan25-04, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Actually flowers do suddently appear and fall from the sky. Just like the strange events of frogs, fish and other objects raining down in recent past history and documented. No explanation has been given for these events and yes there is more in this universe than you or I will even know for certain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/weather/raining_cats_dogs.shtml
First, I am glad your argument is based on the testimony of a 9 year old boy in England.

Second, if all you can do is regurgitate the so called findings of other people then you are nothing more than a tape recorder. I don't accept the methods that phyicists employ as demonstrating conslusive proof.

All your evidence so far has been based on what other people have said. You have nothing more than a faith in what others say. Try thinking for yourself.

Lastly, the experiement I was talking about is the one where a particle on earth effects one 50 billion light-years away. I'd like to know if you have evidence of this experiment.

Your comments and level of discussion are not worth my time.

onycho

Jan25-04, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by losang
First, I am glad your argument is based on the testimony of a 9 year old boy in England.

Actually there is a multiplicity of reports of these phenomena reported by many people around the world. The explanation that a tornado or hurricane picked up the same identical objects is absurd as all types of debris would eventually drop back to earth. Unfortunately for you these events are well documented and specimens have been preserved.

Second, if all you can do is regurgitate the so called findings of other people then you are nothing more than a tape recorder. I don't accept the methods that physicists employ as demonstrating conclusive (sic) proof.

All you are vomiting up is your own opinion based on nothing more than your own limited experience of the world surrounding you. Your very own self-superior knowledge of all things speaks volumes. Do you really believe that the universe revolves around you?

All your evidence so far has been based on what other people have said. You have nothing more than a faith in what others say. Try thinking for yourself.

Thinking for oneself has very little to do with reality as is apparent in your own words. I am not a physicist but believe that science plods ever onward even without your personal mental vision of reality. Faith in what others say has little to do with proven experimental data.

Lastly, the experiement (sic) I was talking about is the one where a particle on earth effects one 50 billion light-years away. I'd like to know if you have evidence of this experiment.

Evidence of this experiment is plentiful. The following site gives just one proof of quantum 'spooky action at a distance.'

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/5/18/135415/002

The one thing that is truly fantasy-style magic in our world today is not a spell to summon the dead, but instead a phenomenon called quantum entanglement. Very intelligent physicists use very complex mathematics to describe what they observe of QE, but they have no true understanding on WHY it works, and bottom line, It Is Magic. At risk of oversimplification, QE is when the fate of two or more particles become bound together. A change in one entangled particle results in an INSTANT change in the other particle as well, no matter how far away it is - even at the opposite end of the universe. This really bothered Einstein, especially the part that a change in one particle could propagate faster than the speed of light to modify instantly it’s "Siamese twin" as well. Einstein described this phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance" and felt its absurdity would eventually overthrow quantum mechanics as a complete physical theory of reality. To speed this goal along, Einstein and two of his buddies published a challenge in what became known as the EPR experiment. Einstein thought that if performing the EPR experiment in a lab actually ever became possible, it would discredit quantum mechanics once and for all.

Albert Einstein got many concepts brilliantly right in his time, but he turned out to be dead wrong about quantum entanglement. In the 1970s, physicist Alan Aspect successfully ran a version of the EPR experiment stretched across a space the size of a basketball court and showed that quantum entanglement in fact does exist. With this one experiment, the possibility of building a quantum computer seized the imagination of physicists. Current computers are limited by the speed of electrons as they whiz through a microprocessor chip; future optically-based computers now under development will be limited by the speed of light whizzing through their crystals. A computer based on quantum entanglement would have no limits at all on how fast it could perform logical switching operations since it would use "spooky action at a distance" instead of electrons or light. Even the most rabid computer gamer would be satisfied at last.

AND

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/12/19/1

Your comments and level of discussion are not worth my time.

If your time and comments are so valuable, you must really enjoy thinking with yourself.....

losang

Jan25-04, 05:31 PM

I don't have time to deal with tape recorders like yourself. You have no idea what it means to establish something. An experiment can only eliminate an idea it can never confirm it conclusively. Secondly, what I am saying is that I don't care what experiement says what. I was not there and therefore can not accept it as evidence. All I accept is the logic of people's (myself included) arguments. Third, if frogs fall from the sky (a you accept) what is their cause?

FZ+

Jan25-04, 06:42 PM

I don't have time to deal with tape recorders like yourself.

Let us put this simply.

Losang, stop being a jerk.

Consider what you are doing. Stand back for a moment, and just consider. Ask yourself this question: what is the one bad thing about religion?

I'll hazard a guess. The lack of skepticism. The attitude that something can be taken without question. The self centred arrogance that comes from believing that you are right, and everybody is wrong. Divine truth. The whole shebang.

You argued quite vehemently against this sort of arrogance in physics at another topic, if I remember correctly.

Now ask yourself the next question. Who is actually doing this? Who is in fact inflating his personal opinions onto an universal level, who is exploding his own argument into a law of nature? Who has in fact spoken of disinterest in facts over personal opinion?

Precisely. Continue this, and you are the epitomy of dogmatic, bad religion.

I might as well point out the logical flaw: God is usually defined by theists as transcending even logical rules. The First Cause argument for example even goes so far as to define god as that which defies normal logic in having no cause. Your deductions do not apply. It aint so easy.

What would you agree to be valid evidence?

losang

Jan25-04, 07:55 PM

onycho

Jan25-04, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by losang
I don't have time to deal with tape recorders like yourself. You have no idea what it means to establish something. An experiment can only eliminate an idea it can never confirm it conclusively. Secondly, what I am saying is that I don't care what experiement says what. I was not there and therefore can not accept it as evidence. All I accept is the logic of people's (myself included) arguments. Third, if frogs fall from the sky (a you accept) what is their cause?

The real tape recorder is what you believe and which you parrot like certain conclusions from your own brilliance. Experiments both eliminate and VERIFY hypothesis of men. You accept your own logic or that of like-minded people that refuse to accept that there is actually something else beside your finite and miniscule perspective of reality.

You ask me what is the cause of 'strange things' or events that happen beyond our current understanding of things. I have stated that I am not privy to knowledge not yet PROVED or understood. I told you that scientists have determined that particles effect one another no matter the distance between them. This fact would break the theory that nothing travels faster than light but for reasons unknown, this is the case.

You are like the ancient peoples of the earth. You have a concrete idea of how things are and there is nothing else.

I admit that I DON'T KNOW.....

Netme

Jan25-04, 11:28 PM

losang

Jan26-04, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by Netme
So how would a computer be aware of our existence?
It wouldn't. How would you define awareness?

Fliption

Jan26-04, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by losang
From what you have been posting you are not very intelligent and I think you may need some extra time to absorb what I said. Take you time, you will be able to think on my level some day.

Wow. Logical Atheist? Is that you?

losang

Jan26-04, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by onycho
The real tape recorder is what you believe and which you parrot like certain conclusions from your own brilliance. Experiments both eliminate and VERIFY hypothesis of men. You accept your own logic or that of like-minded people that refuse to accept that there is actually something else beside your finite and miniscule perspective of reality.

An experiment may verify a particular hypothesis at a particular time and place. If I put water on the stove and it boils all I can establish is that water boiled here at this time in this place. There is no confirmation that this will always happen.

Now that you have attacked me I want you to answer something. Is there any method that you accept where you can establish something conclusively in all cases. That is you can establish a universal truth or law of nature. If all you have is a collection of experiments that verify certain things in certain situations this is childs play and not worth my time.

You ask me what is the cause of 'strange things' or events that happen beyond our current understanding of things. I have stated that I am not privy to knowledge not yet PROVED or understood. I told you that scientists have determined that particles effect one another no matter the distance between them. This fact would break the theory that nothing travels faster than light but for reasons unknown, this is the case.

I said nothing can produce a cause if it is permanent and you said I was wrong. I then asked you to explain, in light of your view, that if permanent phenomena can produce effects why don't flowers grow in the sky. Your argument was that they do and frogs and so on. You need to understand my argument before you can refute it.

What I am saying is that if something is permament it can not produce an effect because if this was so anything could happen. That is, there would be no law of cause and effect. Since a flower is the result of it's sees (i.e. it's cause) if there is no law of cause and effect then a flower can grow without a seed. Your stupid comment on frogs falling from the sky had nothing to do with a refuation of my comments. If you would have taken the time to think about what I wrote you may have made a better reply. The fact that you acknowledge you don't have the answers below is a good start. You are already ahead of most people here.

I admit that I DON'T KNOW.....
Good for you. For me I would never admit this in a place like this.

onycho

Jan26-04, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by losang

I don't accept the idea that anything that exists can be beyond logic. If God created the world then there is a dependence between the world and god. If there is a relationship then a logic can be established. What this boils down to is that if someone says God is beyond logic they are implying that God could not have created this world and its inhabitants. If this is the case they do away with their entire belief system.

I love your concrete thinking logic of 'IF' things.

You say that 1 + 1 + 1 must equal 3 but then you might also say that 1 + 1 - Y = X - 4. Concrete thinking gets you into somewhat of a conundrum.

What most say is that beyong logic is beyond HUMAN logic or understanding. Losang for your wisdom is neither infinite or omniscient and therefore your belief system is in actuality a form of a religion with a definite dogma.

You seem to 'believe' that there is no unseen hand in a universe of irreducible complexity. (dogma 1)

You seem to 'believe' there is no G-d so there must be no dependence between man or anything for a second to second dependence. (dogma 2)

It is something to say that I conversed with losang, a human with infinite wisdom who parrots his religious dogmas.

onycho

Jan26-04, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by losang

An experiment may verify a particular hypothesis at a particular time and place. If I put water on the stove and it boils all I can establish is that water boiled here at this time in this place. There is no confirmation that this will always happen.

How can you confirm that in the event your brain's awareness sees water boiling, you can establish that this event actually happened? What proof have you that this event took place and how can you prove it? I once saw a magician move an entire island from one point to another but then he moved it back to its original place. Does this visual effect prove that the island actually moved at this time and in this place?

Now that you have attacked me I want you to answer something. Is there any method that you accept where you can establish something conclusively in all cases. That is you can establish a universal truth or law of nature.

You accuse me of attacking you.. Are you also paranoid and again wasting your valuable time with me?

Neither you, I nor anyone can establish that reality exists as humans assume it exists? All I can say with any degree of certainty is that a 'freewill' exists which allows our allusion of reality to choose between good and evil. The rest is irrelevant.

If all you have is a collection of experiments that verify certain things in certain situations this is childs play and not worth my time.

Well let's save your valuable time. For you cannot prove with any certainty that you are nothing more than a collection of illusions. If you can then you are the only one in the universe that can.

I said nothing can produce a cause if it is permanent and you said I was wrong. I then asked you to explain, in light of your view, that if permanent phenomena can produce effects why don't flowers grow in the sky. Your argument was that they do and frogs and so on. You need to understand my argument before you can refute it. What I am saying is that if something is permament it can not produce an effect because if this was so anything could happen. That is, there would be no law of cause and effect. Since a flower is the result of it's sees (sic) (i.e. it's cause) if there is no law of cause and effect then a flower can grow without a seed. Your stupid comment on frogs falling from the sky had nothing to do with a refuation of my comments. If you would have taken the time to think about what I wrote you may have made a better reply. The fact that you acknowledge you don't have the answers below is a good start. You are already ahead of most people here.

Attacking my views again? Reasonable discussions or opinions are beneficial but accusing others of 'stupid comments' places you in a very small niche.

I understand what you think you posted perfectly. You have no proof other than your own vision and assumptions that a flower can grow with a seed. I can demonstrate that a flower can grow without a seed if you will look at the current science of cloning. Science can grow a flower from a single cell from another plant but that may be too difficult for your concrete understanding.

At least I admit that I do not understand the true ultimate nature of existence or conscious awareness but you seem to be all knowing.

Good for you. For me I would never admit this in a place like this.

That it typical for one who knows all, sees all and opens his mouth without using a neuron.

protonman

Jan26-04, 03:46 PM

How can you confirm that in the event your brain's awareness sees water boiling, you can establish that this event actually happened? What proof have you that this event took place and how can you prove it?

Ask a lobster.

FZ+

Jan26-04, 06:22 PM

First off, religion is not by definition dogmatic. Secondly, you can make the same case for science. They both have their assumptions and are based on the predispositions of the practitioners. The claim that science is somehow more objective by defintion is wrong.
It is by my definition. But you didn't address the point again. (A pattern emerges?) The existence of assumptions does not matter, but the lack of active criticism of these assumptions does matter. In terms of ideals, science attempts constantly to acheive greater objectivity, accepting that it is still subjective, whilst religions tend to define their objectivity in terms of their current beliefs.

But that is besides the point. The point is that you are continually perpetrating the same errors you attack theism/opponents for, indeed on an even greater scale. This course of action is not conductive to a profitable debate. One wonders that if you are so keen to establish personal superiority (or even divinity!), why are you here talking to lesser mortals in the first place? Read my sig. Recite it now and then.

There is no neccessity in a debate to introduce emotion, and make yourself a sworn enemy of everyone. With your present attitude, you are giving the perception that you are a jerk. That is a statement of fact that you can do better to remedy, rather than rail uselessly against.

I don't accept the idea that anything that exists can be beyond logic. If God created the world then there is a dependence between the world and god.
Then that is the subjective choice you are making.

What this boils down to is that if someone says God is beyond logic they are implying that God could not have created this world and its inhabitants.
I do not see how you can justify this assertion, which follows on from the similarly unjustifiable assertion that God depends on the world. I did make this offense once, questioning why logic exists at all with a God freed from its powers. The response was that logical/physical laws exist for the convenience of man, and is limited to scope.

From what you have been posting you are not very intelligent and I think you may need some extra time to absorb what I said. Take you time, you will be able to think on my level some day.
My ma always said, life was like a box of chocolates....

I then asked you to explain, in light of your view, that if permanent phenomena can produce effects why don't flowers grow in the sky.
In any case, this is an invalid argument. Declaring a specific case does not give you a value of possibility. If you believe causality to be true, why doesn't eating ice cream make you a millionare?
It is thus worth noting that all the flowers anecdote established is that the causes associated with the sky do not produce the effect of flowers. It has no relevance on the actual question, whether *any* permanent cause can cause *any* permanent effect. How many permanent causes can you name, in any case?

onycho

Jan26-04, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by protonman

How can you confirm that in the event your brain's awareness sees water boiling, you can establish that this event actually happened? What proof have you that this event took place and how can you prove it?

Ask a lobster.

I am still having difficulty with proof that water is real, that water boils or that lobsters actually exist in this our presumption of reality......

protonman

Jan26-04, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

Ask a lobster.

I am still having difficulty with proof that water is real, that water boils or that lobsters actually exist in this our presumption of reality......
If you are not sure if water is real boil it and then put your finger in it. If you can't accept that water is real there is really no point for us to continue.

onycho

Jan26-04, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by protonman

If you are not sure if water is real boil it and then put your finger in it. If you can't accept that water is real there is really no point for us to continue.

Protonman do you think that if you walk far enough to the east you will fall off the edge of the earth?

I'll bet you think that the moon is made of green cheese? Can you see beyond your nose are do you just seem to know that you sense reality as your eyes see it, your nose smells it, your ears hear it and your fingers feel a solid world?

Did you know that the universe is 99.9999999999999999% space and the tiny rest is either a particle or wave that is really condensed energy?

That boiling water isn't there, trust me......

protonman

Jan26-04, 08:53 PM

protonman

Jan26-04, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

If you are not sure if water is real boil it and then put your finger in it. If you can't accept that water is real there is really no point for us to continue.

Protonman do you think that if you walk far enough to the east you will fall off the edge of the earth?

I'll bet you think that the moon is made of green cheese? Can you see beyond your nose are do you just seem to know that you sense reality as your eyes see it, your nose smells it, your ears hear it and your fingers feel a solid world?

Did you know that the universe is 99.9999999999999999% space and the tiny rest is either a particle or wave that is really condensed energy?

That boiling water isn't there, trust me......
What you are doing is over analysis of the situation. People bathe in water, they drink it, they swim in it. The ocears are filled with it. What you are doing is over analyzing by negating the reality of the conventional level.

You logic boils down to the fact that there are no atoms either because they are composed of something smaller.

Is there anyone else out there who is watching this discussion? I would like to carry on but this is getting silly.

Netme

Jan27-04, 12:06 AM

kjfksldjjfsriginally posted by losang [/i]
It wouldn't. How would you define awareness? [/QUOTE]

Of course it wouldnt... computers only do what they are programmed to do. A creator could have done the same with us. Although there may be a connection between the creator and his creation, the created does not automatically receive the ability to be aware of his creator. To be aware of something you must be able to know that it exists. We use awareness as a survival mechanism which gives us the ability to know our surroundings and adapt to them. But how can we be for certain that god uses awareness? We know nothing of gods existence or what surrounds him or even if our exitential rule of adaptation applies to him.

onycho

Jan27-04, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by protonman

What you are doing is over analysis of the situation. People bathe in water, they drink it, they swim in it. The ocears are filled with it. What you are doing is over analyzing by negating the reality of the conventional level.

You logic boils down to the fact that there are no atoms either because they are composed of something smaller.

Is there anyone else out there who is watching this discussion? I would like to carry on but this is getting silly.

Actually this conversation is not silly and there are others out there watching this discussion.

Protonman you live in a concrete thinking existence on your 'conventional level' where what you personally experience is as real to you as the moon rising in the evening. What we humans perceive as reality may not just be real as science is just beginning to realize. Take a look at the following Scientific American Journal and you might just begin to realize that there may something more than your senses tell you.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

Einstein, the man who came up with idea that matter is nothing more than condensed energy (no one knows what matter/particles, energy or even gravity) really is. You feel boiling water when you put your finger in it but what makes your body (made up of small pieces of particle matter) animate and why do you think or why do you feel pain?

Reality, in my opinion, is nothing more than we assume it exists.

protonman

Jan27-04, 09:06 AM

Einstein, the man who came up with idea that matter is nothing more than condensed energy (no one knows what matter/particles, energy or even gravity) really is. You feel boiling water when you put your finger in it but what makes your body (made up of small pieces of particle matter) animate and why do you think or why do you feel pain?

Of course water is real. That is all we were discussing. It can prodcue an effect. We were not discussion all the other stuff about feelings, etc. and how they work.

As far as claiming that no one knows what matter/particles, etc. how can you say this? Are you sure? Is this a true statement?

onycho

Jan27-04, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by protonman

Of course water is real. That is all we were discussing. It can prodcue an effect. We were not discussion all the other stuff about feelings, etc. and how they work.

What are you talking about? Feelings are not being discussed here but human senses (sight, hearing, touching, thinking, intellect) are what we are talking when we say that boiling water is real. If you were hypnotized and told that the boiling water in front of you was a soft pillow and that you cannot feel pain. Would you touch that pillow in front of you and not feel any pain? That pillow would be real to you and you would not feel your skin nerve reaction. You have seen hynotists putting large needles through the skin of hypnotized humans without pain.

What is real is not real and what is reality is not always reality. Do you understand?

As far as claiming that no one knows what matter/particles, etc. how can you say this? Are you sure? Is this a true statement?

Ask any of the world's greatest physicists, cosmologists, theoreticians or mathematicians about the basic particle/energy quantum events. They will give you wonderous explanations and theories but when you ask any of them what these objects or forces really are, you will get answers but all of them very different.

The honest ones will tell you, 'we just don't know.'

onycho

Jan27-04, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Netme

It wouldn't. How would you define awareness?

Of course it wouldnt... computers only do what they are programmed to do. A creator could have done the same with us. Although there may be a connection between the creator and his creation, the created does not automatically receive the ability to be aware of his creator. To be aware of something you must be able to know that it exists. We use awareness as a survival mechanism which gives us the ability to know our surroundings and adapt to them. But how can we be for certain that god uses awareness? We know nothing of gods existence or what surrounds him or even if our exitential rule of adaptation applies to him. [/B]

What if you knew for certain that there was a Creator? A Creator that required you to choose a path of right and wrong and follow His commandments. What would you do if you knew for sure?

Obviously you would no longer have 'freewill' or a quest to struggle within yourself.

The answer is obvious about whether mankind was meant to know!!!

protonman

Jan27-04, 12:56 PM

The honest ones will tell you, 'we just don't know.'

How do you know this is true?

onycho

Jan27-04, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by protonman

How do you know this is true?

I have a speaking acquaintance with about four physicists. When posed with the question, they readily admit that all is conjecture.

The following site will give you examples. Look down the middle list of 'present explanations' for matter and energy. See what they say for many at the bottom of each finding. UNKNOWN - UNEXPLAINED - NOT UNDERSTOOD

http://www.starlight-pub.com/UnitNatureofMatter/ExplanationsList.html

protonman

Jan27-04, 03:17 PM

I have a speaking acquaintance with about four physicists. When posed with the question, they readily admit that all is conjecture.

How do you know the physicists exist?

onycho

Jan27-04, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by protonman

How do you know the physicists exist?

By my assuming they exist in this illusion we call reality....

But I also assume that you exist in cyberspace within a dimension of a void....

protonman

Jan27-04, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

How do you know the physicists exist?

By my assuming they exist in this illusion we call reality....

So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

onycho

Jan28-04, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by protonman

So you know something exists because you assume it exists. ]

That is my assumption.

protonman

Jan28-04, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

So you know something exists because you assume it exists. ]

That is my assumption.
So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

protonman

Jan29-04, 01:55 PM

Are you finished?

onycho

Jan29-04, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by protonman

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Do you have any independent testimonials, corroboration, confirmation, attestation, authentication, demonstration, proof, substantiation, testimonials, testimony, validation or proof that you really exist and are not just an illusion in your own reality?????

protonman

Jan29-04, 09:50 PM

I'm asking the questions now.

Me: So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

You:That is my assumption.

Me: So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You need to answer this last question.

onycho

Jan29-04, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by protonman
I'm asking the questions now.

Me: So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

You:That is my assumption.

Me: So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You need to answer this last question.

If I were certain and had proof of a Creator who made us to see a holographic universe that appears as reality, then I would be a god. And you have no proof that you exist so you might answer yourself.

And I am not G-D.....

protonman

Jan29-04, 10:23 PM

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

onycho

Jan30-04, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by protonman

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

Answer: YES and NO

You make me CERTAIN OF SOMETHING. Evidence of your continued nonsense about which a signed 8X10 signed glossy would be proof of your existence.

protonman

Jan30-04, 09:32 AM

Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

You:Answer: YES and NO

So why can't you be certain that God exists?

onycho

Jan30-04, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by protonman
Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

You:Answer: YES and NO

So why can't you be certain that God exists?

If I knew for certain that G-d existed then I would be god. He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.

protonman

Jan30-04, 01:55 PM

He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.
How do you know?

Netme

Jan30-04, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by netme
Of course it wouldnt... computers only do what they are programmed to do. A creator could have done the same with us. Although there may be a connection between the creator and his creation, the created does not automatically receive the ability to be aware of his creator. To be aware of something you must be able to know that it exists. We use awareness as a survival mechanism which gives us the ability to know our surroundings and adapt to them. But how can we be for certain that god uses awareness? We know nothing of gods existence or what surrounds him or even if our exitential rule of adaptation applies to him.

What if you knew for certain that there was a Creator? A Creator that required you to choose a path of right and wrong and follow His commandments. What would you do if you knew for sure?

Obviously you would no longer have 'freewill' or a quest to struggle within yourself.

The answer is obvious about whether mankind was meant to know!!! [/B]

?

Rader

Jan30-04, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Netme
What if you knew for certain that there was a Creator? A Creator that required you to choose a path of right and wrong and follow His commandments. What would you do if you knew for sure?

Obviously you would no longer have 'freewill' or a quest to struggle within yourself.

The answer is obvious about whether mankind was meant to know!!!

Nothing can be for certain but...What if there was just evidence for design in the universe. This evidence could be seen as evidence of a Creator. Why would someone who had this evidence loose his "free will"? What is so obvious about it? Maybe its just a matter of opinion or point of view. There may be some who feel quite differently about this. Evidence of design in physics due to the Anthropic "Fine Tuning"
[8)]

onycho

Jan31-04, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by protonman

He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.
How do you know?

I know because of the following two words.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY.

There is a 0 percent statistical probablity that this universe could have come about or be sustained from moment to moment because of the above two words.

If anyone thinks they can understand that if one of the smallest changes or alterations in the formation of all things was altered or was not present, this universe and your existence would collapse into another void.

But you in your own self endowed wisdom may think that if there was a Creator you would just become somewhat smaller than you think of yourself.

Irreducible complexity means that anyone with any insight into the nature of things understands that there has to be a Creator.

Proof you ask?

Quote

Monsieur ... I did not believe in God; his existence has been disproved by Science. But in the concentration camp, I learned to believe in a Creator.

ATTRIBUTION: Jean-Paul Sartre

onycho

Jan31-04, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Rader

Nothing can be for certain but...What if there was just evidence for design in the universe. This evidence could be seen as evidence of a Creator. Why would someone who had this evidence loose his "free will"? What is so obvious about it? Maybe its just a matter of opinion or point of view. There may be some who feel quite differently about this. Evidence of design in physics due to the Anthropic "Fine Tuning"
[8)]

Richard you pose an interesting question of why would a human loose his "free will" if he knew for certain of a Creator.

If you knew for certain that if you flew to another city today you would die in a terrible crash, would you take that plane ride? Could your own anthropic 'fine tunning' turn around the fact that you knew and yet took that plane ride?

The answer is obvious? If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.

protonman

Jan31-04, 11:54 AM

I want to summarize your argument so far. First off, you said I could not be certain that boiling water existed. Then you claimed that you talked with physicsts and used their testimony to establish that they admit they don't know what atoms, etc. really are. Then you claimed that you coulde be certain of somethings. One of which is that God 'keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.' Then finally you said 'If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.'

My question to you is: as someone who thinks it is not possible to be certain boiling water exists how can physicists, God's keeping secrests and knowing you would die in a plane crash exist?

You implied my thinking was 'flat earth' thinking. This is strage comming from an over the hill Jew has-been who has some ridiculous theory of how the Torah relates to reality.
The problem with your view is that you can not make a statement about anything because you can not be certain that anything exists. If you can not be certain then how can you be certain that you can't be certain. You view is too extreme and it all boils down to one point. YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY SOMETHING EXISTING! I thought someone who claimed to be so wise would know to first define their terminology. So I pose one question to you before I completely destroy your view.

How do you define what exits?

Rader

Jan31-04, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Richard you pose an interesting question of why would a human loose his "free will" if he knew for certain of a Creator.

If you knew for certain that if you flew to another city today you would die in a terrible crash, would you take that plane ride? Could your own anthropic 'fine tunning' turn around the fact that you knew and yet took that plane ride?

The answer is obvious? If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.

Onycho this question in my humble opinion can only be answered on a individual basis. Would the evidence of antropic "fine tuning" tell you something? If you understood it to mean hitting the lottery with the same number 50 times in a row. If you were aware to a very fullest extent of its probable meaning, you might ask yourself. Why am I privleged to know this. You might ask yourself, what responsibility would one have, for knowing this? Is there a reason why evidence for one is no evidence for another? It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.
[8)]

onycho

Feb1-04, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by protonman

You summarize my responses to your simpleton question as separate, unrelated or irrelevant entities. My responses were just examples of the obvious while you seem to think that there must be a simple answer to the unknown.

My question to you is: as someone who thinks it is not possible to be certain boiling water exists how can physicists, God's keeping secrests and knowing you would die in a plane crash exist?

My response of how I or you can be certain of our repose here is in a question to you. How can anyone know for certain that you or anything really exists except by your own perspective as the center of the universe? Or that you live in your reality of human senses? No proof exists.

You implied my thinking was 'flat earth' thinking. This is strage comming from an over the hill Jew has-been who has some ridiculous theory of how the Torah relates to reality.

Name calling and hateful anti-Semitism are examples of your reality and personality. You rely on your own senses to tell you that hot water exists or that my religious beliefs are somehow invalid as apposed to your superior illusions.

The problem with your view is that you can not make a statement about anything because you can not be certain that anything exists. If you can not be certain then how can you be certain that you can't be certain. You view is too extreme and it all boils down to one point. YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY SOMETHING EXISTING! I thought someone who claimed to be so wise would know to first define their terminology. So I pose one question to you before I completely destroy your view.

I never said that I knew anything for certain. It was you who was so certain about boiling water being painful. You have no proof of existence other than your own inherent ability to know for certain that your own 'human senses' are valid.

How do you define what exits?

Definition: Existence is not a mystery unless you think it has a meaning.

Belief with evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

onycho

Feb1-04, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Richard Radar

....It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.

Your statement is a dichotomy.

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence.

Rader

Feb1-04, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Richard Rader

....It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.

Your statement is a dichotomy.

If you mean by that, my way of explaining it, yes it is.

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.
[8)]

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence.

onycho

Feb1-04, 01:19 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rader [/B]

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

But choice is clearly an option when taken in this suicidal instance. Some have chosen by their own 'free will' to commit suicide. Remember 'free will' is one's choice and not because of a lack of unawareness. Good point here....

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.

The first part of your statement is correct but if you are unaware that you will die you have not have committed suicide. 'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence or outcomes.

Rader

Feb1-04, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by onycho
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rader

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

It is the I that is aware, of which the "free will is invoked and the choice occurs. Why would the awareness of evidence nullify a "free will choice? How can "free will" be blind choices? The I is aware. The I makes the choice. I is aware of oneself, and is different from another self. The I is aware of oneself and the evidence of an event. The "isness" of the I, which is the soul of the man, is aware of the evidence and makes his "free will choice".

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

But choice is clearly an option when taken in this suicidal instance. Some have chosen by their own 'free will' to commit suicide. Remember 'free will' is one's choice and not because of a lack of unawareness. Good point here....

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.

The first part of your statement is correct but if you are unaware that you will die you have not have committed suicide. 'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence or outcomes. [/B]

'Free will' requires choices, yes that is true, that what makes it free, but awareness of the event, through the I, makes the outcome, for different reasons, to be totally different.

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

The other of "free will" is a choice, based on conscious awareness of the evidence at hand, to know the right or wrong choice.

Changing the parameters of knowing or not knowing change the outcome of the "free will choice" Only the I knows which is right or wrong.
[8)]

onycho

Feb1-04, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Rader

[B] 'Free will' requires choices, yes that is true, that what makes it free, but awareness of the event, through the I, makes the outcome, for different reasons, to be totally different.

Radar we are getting way off course here until we set a few definitions that put us both on the same plate.

Definition: 'free-will' -- Ascribing some autonomy to an agent such that the agent's actions can be described as self-generated or caused rather than determined externally or by preknowledge of an event.

free will theism -- Generally, the view within theology affirms that agents created are endowed with the ability and inclination to make choices, commitments, decisions, etc. without being bound to do so by a Creator. Specifically, the view within the general view that a Creator grants such freedom and consequently He can only know what is present or past, but not what is conditionally in the future.

I think we both are being misled by the use of the term "knowledge," as people believed that all that is requisite for their knowledge is requisite also for the knowledge of a Creator, The truth is "that the fact that a Creator knows things while they are in a state of possibility— when their existence belongs to the future—does not change the nature of 'possible' in any way; that nature remains unchanged; and the knowledge of the realization of one of several possibilities does not yet affect that realization". As to the question of divine providence, I do not even attempt to bring it into harmony with the principle of free-will.

If we had the knowledge of deterministic outcomes of our actions (you call the I) then any choices made by our 'free-will' choices would be based on that knowledge and ultimate outcome.

Ergo, foreknowledge precludes the 'I' free-will choices that makes us as individuals responsible for those actions.

Therefore, if you had knowledge that you were doing something or making correct choices but your free-will choice ignored the outcome, you would not therefore be responsible for your actions during your short time span on this earth.

protonman

Feb1-04, 08:25 PM

Let me refresh your memory.

Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You:Answer: YES and NO

So you say that you can be certain of something here.

Laster you say...

YouMy response of how I or you can be certain of our repose here is in a question to you. How can anyone know for certain that you or anything really exists except by your own perspective as the center of the universe? Or that you live in your reality of human senses? No proof exists.

So up top you say that something can be known for certain and then later you say that nothing can be known for certain.

Based on what you have posted it has become clear to me that you really don't know what you are talking about. Check for yourself. Your posts are continuously contradicting yourself in your postings. Read mine there are none.

BTW, I had a hunch what your view was all along but now I understand it. You are making the classic mistake that anyone who accepts the idea of a creater would. Unfortunately for you I am not going to give it up right away.

onycho

Feb1-04, 09:13 PM

Your opinions are much like yourself. A total contradiction and in fact you have no idea of what you are talking about.

My time is way to valuable. No further responses will be forthcoming.

protonman

Feb1-04, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Your opinions are much like yourself. A total contradiction and in fact you have no idea of what you are talking about.

My time is way to valuable. No further responses will be forthcoming.

How can you call me quoting your contraditions as opinion? You are the one who said them.

Rader

Feb2-04, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by onycho
[/i]

Radar we are getting way off course here until we set a few definitions that put us both on the same plate.

Definition: 'free-will' -- Ascribing some autonomy to an agent such that the agent's actions can be described as self-generated or caused rather than determined externally or by preknowledge of an event.

free will theism -- Generally, the view within theology affirms that agents created are endowed with the ability and inclination to make choices, commitments, decisions, etc. without being bound to do so by a Creator. Specifically, the view within the general view that a Creator grants such freedom and consequently He can only know what is present or past, but not what is conditionally in the future.

I think we both are being misled by the use of the term "knowledge," as people believed that all that is requisite for their knowledge is requisite also for the knowledge of a Creator, The truth is "that the fact that a Creator knows things while they are in a state of possibility— when their existence belongs to the future—does not change the nature of 'possible' in any way; that nature remains unchanged; and the knowledge of the realization of one of several possibilities does not yet affect that realization". As to the question of divine providence, I do not even attempt to bring it into harmony with the principle of free-will.

If we had the knowledge of deterministic outcomes of our actions (you call the I) then any choices made by our 'free-will' choices would be based on that knowledge and ultimate outcome.

Ergo, foreknowledge precludes the 'I' free-will choices that makes us as individuals responsible for those actions.

Therefore, if you had knowledge that you were doing something or making correct choices but your free-will choice ignored the outcome, you would not therefore be responsible for your actions during your short time span on this earth.

'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

There is nothing in your last post that i disagree with, misinterpretation of the words, evidence, knowledge and I is what has made the appearance of a misunderstanding, to us. For a while i thought we had two totally different meanings.

It seems this exchange is a good example of what "free will" is.

You and I interprete what each has said and make a "free will" choice how to respond to it.. There can be two interpretations of the same meaning, only if that is the way we intrerprete it. This is where the understanding went wrong.
Is there a reason why evidence for one is no evidence for another? It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence. By this i simply mean evidence is the sentance and awareness is how you interprete it. No G-od, secrete understanding or meaning, no determinism, Richard "free will" choices come from his soul, what the world has taught him, how he intrerpretes it.
[8)]

WingZero

Feb2-04, 10:13 PM

i think god exists....

protonman

Feb2-04, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by WingZero
i think god exists....
So what.

Netme

Feb3-04, 02:53 AM

This thread is useless.

protonman

Feb3-04, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Netme
This thread is useless.
Then don't read it. It was good until onycho decided he didn't want to face the fact that what he was saying made no sense all along. Then in his usual style said something ridiculous to which replied quite logically. I am still waiting for him to respond.

onycho

Feb3-04, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Rader

....Is there a reason why evidence for one is no evidence for another? It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence. By this i simply mean evidence is the sentance and awareness is how you interprete it. No G-od, secrete understanding or meaning, no determinism, Richard "free will" choices come from his soul, what the world has taught him, how he intrerpretes it.

There seem to be two different 'free wills' that we are both confusing.

1) Your free will to go to the movies or choose which university you want to attend.

2) Your free-will to choose between good and evil or to be charitable or miserly.

It all has to do with moral imperatives. The latter form of free-will is that which is intedertminate or has no final outcome. The universe is full of moral and ethical choices for humans.

If a Creator gives man the latter form of 'free-will', it is not for choosing which suit or tie to wear and should I have a hamburger for lunch. I do not think that we are aware of or have any evidence of an infinite Being, for then our moral and ethical choices would be negated for we would have done them with the full knowledge that we loose our hard struggle with ourselves and would harm ourselves and our existence by choosing evil with the knowledge that this wrong.

It seems that even the particles that make up the solid part of the universe has a form of 'free-will' or wisdom which is seen in Bell's theory. All of the smallest particles in our perceived universe appear to be inter-connected and aware of each other.

"Free-will" is the choice of moral imperatives that we all make in our existence on this planet.

onycho

Feb3-04, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by WingZero

i think god exists....

G-d exists therefore you can think....

Rader

Feb3-04, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by onycho
There seem to be two different 'free wills' that we are both confusing.

Agreed, both make decisions one moral the other not.

1) Your free will to go to the movies or choose which university you want to attend.

This sort of "free will" observed in two split experiments.

2) Your "free will" to choose between good and evil or to be charitable or miserly.

This is only observed in the human species.

It all has to do with moral imperatives. The latter form of free-will is that which is intedertminate or has no final outcome. The universe is full of moral and ethical choices for humans.

Yes but just let me reiterate my past statement that for the same moral decision, there can be two different choices, using the same bases for the decision. 9/11 Those terrorists crashed those planes for the same reason we would not, believing in a G-d.

If a Creator gives man the latter form of 'free-will', it is not for choosing which suit or tie to wear and should I have a hamburger for lunch. I do not think that we are aware of or have any evidence of an infinite Being, for then our moral and ethical choices would be negated for we would have done them with the full knowledge that we loose our hard struggle with ourselves and would harm ourselves and our existence by choosing evil with the knowledge that this wrong.

Fine, i have no evidence and you say you do not. Lets find out if there is.

It seems that even the particles that make up the solid part of the universe has a form of 'free-will' or wisdom which is seen in Bell's theory. All of the smallest particles in our perceived universe appear to be inter-connected and aware of each other.

Yes Bell¨s Theory has made a case no one has explained yet. There is also another enigma, not yet explained, how complex biochemical systems came into being. It seems to me there may be a link and that is where i want to lead this discussion now. Intellegent Design. We should set some rules to go by first.
01-Cause of Intellegent design is not deterministic, we should leave a Creator out of this for the moment.

"Free-will" is the choice of moral imperatives that we all make in our existence on this planet.

Fine, Do you want to set any other rule or parameter before we start?
[8)]

protonman

Feb3-04, 10:16 PM

onycho,

At least admit you lost. Ignoring me is so cowardly.

phoenixthoth

Feb10-04, 02:33 AM

the intellectualization of what cannot be grasped by the intellect is impossible.

if there were a way to grasp what the intellect could not grasp, would you grasp it?

what if the truth were 180 opposite what you think it is, and what if there is 'fine print' involved, would you still grasp it?

can one imagine the unimaginable?

nothing is the key to the universe and fools know nothing.

can you be at one with nothing?

i have made love to faith and we slept afterwards. i woke up in the morning to a corpse. yet i danced and drank with doubt all night and found her a virgin in the morning. doubt makes a perfect mistress but a nagging wife. "white is white" is the lash of the master and "white is black" is the watchword of the slave. the master takes no heed.

marco

Feb13-04, 11:04 AM

The basic hypothesis of materialism is that consciousness is a property of matter. This hypothesis is however denied by our present scientific knowledges about matter and brain.
Read why Quantum Electrodyamics proves the failure of materialism on the following site

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

and let's discuss my arguments here.

Marco Biagini,

Ph.D. graduated in Solid State Physics.

nightlight

Feb13-04, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by marco
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

Your server has your html files misclassified as:

ContentType: text/plain

This causes Mozilla/Netscape to show raw html source as plain text. You need to change the content type to:

ContentType: text/html

If the server is not under your control, you may need to add proper file extension (.htm or .html) and re-upload them (and fix any internal links to reflect the file name change).

Rader

Feb13-04, 12:54 PM

Dawn183

Feb15-04, 01:03 PM

This is an extremely interesting subject and one that can raise many varied views. There are so many religions and they each have their own god or is it the same one but with different rules and if so why are there so many differences in the various religions?
However in my search for wanting to know what life is about and if there is a god why so many bad things seem to happen, I have come across a set of books that seem to be able to answer such questions. They are termed the Seth Material and they provide an understanding that goes way beyond the religions. The Material is backed up by some of the latest findings in Quantum Physics.
There is an excellent website that explains more about this amazing piece of work.
To view it log on to www.sethworx.com
It certainly helps to explain why there are so many answers to this question!!

onycho

Feb15-04, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by marco

The basic hypothesis of materialism is that consciousness is a property of matter. This hypothesis is however denied by our present scientific knowledges about matter and brain.
Read why Quantum Electrodyamics proves the failure of materialism on the following site

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

and let's discuss my arguments here.
Marco Biagini,
Ph.D. graduated in Solid State Physics.

Dr. Biagnini you state:

Consciousness is a directly observable phenomenon, of which we have then a full experiemntal evidence (indeed, it represents the foundations of every other experimental observation, since if we were not conscious, we could observe no phenomena); the pjenomenon "consciousness" deserves then to be analysed from a scientific viewpoint.

You make certain assumptions about consciousness and its ability to be observed and/or measured.

What makes you think that our consciousness observes any phenomena whatsoever?

The concept of 'consciousness' is not understood or able to be defined by any construct that we can imagine. How is it therefore able to be analysed from any scientific viewpoint?

Do we only assume our reality exists as our senses perceives it?

Einstein said that particles (matter) are only condensed energy. What do you imagine that this energy really consists of or is derived from? Is energy a particle, a wave or something that is only perceivable from our point of view in this dimension of ours?

My assumption is that all of our solid reality, including that which we consider to be real because of our senses is nothing more or less than an illusion. An illusion within a giant hologram in a timeless dimension with no substance or measurable dimensions.

marco

Feb16-04, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by nightlight
Your server has your html files misclassified as:

ContentType: text/plain

This causes Mozilla/Netscape to show raw html source as plain text. You need to change the content type to:

ContentType: text/html

If the server is not under your control, you may need to add proper file extension (.htm or .html) and re-upload them (and fix any internal links to reflect the file name change).

Thank you very much for this information!
I had no idea that netscape had some problems with my site.
I have dplicate all files with a file extension .html, so if you have netscape, you can now try the followin address:

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html

Please let me know if there are still any problems.

Marco

marco

Feb16-04, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Rader
Well, welcome to the particle zoo. It appears that our local zoo is not the only place that we give names to animals. Now is it, that a Zebra is a Zebra and a electon a electron only because someone was there first? So whats more real the Zebra or the particle?
[8)]

The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more. Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra. For example, every solid object, such as a zebra, apppears to us as if it was uniformly filled with motionless matter, but science has proves that this is only an optical illusion, because every solid objects is occupied mostly by empty space, where small particles rapidely move.

I have explained this in details in my site.

Marco

Rader

Feb16-04, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by marco
The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more.

Yes it is i agree, and what are particles that the Zebra is made of? Nothing more than particle names, like proton electon nuetron. The Zebra has one advantage, he at least keeps his name for life, wheras the particles, change there states, and so do there names. Now how can it be that a Zebra stays a Zebra all his life and the particle which he is made of change there states and names?

Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra.

Yes it is i agree, but neither do the particles exist. No one has ever seen one.

For example, every solid object, such as a zebra, apppears to us as if it was uniformly filled with motionless matter, but science has proves that this is only an optical illusion, because every solid objects is occupied mostly by empty space, where small particles rapidely move.

Yes it is i agree, but particles do not exist so matter can not either, so what rapidly moves.

I have explained this in details in my site.

The description on yöur site of explicit orders, i can not agrue with but the underlying impicit order that trully may define "reality" is just "Is", why things are the way they are is "not known.

By the way welcome to PF. Chow
Emitte lucem Tuam et veritatem Tuam
[8)]

Marco

marco

Feb16-04, 09:59 AM

I wrote:
"The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more."

You replied:

>>>>Yes it is i agree, and what are particles that the Zebra is made of? Nothing more than particle names, like proton electon nuetron.

I disagree.In fact, we know many features of these particles, e.g. their mass, their charge, and above all, we know the equations determining their dynamical behavior and their interactions. This is much more than simply "their names"!

>>>The Zebra has one advantage, he at least keeps his name for life, wheras the particles, change there states, and so do there names.

The point is that science has proved that the zebra is nothing more than a set of elementary particles. Every other concept of zebra is only a subjective concept without any scientific basis.

I wrote:

"Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra. "

You replied

>>>>Yes it is i agree, but neither do the particles exist. No one has ever seen one.

The fact that we have not seen them is absolutelly irrilevant. We have billions and billions of objective experimental data confirming the existence of particles such as electrons, the values of their mass, charge, and their dynamical equations.

Of course, if you do not believe in the existence of particles and in science, you will never be interested in my arguments. My approach is strictly scientific and it is based on the most proved scientific theory: Quantum Electrodynamics.

Marco.

onycho

Feb16-04, 10:42 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by marco

Of course, if you do not believe in the existence of particles and in science, you will never be interested in my arguments. My approach is strictly scientific and it is based on the most proved scientific theory: Quantum Electrodynamics.Marco.

Marco the fact is that you don't need to believe in particles to think with your conscious mind that you have billions upon billions of observations which prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that particles and mass exist as proved by scientific theory.

What is real and what is assumed to exist may be quite different things. There is no way that anyone can prove that particles don't exist or have mass and spin but conversly observations made by conscious awareness may be deceiving.

1) Where does conscioussness arise from?

2) Where is consciousness before the birth of a child or after one's death?

3) What number of scientific observations does it take to prove that particles exist or that particles born in a 'big bang' can become conscious?

Take a look at the Scientific American site detailing an alternative to your senses proving the existence of matter and existence in this universe.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

Tell me if you consider this article has any valid basis or change to your theories.

3

Rader

Feb16-04, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by marco
I wrote:
"The PHYSICAL zebra is simply a set of particles and nothing more."

You replied:

>>>>Yes it is i agree, and what are particles that the Zebra is made of? Nothing more than particle names, like proton electon nuetron.

I disagree.In fact, we know many features of these particles, e.g. their mass, their charge, and above all, we know the equations determining their dynamical behavior and their interactions. This is much more than simply "their names"!

Yes and i agree, there is now over 100 particles that we know, not only there names, but mass, charge, spin and angular momentum. Do we know anything about why they have the mass, charge, spin and angular momentum that they do? Do we know why they can appear and disappear and transform into other particles. What we know is there is a lot of particles, that have qualities, that is not known why they have them.

>>>The Zebra has one advantage, he at least keeps his name for life, wheras the particles, change there states, and so do there names.

The point is that science has proved that the zebra is nothing more than a set of elementary particles. Every other concept of zebra is only a subjective concept without any scientific basis.

What is the scientific bases of the particle? Not sure science can prove anything, although it does give a exellent conceptial world view of objective reality. Science gives the same evidence for Zebras as it does for particles, everthing "Is" of the same thing.

I wrote:

"Your concept of zebra is instead only an abstraction, and it exist only in your mind. Nothing exist in the physical reality with the feature of your concept of zebra. "

You can apply that to particles also. A particle is a particle, particle or wave or a wave and it just might be something, that is not even any of those. Do you know of Bells Theorum?

You replied

>>>>Yes it is i agree, but neither do the particles exist. No one has ever seen one.

The fact that we have not seen them is absolutelly irrilevant. We have billions and billions of objective experimental data confirming the existence of particles such as electrons, the values of their mass, charge, and their dynamical equations.

There are no exact measurements of a physical reality. Thats just the point, a objective reality just might be non-existent.
We have the EPR experiment and Bells Theorum, that demonstates that the world is stranger than what it appears, to the informed.

Of course, if you do not believe in the existence of particles and in science, you will never be interested in my arguments. My approach is strictly scientific and it is based on the most proved scientific theory: Quantum Electrodynamics.

I know of particle existence and the scientific method and am interested in your point of view. My approach is also scientific and all my arguements are based on the evidence on hand.
Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.

[8)]

Marco.

onycho

Feb16-04, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Radar

I know of particle existence and the scientific method and am interested in your point of view. My approach is also scientific and all my arguements are based on the evidence on hand.

How do you know particles exist?

How do you know YOUR scientific approach is any more valid than the flat earth society during their time here?

Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.

You apparently are delusional to think that once you understand the nature of what Zebras are made of, you will begin to visualize the essence of consiousness.

Can you create life from inanimate matter like Baron Frankenstein? That is just about how much chance you will ever get to understand consciousness.

marco

Feb17-04, 04:50 AM

>>>Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.

I disagree. Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamics. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.
Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.

Marco

marco

Feb17-04, 04:54 AM

>>>>How do you know particles exist?

As I have already explained, I have billions and billions of scientific data confirming the existence of particles and confirming the fact that all macroscopic objects are only sets of particles. This is for me a sufficiently convincing proof. On the other hand, to deny the existence of particles is equivalent to deny all modern science, to get out of science and get into the kingdom of arbitrary opinions and phylosophical speculations. My approach is strictly scientific and I limit myself to analyse the logical implications of modern science.

>>>How do you know YOUR scientific approach is any more valid than the flat earth society during their time here?

Because now we have billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations of the laws of physics. Nothing like that existed in the flat earth society. It makes no sense to compare our science with the science of the flat-earth society. Quantum Electrodynamics represents a definitive turn in history, because it reveals the principles determining every molecular, chemical and biological process.

Marco

phoenixthoth

Feb17-04, 05:13 AM

if someone could put a magnet around your head and make you think you were looking at a scientific journal or the billions and billions of data (how long did it take to analyze that, i wonder), does that mean that your evidence is all for naught?

your quote "This is for me a sufficiently convincing proof" indicates the heart of the matter. proof and what constitutes proof, ie sufficient evidence, is just a set of arbitrary criteria.

marco

Feb17-04, 05:57 AM

>>>>your quote "This is for me a sufficiently convincing proof" indicates the heart of the matter. proof and what constitutes proof, ie sufficient evidence, is just a set of arbitrary criteria.

I certainly agree that the concept of proof is always arbitrary.
Anyway, there are objective data which can induce us to accept or reject a given idea or theory. We have today billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data confirming the validity of Quantum Electrodynamics in the explanation of chemical and bilogical processes. This is an objectice fact.
Another objective fact is that, according to quantum electrodynamics, consciousness is not a property of matter and it is not generated by molecular, chemical or biological processes.

Now, if you simply make 1+1=2, you understand that the existence of consciousness in man implies the existence in man of an unphysical/unbiological element, the psiche or soul.

Marco.

phoenixthoth

Feb17-04, 06:14 AM

I certainly agree that the concept of proof is always arbitrary....

This is an objectice fact.

do you see how these quotes are directly in contradiction? unless by "objective" you actually mean "subjective", there is a contradiction in saying the concept of proof is arbitrary yet some facts are objectively verifiable. i would say safer to claim that your science claims are as objective as currently possible.

either way, dicussion of proof is important for this topic. indeed, what would constitute proof of God? what would constitute sufficient evidence and a proof? what arbitrary conventions shall we adopt? these things need to be established. other than that, we seem to be off the subject, imo.

onycho

Feb17-04, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Marco

I disagree. Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamics. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.

Who is that collective 'we' who only now in this time and place understand or can confirm all things by the THEORY of Quantum Electrodynamics? Is it possible that billions upon billions of data derived from experimentation equal the sum total of all knowledge?

Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.

How high of an energy is sufficient to render particulate matter (condensed energy) conscious? What if the answer to these questions you are seeking is actually a very simple set of logical rules instead of creating larger and more powerful accelerators which smash particles into more finite particles which in the end proves that sub-atomic particles can be made even smaller. Do you think that accelerators can be made powerful enough to simulate the original big-bang energy released from nothingness?

Can the mind of man comprehend the real nature of consciousness?

I certainly agree that the concept of proof is always arbitrary.
Anyway, there are objective data which can induce us to accept or reject a given idea or theory. We have today billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data confirming the validity of Quantum Electrodynamics in the explanation of chemical and bilogical processes. This is an objectice fact.
Another objective fact is that, according to quantum electrodynamics, consciousness is not a property of matter and it is not generated by molecular, chemical or biological processes.

Now, if you simply make 1+1=2, you understand that the existence of consciousness in man implies the existence in man of an unphysical/unbiological element, the psiche or soul.

Actually there is more evidence that the formation of even the smallest particle or larger combinations of things are in fact based on irreducible complexity. In other words, nothing can be possible if one component of anything is not exactly necessary for the next part of the total. If one part is flawed or absent, nothing is formed and that applies to the universe itself. There is no cogent reason that this place of ours should be anything more than amorphous entropy.

You imply that the existence of consciousness in humans are an unphysical or unbiological component. What if consciousness is nothing more than an attribute of 'free will.' This attribute arising from the same place that all the energy of the big-bang derived.

It is probable that humans with all their billions upon billions of facts and data, ingenuity and Quantum Electrodynamics will never be able to understand the nature of consciousness.

marco

Feb17-04, 09:45 AM

>>>>do you see how these quotes are directly in contradiction? unless by "objective" you actually mean "subjective", there is a contradiction in saying the concept of proof is arbitrary yet some facts are objectively verifiable.

I disagree. The concept of proof is certainly subjective,when applied to a theory or a concept, while the agreement between a given experimental data (represented by a measurment, that is a number) and the solution of a theoretical equation (represented again by a number) is objective. In fact the comparison between two numbers is a mathematical operation, and such operation is objective. Therefore, the systematic and quantitatve agreement between quantum theory and experimental data is objective.

Marco.

onycho

Feb17-04, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by marco

I disagree. The concept of proof is certainly subjective,when applied to a theory or a concept, while the agreement between a given experimental data (represented by a measurment, that is a number) and the solution of a theoretical equation (represented again by a number) is objective. In fact the comparison between two numbers is a mathematical operation, and such operation is objective. Therefore, the systematic and quantitatve agreement between quantum theory and experimental data is objective.

I too disagree. For one to compare experimentation or comparison between two numbers is a subjective function of the observer. Objectively, the numbers or experiments would have to compare themselves, one to another.

marco

Feb17-04, 10:21 AM

>>>I too disagree. For one to compare experimentation or comparison between two numbers is a subjective function of the observer. Objectively, the numbers or experiments would have to compare themselves, one to another.

It is evident that we have a different concept of the word "subjective". With "subjective" I mean something that is a matter of personal arbitrary opinion.
Of course the comparison between numbers is not matter of arbitrary opinion. It is an objective fact that eah person can check.

onycho

Feb17-04, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by marco

It is evident that we have a different concept of the word "subjective". With "subjective" I mean something that is a matter of personal arbitrary opinion.
Of course the comparison between numbers is not matter of arbitrary opinion. It is an objective fact that eah person can check.

In the world of medicine and history/phsical taking these two words have very distinct meanings.

When we question a patient about their symptoms and complaints, we subjectively examine and observe the patient by physical examination.

When we ask the patient's for his or her objectivesymptoms, they relate to us what they are experiencing or noticing about themselves.

Russell E. Rierson

Feb17-04, 01:43 PM

A person's mind and personality is equivalent to their "software", that is, to the programming of their brain.

Any software structure can be coded by some large set of natural numbers.

Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction independent of the physical universe.

Therefore each individual's personality is immortal.

elwestrand

Feb17-04, 01:57 PM

hey Russ, What a strange thing to see you here. Did you get my email? Does the CTMU support plant sentience?? Of couse "sentience" is intrinsic in all matter and energy, living or dead. Matter is solidified consciousness.

Isn't the existence of subjectivity in itself a universal objective phenomenon?

Rader

Feb17-04, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Rader

I know of particle existence and the scientific method and am interested in your point of view. My approach is also scientific and all my arguements are based on the evidence on hand.

How do you know particles exist?

Whats was said is that i know of particle existence and that does not imply that i believe particles exist. A personal experience does not imply anything exists, except for me.

How do you know YOUR scientific approach is any more valid than the flat earth society during their time here?

Nor can i nor you be sure of anything. Its suffix to be sure for me.

Particles and Zebras are made of, whatever it is, that they are made of. Its seems that once that is realized, we can begin to visualize what consciousness is.

You apparently are delusional to think that once you understand the nature of what Zebras are made of, you will begin to visualize the essence of consiousness.

Then we all have our delusions do we not. All the evidence at hand indicates that Zebras and particles are made of the same thing. That not known quantum, to describe it simple is "Isness" Consciousnes is that "Isness" that manifests itself though matter in diffeent ways, on differet evolutionary levels.

Can you create life from inanimate matter like Baron Frankenstein? That is just about how much chance you will ever get to understand consciousness.

No but if i could create life from inanimate matter, i would prefer Marilyn Monroe to Baron Frankenstein.

What i believe, is the world is not what most believe it is.

Quantum phenomena provides “prima facie” evidence that information get around in ways that do not conform to classical ideas. Thus, the idea that information is transferred superluminally is, “a priori” not unreasonable. Everything that we know about Nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time, but generates events that can be located in space-time. One of the implications of Bells Theorum is that, at a deep and fundamental level, the “separate parts” of the universe are connected in an intimate and immediate way. Also the implications of Bells Theorum is, that if, statistical predictions of quantum theory are correct, then some of our commonsense ides, about the world, are profoundly mistaken. In what way, it was just not clear, until Clauser and Freeman in 1972, performed an experiment which confirmed statistical predictions upon which Bell based his theorem. Repeated experimental data from the EPR two split experiment, Einstein-Podolosky- Rosen experiment `` using spin states`` thought up by David Bohm, EPR experiments using “polarized photons” seems to indicate, that information can be communicated at superluminal speeds contrary to the classical accepted ideas of physics. Bells theorem is the most profound discovery of science. In 1982 Alain Aspect, conducted an experiment which was similar to Clauser-Freeman experiment, with one important difference, at the last microsecond, the measuring devices could be changed, and this satisfied the conditions upon which the logical analysis leading to the phenomena of superluminal transfer of information, is based. Bells Theorum implies that what occurs at a certain time, is not a matter of chance. Like everything else, it depends upon something that which is happening elsewhere. The nonlocal aspect of Nature illuminated by “Bells Theorum” is accommodated in QM by the collapse of the wave function. This collapse is a sudden global change of the wave function, of a system. It takes place when any part of the system is observed. That is, when an observation on a system is made in one region, the wave function changes instantly, not only in one region but also in far away regions. It reflects the fact that, the parts of the system are correlated with each other, hence that a increase of information here is accompanied by a increase of information about the system elsewhere. However in quantum theory this collapse of the wave function, is such that what happens in a far-away place must, in some cases, depend on what an observer here choose to observe, what you see there depends on what I do here. This is a completely a nonclassical effect. The principle of local causes says, that what happens in one area, does not depend upon variables, subject to the control of the experimenter in a distant space-like separated area. The simplest way to explain the failure of the principle of local causes is, to conclude that what happens in one area does depend upon variables subject to the control of an experimenter in a distant space-like separated area. If this explanation is correct, then we live in a nonlocal universe, characterized by superluminal connections between apparently “separate parts”.
Emitte lucem Tuam et veritatem Tuam

[8)]

onycho

Feb18-04, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Rader

No but if i could create life from inanimate matter, i would prefer Marilyn Monroe to Baron Frankenstein.

And if I could create life, then I would have violated the reality that particulate matter can create consciousness.

What i believe, is the world is not what most believe it is.

Brother you can say that again.

Quantum phenomena provides “prima facie” evidence that information get around in ways that do not conform to classical ideas.

Actually there is no prima facie evidence that Quantum physics is anything more than an illusion. I believe that you are correct in your assumption that Bells Theorem has the premise that all so-called matter both communicates with and in some way effects all the matter in the universe.

Then we have another conundrum. Perhaps you are fascicled from the particle wave duality or from Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, but this what we will see in the following experiment. That experiment which begins is actually very simple and reproducible. With a light source, a wall with two holes and a screen the following effect has been done by many researchers. On side of the wall there is the light source and on the other side there is the screen. When light passes the wall we can see an interference sample on the screen. The maxima are not behind the holes on the screen, but there is one maximum between the two holes on the screen, otherwise it would not be an interference sample. On the right and on the left of this maximum there are dark areas and then again bright areas, but these bright areas are not as bright as the maximum in the middle. Then we have got two dark areas again and so on. This result should not wonder us, because this are waves and because some waves have got a longer way from the light source to the screen than other waves some waves strengthen each other and other waves extinguish each other. When two wave combs clash then they strengthens each other and when a wave comb and a wave valley clash then they extinguish each other. When one hole is closed the maximum is behind the opened hole. Now we will replace the light source through an electron source and we will make the experiment again. This time we get the same interference sample when both holes are opened. This proofs the wave character of the electrons. But it is important that light or electrons cannot be a wave and a particle at the same time. Now it becomes interesting, we do not let many electrons through out the wall, but only one after the other. When one electron passes the wall it cannot handicap himself and because it can only go throughout one of the holes it would be logical that the maxima are behind the two holes. But when we wait until many electrons have passed the wall we saw an interference sample again. When we repeat this experiment and we close one hole the maximum is behind the open hole. It seems that each electron somehow knows whether both holes are opened or only one. When we try to measure throughout which hole an electron goes we get two maxima behind the two holes. So it is wrong to say that the electron goes throughout one of these two holes, because we can say that it goes throughout both holes or we can also say that it goes throughout not hole, both answers are correct.

This implies that all particles or photons have a form of independent wisdom. What are the implications of Bells Theorem that all particles somehow communicate with every other particle in the universe and that every particle has some form of independent wisdom.

I think that the most probable explanation for both conundrums can be found at the following site. Also the age old question of what is on the other side of our universe looks like might be explained on this site.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

Rader

Feb18-04, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Russell E. Rierson
A person's mind and personality is equivalent to their "software", that is, to the programming of their brain.

Any software structure can be coded by some large set of natural numbers.

Every set of numbers exists eternally as a mathematical abstraction independent of the physical universe.

Therefore each individual's personality is immortal.

"All things are numbers" that is Pythagorean philosophy. So information might be indestructable.
[8)]

Philophysicist

Mar1-04, 06:34 PM

Philophysicist

This is a logical Descartian kind of proof, but hard to refute

I think therefore I Exist (Descartes).
I am not God since I do not have unlimited knowledge and power.
I did not create myself.
The entity who created me(not necessarily God) is thus greater(more powerful) than I am.
Therefore by induction, God exists.

Induction means first we prove that a greater entity than ourselves exists. Then we apply the argument to that entity and so forth up the chain of existance to God.

Note the main argument does not depend on the nature of your external reality (ie you could be thinking you exist on someones computer, somewhere).
This argument is strictly between you and God.

A weaker proof is to take small steps by establishing a chain of superiority. A frog is superior to an amoeba, but a human is superior to a frog and so forth up the chain. This argument is weakened by the fact that we have to include our observed reality in the argument, a reality that may or may not be correct.

phoenixthoth

Mar1-04, 06:39 PM

the induction would apply to God saying that something greater than God created God.

FZ+

Mar1-04, 06:53 PM

the induction would apply to God saying that something greater than God created God.
Exactly. This argument in fact disproves the existence of an ultimate being, since there is always a more ultimate being beyond it. If the argument is correct, of course.

The chain could be broken at any time by the prescence of a being that created itself. This, most accept, does not neccessitate that entity being a god.

Rader

Mar1-04, 07:23 PM

Think of it this way. Where is the beginning of a circle?
[8)]

phoenixthoth

Mar1-04, 07:24 PM

this argument would be like concluding that there is a greatest number because every number has a number greater than itself.

Rader

Mar1-04, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
this argument would be like concluding that there is a greatest number because every number has a number greater than itself.

So that would mean that, a God would get exponentially more powerfull. Are numbers not information and informtion infinite. Just asking you are the math wizard.
[8)]

phoenixthoth

Mar1-04, 08:17 PM

i'm not terribly fond of comparing God to numbers but yeah, i think that's right. and even if you say, well, what about the set of natural numbers itself, that's in a way bigger than every number so maybe that's like God. but the set of natural numbers is just the smallest of an infinite ascending chain of infinities with no end. however, i am working on a theory in which that infinite chain does end with what i call the universal set. quine and others (eg russell and his types theory) have already worked on this but i'm using three valued logic. still, no induction gives away anything about there being a "stopping point".

onycho

Mar1-04, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by FZ+

Exactly. This argument in fact disproves the existence of an ultimate being, since there is always a more ultimate being beyond it. If the argument is correct, of course. The chain could be broken at any time by the prescence of a being that created itself. This, most accept, does not neccessitate that entity being a god.

Your argument is faulty. Your chain analogy is on a contiuum backward into infinity. An Entity that may not have been created or created itself into existence is beyond compreshension (human).

Can you or anyone truly comprehend an infinty? Timelessness in a dimension without borders, shape, that extends into a void. The limits of conscious awareness to comprehend or visualize such a construct would be pointless as there is nothing to measure and no physical laws or quantum mechanics which never was, is or will ever apply to this theory.

What if our reality is only as we assume and our consciousness is only fiction in a particular holograph created for our perception in a short period of time allocated in this singularity.

Philophysicist

Mar1-04, 11:57 PM

phoenixthoth says "the induction would apply to God saying something greater than God created God". If that God call him God2 realized that there was a greater being then obviously God2 is not the ultimate. I dont think that shoots down the argument at all.

FZ2 says "The chain could be broken at any time by the prescence of a being that created itself. This, most accept, does not neccessitate that entity being a god." True ,however I cant think of a entity who realizes it exists and who can create itself as not being all powerful . Perhaps you can give an example.

phoenixthoth

Mar2-04, 12:37 AM

If that God call him God2 realized that there was a greater being then obviously God2 is not the ultimate. I dont think that shoots down the argument at all.
that's the point. the argument does not end, ever. if the induction actually did work then apply the induction hypothesis to whoever one would think the ultimate is to get an even more ultimate. thus the argument would prove that there is no ultimate because there would always be a being more ultimate. the whole induction step was predicated on the assumption that the creator of a being is more powerful or somehow greater than its creation which is quite debatable. so not only does the induction actually prove there is no greatest or most powerful being, the induction hypothesis is debatable (certainly not air-tight or impeccable), even if the induction would work and show there is an ultimate, one would have to define that ultimate to be God and there's no particular reason why that's a definition of God that would be universally acceptable.

i know God exists and i'd like it if there were a proof of it but i don't think this is it. i beleive, though i can't prove, that you'll never have an airtight proof of either of the following statements:
1. God exists
2. God does not exist.
part of the reason is that an argument would probably have to include a definition of God which would undoubtedly be unacceptable to everyone.

Philophysicist

Mar2-04, 03:50 AM

OK I think were getting hung up on induction.

Instead of "Therefore by induction, God exists." we can say

"God is thus the limiting entity as entity superiorty goes to infinity".

We can make it mathematical. Assign a superiorty rating to entities of n. Then the godliness of an entity g(n) goes to God in the limit as superiority n increases to infinity,

g = g(n) --> g(°) = God
for n --> °

We want to introduce a limit to terminate the argument at infinity.

phoenixthoth

Mar2-04, 03:52 AM

what makes a creator superior to the creation?

FZ+

Mar2-04, 06:48 PM

True ,however I cant think of a entity who realizes it exists and who can create itself as not being all powerful . Perhaps you can give an example.
Why, additionally, does the entity have to realise it exists? The first being capable of realisation does not have to be God, either. Existence does not have to occur from conscious creation.

Many things appear acausally in quantum physics. A mind can create itself - something demonstrated with every birth, every awakening.

Zero

Mar2-04, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what makes a creator superior to the creation? Because it has to be phrased that way in order to come to the conclusion that a specific version of the "god" concept exists.

Deeviant

Mar2-04, 09:38 PM

A god is simply not possible in our known universe with the current laws of physics.

Anybody describing a god outside our physical reality would just be guessing, in which case the concept of a god would be directely comparible to daydreaming about traveling back in time and saving a princess from a terrible dragon.

phoenixthoth

Mar2-04, 11:06 PM

i guess my faith in physics is just not as strong as yours.

is the existence of God even a falsifiable claim?

Deeviant

Mar2-04, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i guess my faith in physics is just not as strong as yours.

is the existence of God even a falsifiable claim?

??

I believe that is possible to refute anyone that claims to have any knowledge of a god.

phoenixthoth

Mar2-04, 11:42 PM

let's ask the mad scientist... that's not what falsifiable means. i forget what it means in science terms but basically it means something that is within the scope of science as far as i remember. for example, if i claim that there is a completely undetectable dodo-ray that no detector will ever detect than that's not a falsifiable claim. now if i claimed that there was a dodo-ray that could be detected if i do x, y, and z, and it has these a, b, and c properties, then that is a falsifiable claim. that's my retarted understanding of a falsifiable claim. google "falsifiable claim" for a real explanation.

as far as i knew there was a paradigm shift in science in that it is now recognized that the scope of science is only falsifiable claims.

some people define God to include something which is in a heaven, a place some people define to be accessable only to someone who is dead. thus in order to prove God is omnipresent, one would have to have access to heaven. hence, the claim that God is omnipresent is by definition not falsifiable by a living scientist.

that doesn't mean there is a God nor is it meant at all to prove there is a God. it just means that the claim God exists and is omnipresent is not falsifiable and therefore not within the scope of science one way or another. scientists define science to be the inappropriate tool to figure out if there is a God. it is, on the other hand, within the scope of philosophy and perhaps other tools are equipped to determine the God issue as well, but i'm of the mind that it will never be proven either way. besides, a proof is just a matter of meeting arbitrary criteria and satisfying convention, whether it be mathematical, judicial, popular, individual, scientific, philosophical, etc.

onycho

Mar3-04, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by FZ+

Why, additionally, does the entity have to realise it exists? The first being capable of realisation does not have to be God, either. Existence does not have to occur from conscious creation. Many things appear acausally in quantum physics. A mind can create itself - something demonstrated with every birth, every awakening.

The answer to your question is a question. For you, an entity, why is it necessary for you to realize that you exist?

For the second part of your question, existence cannot appear without cause as per your example of quantum physics simply because neither quantum physics nor any laws of nature can occur by itself like a magician's rabbit in hat trick.

For you to make such a ludicrous statement that a 'mind can create itself' is the equivalent of your creating yourself because it is your desire.

Your example of 'every birth or awakening' being an example of self-creation is a total lack of logic. And absence of logic is something that you appear to be able to create on your own.

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING... That's remarkable.

onycho

Mar3-04, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Deeviant

I believe that is possible to refute anyone that claims to have any knowledge of a god.

Your statement that you believe you can refute anyone that claims to have an understanding that things must be created can also be refuted.

IMO your existence can also be successfully refuted.

onycho

Mar3-04, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

I personally have proof that G-d exists and further that He does not live in heaven.

But I'm not going to share my proof with you for then everyone would know for certain and that would take your G-d given 'freewill' away from you.

So for the time being, debate that which cannot be debated.

Zero

Mar3-04, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by phoenixthoth

I personally have proof that G-d exists and further that He does not live in heaven.

But I'm not going to share my proof with you for then everyone would know for certain and that would take your G-d given 'freewill' away from you.

So for the time being, debate that which cannot be debated. See, now THAT is some funny stuff!!LOL, that's a perfect definition of unfalsifiable...we don't even get to know what the claim is!![:D]

FZ+

Mar3-04, 08:37 AM

The answer to your question is a question. For you, an entity, why is it necessary for you to realize that you exist?
It is not neccessary for me, as an entity, but it is neccessary for me, as an intelligence. But we have not yet established the existence of this intelligence, and so, this is very close to a circular argument.

For the second part of your question, existence cannot appear without cause as per your example of quantum physics simply because neither quantum physics nor any laws of nature can occur by itself like a magician's rabbit in hat trick.
And so, God is disproved? Hmm?

The basis of all created or appeared universes, with an origin, is that something can occur by itself. If not, it does not matter what you call it, the universe could not have appeared. The alternative is that some element of the universe has always existed.

For you to make such a ludicrous statement that a 'mind can create itself' is the equivalent of your creating yourself because it is your desire.
Before you call it ludicrous, why is it ludicrous? We agree we have minds, right? Then, when you wake up from a sleep, where does your mind come from? So, what's your solution?

Iacchus32

Mar3-04, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by phoenixthoth

I personally have proof that G-d exists and further that He does not live in heaven.

But I'm not going to share my proof with you for then everyone would know for certain and that would take your G-d given 'freewill' away from you.

So for the time being, debate that which cannot be debated. Yeah, there is something to be said about that. Just look at all the robots in the "so-called" Christian Church. [;)]

However, that isn't to say that the search for God is none other than the "Quest for Meaning (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36204)."

Rader

Mar3-04, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, there is something to be said about that. Just look at all the robots in the "so-called" Christian Church. [;)]

However, that isn't to say that the search for God is none other than the "Quest for Meaning (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36204)."

Robots in the Cristian Church. Just what is that suppose to mean?
That sounds a little racist. No robots in the other churches?
[8)]

onycho

Mar3-04, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by FZ+

It is not neccessary for me, as an entity, but it is neccessary for me, as an intelligence. But we have not yet established the existence of this intelligence, and so, this is very close to a circular argument. And so, God is disproved? Hmm?

What if I told you that you are not an entity at-all but simply pure intelligence without being either matter or solid? There is nothing circular at all about existing as pure essence of freewill in this timeless dimension of ours.

Your statement about G-d being disproved is neither valid nor erroneous as nothing can be demonstrated as being the whole truth.

The basis of all created or appeared universes, with an origin, is that something can occur by itself. If not, it does not matter what you call it, the universe could not have appeared. The alternative is that some element of the universe has always existed.

It seems by your statement that you believe in that archaic theory of life arising out of decaying matter. If you are saying that the universe has always existed, then you would have to say that our universe and all matter would have long ago (trillions X 10000000000000000000000000000000000(23) power light years) disappeared as it expanded into nothingness. But with the background radiation, the origin of the universe can be said to have occurred at a point in time. Either everything appeared by itself or by an unseen hand. Only I know the answer to that one.

Before you call it ludicrous, why is it ludicrous? We agree we have minds, right? Then, when you wake up from a sleep, where does your mind come from? So, what's your solution?

My mind goes to dreamland after having fairy dust spread over my head.

Question: Where was your mind (awareness) before you were born?

phoenixthoth

Mar3-04, 05:42 PM

i think it's safe to say there are robotic followers of any system. for example, pick out a student of high school chemistry and he or she will tell you with a feeling of absolute certainty that water molecules are made of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules, whether or not they've done any experiements on this. to some people, what's written in a science textbook/journal is taken with absolute faith and credulity. others, not in the so-called rank and file, doubt everything they see. the same distinction exists in followers of so-called faith-based systems such as those of a spiritual orientation: the robots and the non-robots. believe it or not, folks, there are non-robot spiritual adherents out there.

FZ+

Mar3-04, 06:06 PM

What if I told you that you are not an entity at-all but simply pure intelligence without being either matter or solid? There is nothing circular at all about existing as pure essence of freewill in this timeless dimension of ours.
I think you are skirting the question. In reference to the original argument, it was claimed that God must exist because of a neccessary chain of intelligent (superior) causes. It is more or less logical to say that each of these causes must have existed. It does not seem logical that each must have been intelligent, to form a neat ladder to the ultimate intelligence.

Your statement about G-d being disproved is neither valid nor erroneous as nothing can be demonstrated as being the whole truth.
You stated that nothing can make itself. Thus, God could not have come into existence.

The alternative is that God was always there.

But then, I do not choose to call it God, but rather "the element of the universe that has always existed." After all, that is the only function we have shown it to have. It does not need to be an hand, a simple case of phase change may suffice. Or an infinite bubbling out of transient universes - the possibilities are infinite, and to jump on one, for no reason, is clearly premature.

If you are saying that the universe has always existed, then you would have to say that our universe and all matter would have long ago (trillions X 10000000000000000000000000000000000(23) power light years) disappeared as it expanded into nothingness.
Light years is a measure of distance. What are you saying here?

My mind goes to dreamland after having fairy dust spread over my head.

Question: Where was your mind (awareness) before you were born?
That is the question I am asking you. Three solutions: either the mindless matter creates the mind, which invalidates the original argument, or the mind self creates, which invalidates the original argument, or an omnipresent mind makes it, which does not invalidate the original argument, but turns it into an useless circular one.

onycho

Mar3-04, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

i think it's safe to say there are robotic followers of any system. for example, pick out a student of high school chemistry and he or she will tell you with a feeling of absolute certainty that water molecules are made of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules, whether or not they've done any experiements on this. to some people, what's written in a science textbook/journal is taken with absolute faith and credulity. others, not in the so-called rank and file, doubt everything they see. the same distinction exists in followers of so-called faith-based systems such as those of a spiritual orientation: the robots and the non-robots. believe it or not, folks, there are non-robot spiritual adherents out there.

Please allow me try to simplify your statement above.

Some people who are believers in your perspective become robots and follow each other in line, ergo if you believe you are a robot and without freewill but if you are a skeptic you are absolutely correct.

Nothing is black and white. There are shades of gray. At least it is as we assume it to be.

onycho

Mar3-04, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by FZ+

I think you are skirting the question. In reference to the original argument, it was claimed that God must exist because of a neccessary chain of intelligent (superior) causes. It is more or less logical to say that each of these causes must have existed. It does not seem logical that each must have been intelligent, to form a neat ladder to the ultimate intelligence.

There is a logic of language and a logic of mathematics. The former is supple and lifelike, it follows our experience. The latter is abstract and rigid, more ideal. The latter is perfectly necessary, perfectly reliable: the former is only sometimes reliable and hardly ever systematic. But the logic of mathematics achieves necessity at the expense of living truth, it is less real than the other, although more certain. It achieves certainty by a flight from the concrete into abstraction. Doubtless, to an idealist, this would seem to be a more perfect reality. I am not an idealist. The logic of the poet—that is, the logic of language or the experience itself—develops the way a living organism grows: it spreads out towards what it loves, and is heliotropic, like a plant. There is no logical reason for superior or inferior causes for any intelligence or for the knowledge of a Creator.

You stated that nothing can make itself. Thus, God could not have come into existence.

Unless you assert a priori.

The alternative is that God was always there. But then, I do not choose to call it God, but rather "the element of the universe that has always existed." After all, that is the only function we have shown it to have. It does not need to be an hand, a simple case of phase change may suffice. Or an infinite bubbling out of transient universes - the possibilities are infinite, and to jump on one, for no reason, is clearly premature.

What you choose to call "IT" is meaningless. The term 'hand' is for our feeble minds ot comprehend the incomprehesible and have something to visualize which cannot be visualized. There are no describable attributes to describe an unknowable essence. No one has claimed that they have found the infinite as my previous reply was facetious.

Light years is a measure of distance. What are you saying here?

Light years is also a measure of the "TIME' that light photons travel in one year. I am saying that any concept of an always existing universe has a probablity of -0.

That is the question I am asking you. Three solutions: either the mindless matter creates the mind, which invalidates the original argument, or the mind self creates, which invalidates the original argument, or an omnipresent mind makes it, which does not invalidate the original argument, but turns it into an useless circular one.

You are making the circular arguements. ∑ = ∞ + ∫א

Only the human mind invalidates what it cannot understand or comprehend. A little glimpse of the incomprehensible.

http://evidence1.homestead.com/ProofLife.html

Visitor

Mar3-04, 07:02 PM

The answer is simple, there is none.

Think of it this way, if he existed and stood before you this very second, what could he do that would absolutely convince you he was God? The answer is there is nothing he could do, omnipotent as he is, to convince you 100% that he was God other than imposing that conviction on you which would be a false conviction even though it is true.
[!:)]

onycho

Mar3-04, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Visitor

The answer is simple, there is none. Think of it this way, if he existed and stood before you this very second, what could he do that would absolutely convince you he was God? The answer is there is nothing he could do, omnipotent as he is, to convince you 100% that he was God other than imposing that conviction on you which would be a false conviction even though it is true.

He could pull a rabbit out of a hat... Would that convince you???

phoenixthoth

Mar3-04, 07:09 PM

that's precisely why i think there is no proof. it does seem that an omnipotent being could snap its fingers and make you believe it is God though but that's what you call a false conviction, right?

to me, the explanation for there being no proof is that this is how free will is built into the universe. we are all free to believe, or not, apparently at our discretion.

Jonh Doe

Mar3-04, 07:17 PM

Despite what most people think, it is actually possible for God, the Big Bang, and Evolution to all coexist.

I approve. (I could say why I approve, but I saw on another forum that it was forbidden on Physics Forums to have religious talks about God.)

Visitor

Mar3-04, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

The answer is simple, there is none. Think of it this way, if he existed and stood before you this very second, what could he do that would absolutely convince you he was God? The answer is there is nothing he could do, omnipotent as he is, to convince you 100% that he was God other than imposing that conviction on you which would be a false conviction even though it is true.

He could pull a rabbit out of a hat... Would that convince you???

More to the point, would that convince YOU?

[6)]

Jonh Doe

Mar3-04, 07:29 PM

I think it would be easy enough for god to prove to you he is actually god. Just tell him what you would think is absolutely impossible (example: pop a planet out of nowhere, go at the speed of light, take a rabbit out a truly empty hat, ect... (you get my point)), and have him do it. I he can, then he is truly god. Otherwise, he is an impostor. Not to forget that the concept of god is that he is all-powerful.

If you still refuse to believe after this, then it is you that is stuck on your idea, and nothing could make you believe, just as some people still think fire does not burn after they have been burnt. What could I say more?!?

onycho

Mar3-04, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Visitor

More to the point, would that convince YOU?

The proof exists in the irreducible complexity of you. This means that if any one of a trillion events did not occur in precisely the right order you wouldn't have one single neuron.

Take one of the minute chemical reactions out of this sequence and you wouldn't be here. What are the chances?

Turn on your speakers first....

http://evidence1.homestead.com/infinity.html

Visitor

Mar3-04, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

More to the point, would that convince YOU?

The proof exists in the irreducible complexity of you. This means that if any one of a trillion events did not occur in precisely the right order you wouldn't have one single neuron.

Take one of the minute chemical reactions out of this sequence and you wouldn't be here. What are the chances?

Turn on your speakers first....

http://evidence1.homestead.com/infinity.html

I guess maybe pulling a rabbit out of a hat might convince you if the complexity of the natural world awes you so much.

Iacchus32

Mar3-04, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Rader
Robots in the Cristian Church. Just what is that suppose to mean?
That sounds a little racist. No robots in the other churches?
[8)] What other churches are you referring to?

onycho

Mar3-04, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Visitor

I guess maybe pulling a rabbit out of a hat might convince you if the complexity of the natural world awes you so much.

The complexity of the NATURAL WORLD does not awe me but the simple reality of the old story about the pocket watch gives one reason to pause.

If you are walking in a field and come upon a stone, you might take it for granted that this rock has ALWAYS been there by pure chance. But if you are walking along and come upon a pocket watch, pick it up and say to yourself, 'well this has been here forever and is so complex that the absence of one small screw makes this watch non-functioning' then of course it was not made by any watchmaker.

The pocket watch was created by pure chance....

I don't believe in a statistical significance of -0 (10000) power.

Rader

Mar4-04, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What other churches are you referring to?

All of them. So cough it up what is meant by your statement?
[8)]

Rader

Mar4-04, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

I guess maybe pulling a rabbit out of a hat might convince you if the complexity of the natural world awes you so much.

The complexity of the NATURAL WORLD does not awe me but the simple reality of the old story about the pocket watch gives one reason to pause.

If you are walking in a field and come upon a stone, you might take it for granted that this rock has ALWAYS been there by pure chance. But if you are walking along and come upon a pocket watch, pick it up and say to yourself, 'well this has been here forever and is so complex that the absence of one small screw makes this watch non-functioning' then of course it was not made by any watchmaker.

The pocket watch was created by pure chance....

I don't believe in a statistical significance of -0 (10000) power.

There are pocket watches everywhere in the forest and it is not pure chance.
[8)]

onycho

Mar4-04, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Rader

There are pocket watches everywhere in the forest and it is not pure chance.

The question then becomes whether the forest has always been there so that all those pocket watches could appear after a million monkeys over tens of billions of years accidentally made those irreducibly complex pocket watches.

No chaos, no creation. Evidence: the kitchen at mealtime.

Rader

Mar4-04, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Rader

There are pocket watches everywhere in the forest and it is not pure chance.

The question then becomes whether the forest has always been there so that all those pocket watches could appear after a million monkeys over tens of billions of years accidentally made those irreducibly complex pocket watches.

In answer to your question. Everything always was there, how else could you find those irreducibly complex pocket watches?

More important why would a forest want to leave a trail of evidence of irreducibly complex pocket watches?

The question at hand in this thread is, is there a ??? or is there not a ???.

Its not the irreducibly complex pocket watches, that answer the above question. Its there placement on the trail. For if we were not consciously aware of what, a irreducibly complex pocket watch was, it would be the same as a rock, we might not notice there was anything at all.
[8)]

Visitor

Mar4-04, 06:21 PM

Would God make a pocket watch that HAD screws to fall out? (that was an analogy by the way referring to the fact that EVERYTHING, no matter how complex, is deeply flawed. In fact, the greater the complexity, they more numerous the flaws.)

pallidin

Mar4-04, 06:26 PM

I'll take a stab at this.

Since I assume that all of us here are humans, I suppose my opinion is as right or wrong as anyone else's.

I have never seen, heard or otherwise experienced God in any way that I could share with others because, for me, it has never happened.
Furthermore, I have never experienced a dramatic paranormal event(such as a ghost, demon, household objects flying around, etc...) that might cause me to consider.
Well, there was one event. About 10 years ago I helped this old lady with some chores and refused to be paid. Not sure why, but I just felt like doing it. When I got back home there was a strong odor of roses in my house. No-one was there previous to me as I lived alone at that time. That was weird, and I must admit I think of it from time-to-time.
Anyway, apart from that I suppose I have not had any unsual situations which would lead me to believe in a "spiritual" component to reality.
Even still, I do believe in a God. Why? I don't know. It's just an impression I have without any proof.
Scientifically I have thought about it and have reached certain suppositions: a) If dimensions above the 4th exist, I do not see it as all that improbable that "life" in those dimensions exist, and "intelligent" life as well. b) In nature, we often see a "hierarchael" order, either establised or struggled towards. So, I suppose there might be "leaders" in those "other dimensions" if they exist as stated. c) For some reason(probably wrong), I have always felt that the very fact that anything exists at all is rather strange, as it would seem that the perfect scientific scenario for reality is that nothing at all should exist. After all, that concept entirely validates itself. Yet, here we are.

Anywhoes, just my meager thoughts.

FZ+

Mar4-04, 07:25 PM

There is no logical reason for superior or inferior causes for any intelligence or for the knowledge of a Creator.
Precisely! Hence, no proof for God.

Unless you assert a priori.
It is not a matter of assertion. The two statements: God came into existence in the abscence of all else, and Nothing can come into existence by itself, are directly contradictory. Pick one, don't pick both.

The term 'hand' is for our feeble minds ot comprehend the incomprehesible and have something to visualize which cannot be visualized.
Incomprehensible? But everything is incomprehensible! Even in our most optimistic theories of everything, we can not know an entity is its entirity. In quantum physics, our knowledge is limited purely to a matter of inputs, and outputs. Things are defined in terms of their effects, defined by us. An unknowable, indescribable idea is a philosophical waste of time.

Light years is also a measure of the "TIME' that light photons travel in one year. I am saying that any concept of an always existing universe has a probablity of -0.
No it aint. Photons do not experience time. I think you are digging a hole for yourself...

You are making the circular arguements.
While you are making no sense at all.

The pocket watch was created by pure chance....
This is an interesting argument. The pocket watch WAS created by pure chance. Pure chance created its makers. Pure chance produced the design within their imagination. Pure chance led to the accretion of scientific knowledge that made watchmaking possible. Pure chance was the motion of air particles the produced the forging fire. Pure chance of photon emmissions is what keeps the matter together. Pure chance of potential energy makes it hold good time, and makes the spring reliable. Pure chance of the maker's memory removed the scaffords, pared down redundancies in the design, the clamps etc, to leave an appearance of irreducible complexity. Pure chance left it in the forest, where you came upon it - by pure chance.

Lesson? Don't underestimate chance.

onycho

Mar4-04, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Rader

The question at hand in this thread is, is there a ??? or is there not a ???.

The answer at hand in this thread is: ‡” = ????/?? X 45

Its not the irreducibly complex pocket watches, that answer the above question. Its there placement on the trail. For if we were not consciously aware of what, a irreducibly complex pocket watch was, it would be the same as a rock, we might not notice there was anything at all.

Oh but consciousness is able to differentiate between a rock and hard pocket watch. Not only is consciousness aware of the pocket watch but the fact that without the second hand, the watch would serve the same function as the rock. As a paper weight...

But the fact remains, in the beginning there was nothing that became so complex as to be beyond the realm of probability that chaos becomes order without an unseen force.

TENYEARS

Mar4-04, 08:41 PM

FZ, what are you afraid of? Over a decade ago I saw the living god not a vision or in the sky, but the god of all gods. It leaves you with two options to believe I am a liar or mad or is there another explanation? God is a scary experience, the unknown. Leave your fear and go forward, you will find things you cannot beleive, you will do things you cannot believe.

onycho

Mar4-04, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by FZ+

Precisely! Hence, no proof for God.

Like in any trial in every courthouse in this country, circumstantial evidence plus more of the same times a trillion becomes primae facea proof of the existence of a reality. That circumstantial element being a Creator as proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It is not a matter of assertion. The two statements: God came into existence in the absence of all else, and Nothing can come into existence by itself, are directly contradictory. Pick one, don't pick both.

Why do find these two statements contradictory when both are unparalleled in parity? You seem to be ignoring the concept of a Prime force in timelessness and in a dimension in a void. But you are arguing from your finite logic which is subsequent to the creation of things.

Incomprehensible? But everything is incomprehensible! Even in our most optimistic theories of everything, we can not know an entity is its entirity. In quantum physics, our knowledge is limited purely to a matter of inputs, and outputs. Things are defined in terms of their effects, defined by us. An unknowable, indescribable idea is a philosophical waste of time.

Checkmate.... Perfect

No it aint. Photons do not experience time. I think you are digging a hole for yourself...

Have you ever been a photon? Are you speaking subjectively about the life and times of a photon? How do you feel down there in the bottom of that deep hole in which you find yourself?

While you are making no sense at all. <>

Well said....

This is an interesting argument. The pocket watch WAS created by pure chance. Pure chance created its makers. Pure chance produced the design within their imagination. Pure chance led to the accretion of scientific knowledge that made watchmaking possible. Pure chance was the motion of air particles the produced the forging fire. Pure chance of photon emmissions is what keeps the matter together. Pure chance of potential energy makes it hold good time, and makes the spring reliable. Pure chance of the maker's memory removed the scaffords, pared down redundancies in the design, the clamps etc, to leave an appearance of irreducible complexity. Pure chance left it in the forest, where you came upon it - by pure chance.

Helloooooooooooo down there. How much time and how many monkeys did it take for all that pure chance to follow your perfect chain of events to occur without one of those links missing, out of place or simply flawed?

Lesson? Don't underestimate chance.

Chances are that chances are you are here...............

ahrkron

Mar4-04, 10:03 PM

My two cents,

I have often seen variants of the pocket watch argument. In essence, what religious people say is that the universe is "so perfect" that it had to be made by an intelligent agent.

This is, however, a selfish view of things, since it assumes that our own existence is somehow especial. "In order for the universe to create us", they say, "things had to work exactly as they are".

This may sound good, but it is a non-sequitur.

It can be the case that the universe goes on doing its thing, its size and laws allowing (or, rather, implying) the development of some locally stable domains.

Think of it as a swimming pool with lots of whirlpools. Some of them disappear too quickly to allow any further substructures to develop, but some (the really stable ones) keep their general shape long enough for smaller whirlpools to appear within them. If some of the smaller ones are capable of self-replicating, they will rather soon dominate the scene of the stable whirlpool.

Then, if this small, self-replicating, whirlpools develop the ability of asking things, the could start deluding themselves into thinking that the whole universe was set up precisely for them to exist

"Otherwise, why would we exist in a stable big whirlpool?"

You would'n be asking anything if your planet was not a stable structure,

"Why then is it that all natural constants are tuned so perfectly for us to exist"

They are't tuned. If they were different, a different kind of life and intelligence would have asked the question.

"Why is my whirlpool so beautiful?"

Your word for "beautiful" (and all other "nice" words) can only refer to what you see. It can only refer to the only reality you know.

As with evolution, it is not pure chance, but complexity plus dynamically stable (and, in a way, unavoidable) configurations.

FZ+

Mar5-04, 04:30 AM

Like in any trial in every courthouse in this country, circumstantial evidence plus more of the same times a trillion becomes primae facea proof of the existence of a reality. That circumstantial element being a Creator as proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Really.

You seem to be ignoring the concept of a Prime force in timelessness and in a dimension in a void.
So then, it IS possible for something to appear out of nothing, so long as it follows certain guidelines. And so, the argument is invalid. Before you start criticising logic itself, note that the argument we are talking about has also been constructed in the same sort of logic. Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing...

Have you ever been a photon? Are you speaking subjectively about the life and times of a photon? How do you feel down there in the bottom of that deep hole in which you find yourself?
I am talking about the scientific definition of photons, plus the well confirmed conclusions of special relativity. Go ask Einstein.

Helloooooooooooo down there. How much time and how many monkeys did it take for all that pure chance to follow your perfect chain of events to occur without one of those links missing, out of place or simply flawed?
So now, we pit intuition, against the fact that it has actually happened.

As in all evolutionary events, it is hard to characterise a definite beginning, and to be true to the classic monkey-keyboard, it is hard to define a set population. All in all, it took about 2000 years for the knowledge and design to appear randomly by chance discoveries. And as for monkeys, we will have to include the huamn population through that time, all of whom could have made a contribution. Important contributions were made by monkeys such as Leonardo Da Vinci, and so on. The fact of it was that through the watch's development, there was never a goal to aim for, there was never a single intent, and there is no sign of predestination. Ideas popped up, and were weeded out - just as in evolution.

FZ, what are you afraid of?
That is a question you need to ask yourself. I have observed your posting habits - and my observations are not good. Why do you only ever dip in to offer obscure, and usually irrelevant arguments? Why do you cloud yourself in vagueness? Why is it that the only time you made a clear statement was when you were talking about stellar mechanics, and were talking completely contrary to observed facts? Don't confuse ignorance with profundity.

onycho

Mar5-04, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by ahrkron

My two cents, I have often seen variants of the pocket watch argument. In essence, what religious people say is that the universe is "so perfect" that it had to be made by an intelligent agent.
This is, however, a selfish view of things, since it assumes that our own existence is somehow especial. "In order for the universe to create us", they say, "things had to work exactly as they are".

Your two cents... In essence you may leave the religious people and perspective out of this equation. You must look at the reality your senses assume exists in this universe and all it contains. Nothing is selfish in this perspective of the complexity of things around us and in our universe. Take for example, the mitrochonria of each livng cell in your body. Current knowledge of the events that occur in these organelles constitute a cascading chain of events and mollecular availability and uses, that if during each event, one of them were altered, the entire system would fail. Do you have any idea of the statistical probability of these events happening in exactly the right sequence one after another for this little system to work without flaw? It is -0% and when you extrapolate this not so simple function to all things you have to be not only selfish in your view of things but you have to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I don't believe in impossibilities occuring within the enormity of the university.

This may sound good, but it is a non-sequitur.

Really, what is your own evidence in these realities that do not follow logically from what preceded each irreducible complexity in the universe and its myriad of functions?

It can be the case that the universe goes on doing its thing, its size and laws allowing (or, rather, implying) the development of some locally stable domains.

Could you kindly explain what you mean by 'locally stable domains?'
Are you saying that everything works by some kind of random entropy?

Think of it as a swimming pool with lots of whirlpools. Some of them disappear too quickly to allow any further substructures to develop, but some (the really stable ones) keep their general shape long enough for smaller whirlpools to appear within them. If some of the smaller ones are capable of self-replicating, they will rather soon dominate the scene of the stable whirlpool.

Sorry but it appears that your logic is flawed. You first must detail the origin and sudden appearance of this swimming pool with lots of whirlpools. You must have Something or Unseen Hand which first formed your initial construct for these stable substructure whirlpools to follow in a chaotic chain of abstract events to perfection.

Then, if this small, self-replicating, whirlpools develop the ability of asking things, the could start deluding themselves into thinking that the whole universe was set up precisely for them to exist

Why do you think that the whole universe was formed precisely for humans alone to exist? Remember that long ago mankind gave up the idea that the stars and planets rotated around our world and us being the center of things? Step outside of your box for one minute and look from the perspective of why all things were formed in such irreducible complexity and then subtract us humans and your belief that everything was created for us little fleas.

"Otherwise, why would we exist in a stable big whirlpool?"

One can only guess as there is no explanation of which I am aware.

You would'n be asking anything if your planet was not a stable structure, "Why then is it that all natural constants are tuned so perfectly for us to exist" They are't tuned. If they were different, a different kind of life and intelligence would have asked the question.

Exactly on point....

"Why is my whirlpool so beautiful?" Your word for "beautiful" (and all other "nice" words) can only refer to what you see. It can only refer to the only reality you know.

Again you make my point. To be more precise, you can refer to the reality as we assume it exists. Personally I believe that all we observe and conjecture about is nothing more or less than a giant hologram in a dimension of timelessness. Take a look at the following Scientific American site which I believes should be examined more thoroughly and would explain things like what does the border of our supposed universe look like and what is on the other side of same....

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

As with evolution, it is not pure chance, but complexity plus dynamically stable (and, in a way, unavoidable) configurations.

Unfortunately the theory of evolution has bascially been debunked. Example: The fossil record over the past 100 years or so has somehow failed to find those pesky evolutionary flow from one species to another. Not one and that includes the winged lizard. The earliest fossil records demonstrate single celled soft body fossils until the Cambrian period when in a short period of a couple of million years all the species suddenly appeared. Yep, the palentologists and scientific world glosses over this little fact. Check it out for yourself. Evoluntionary changes do occur within species such as a gray moth evolving into a different speckle or colored moth but sudden jumps from earlier species into newer species are mysteriously absent.

The human mind is finite in it's ability to comprehend such complexity.

onycho

Mar5-04, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Visitor

Would God make a pocket watch that HAD screws to fall out? (that was an analogy by the way referring to the fact that EVERYTHING, no matter how complex, is deeply flawed. In fact, the greater the complexity, they more numerous the flaws.)

Sorry vistor but that fact that EVERYTHING no matter how complex is not basically flawed. Otherwise neither you nor I would be here to discuss this topic. In fact, except for rare exception everything works out in such a complex manner that everything continues from second to second instead of falling apart into basic particles and flying off into space.

Zero

Mar5-04, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

Would God make a pocket watch that HAD screws to fall out? (that was an analogy by the way referring to the fact that EVERYTHING, no matter how complex, is deeply flawed. In fact, the greater the complexity, they more numerous the flaws.)

Sorry vistor but that fact that EVERYTHING no matter how complex is not basically flawed. Otherwise neither you nor I would be here to discuss this topic. In fact, except for rare exception everything works out in such a complex manner that everything continues from second to second instead of falling apart into basic particles and flying off into space. Sorry, onycho, but everything is falling apart, generally. We can have this conversation because things are being built up at the same time that they are falling apart, but eventually the decay overwhelms us all, and we keel over and die.[:D]

onycho

Mar5-04, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by pallidin

I'll take a stab at this. Since I assume that all of us here are humans, I suppose my opinion is as right or wrong as anyone else's.

CORRECT...

I have never seen, heard or otherwise experienced God in any way that I could share with others because, for me, it has never happened.

Do you really think that any others have except in their own mind's eye?

Furthermore, I have never experienced a dramatic paranormal event(such as a ghost, demon, household objects flying around, etc...) that might cause me to consider. Well, there was one event. About 10 years ago I helped this old lady with some chores and refused to be paid. Not sure why, but I just felt like doing it. When I got back home there was a strong odor of roses in my house. No-one was there previous to me as I lived alone at that time. That was weird, and I must admit I think of it from time-to-time.

You had an olfactory experience. Your correlation between doing a good deed and smelling roses is nice but does not prove anything.

Anyway, apart from that I suppose I have not had any unsual situations which would lead me to believe in a "spiritual" component to reality. Even still, I do believe in a God. Why? I don't know. It's just an impression I have without any proof.

Your statement is based upon several factors. One of which is your parent imprinting and the other is because everyone in reality fears the unknown and our mortality. The evidence I have is in the fact that all things are totally impossible without something or someone holding the laws of the universe stable or we would fly apart into basic particles the second that that Creator turned His perception off from His own creation.

Scientifically I have thought about it and have reached certain suppositions: a) If dimensions above the 4th exist, I do not see it as all that improbable that "life" in those dimensions exist, and "intelligent" life as well. b) In nature, we often see a "hierarchael" order, either establised or struggled towards. So, I suppose there might be "leaders" in those "other dimensions" if they exist as stated. c) For some reason(probably wrong), I have always felt that the very fact that anything exists at all is rather strange, as it would seem that the perfect scientific scenario for reality is that nothing at all should exist. After all, that concept entirely validates itself. Yet, here we are.

To see my opinion, take a look at the same Scientific American site I recently posted to someone else.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

This premise would explain a lot of things that our scientific world finds so baffling and with so many very esoteric theories.

Anywhoes, just my meager thoughts.

You are at least thinking about this stuff.....

onycho

Mar5-04, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Zero

Sorry, onycho, but everything is falling apart, generally. We can have this conversation because things are being built up at the same time that they are falling apart, but eventually the decay overwhelms us all, and we keel over and die.

Sorry but everything is not falling apart but simply progressing in an orderly manner from one second to another. In the human body, our cells are continually dying while new ones are being formed to replace the old ones.

There are X times for our cells to die off (try not taking a bath for a week and watch your dead skin cells make you look like a lizard) and then form new ones in which your life force within your body continues on its merry way. I believe that you are exactly you were before your conception and continues after this vessel we call a body ends its normal cycle. The same thing applies to everything in this universe. But then that is just my opinion.

onycho

Mar5-04, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by FZ+

Really. So then, it IS possible for something to appear out of nothing, so long as it follows certain guidelines. And so, the argument is invalid. Before you start criticising logic itself, note that the argument we are talking about has also been constructed in the same sort of logic. Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing...

You have described your own thought process perfectly. Exactly whose logic are you talking about? When you fail to present your logic as credible you find HYPROCRISY... Interesting point of your personal view.

I am talking about the scientific definition of photons, plus the well confirmed conclusions of special relativity. Go ask Einstein.

Einstein once told me that he was not happy with his own theory of 'special relativity.' What makes you think that the scientific definition of photons is either well confirmed or the final current authorized conclusion of the nature of either a particle or a wave. In Bell's theory, all particles including photons are aware of every other particle in the universe all at the same time. Even that every particle effects every other particle in the universe at the same time. Did you know that the proven fact that individual particles have some form of intelligence and choice. Look up the split screen experiment in which particles fired through one slit sometimes CHOOSE to go to another slit further down a front lead screen.

So now, we pit intuition, against the fact that it has actually happened. As in all evolutionary events, it is hard to characterise a definite beginning, and to be true to the classic monkey-keyboard, it is hard to define a set population. All in all, it took about 2000 years for the knowledge and design to appear randomly by chance discoveries. And as for monkeys, we will have to include the huamn population through that time, all of whom could have made a contribution. Important contributions were made by monkeys such as Leonardo Da Vinci, and so on. The fact of it was that through the watch's development, there was never a goal to aim for, there was never a single intent, and there is no sign of predestination. Ideas popped up, and were weeded out - just as in evolution.

Interesting non-cogent thinking here. Difficult to follow your line of thought. So FZ+ says "there was never a single intent and no sign of predestination." Is that your own theory? WOW...

That is a question you need to ask yourself. I have observed your posting habits - and my observations are not good.

Now I am really worried! Your negative observations of my posting habits is of great concern to me. While I think your posting habits are really excellent and your validating your own concepts is flawless.

Why do you only ever dip in to offer obscure, and usually irrelevant arguments? Why do you cloud yourself in vagueness? Why is it that the only time you made a clear statement was when you were talking about stellar mechanics, and were talking completely contrary to observed facts? Don't confuse ignorance with profundity.

So you are saying that everything is only correct from your observation of facts or science's current theories about stellar mechanics or things. How do you come to the conclusion that the universe is so clear cut and to your understanding instead of a vagueness that seems to change scientific thinking from day to day. You are truly funny.....

FZ+

Mar5-04, 08:25 AM

You have described your own thought process perfectly. Exactly whose logic are you talking about?
Your logic. Your solution to the triplet is to introduce a loophole clause. This loophole clause means that it is possible to break the initial chain. This is sufficient to collapse the argument.

Einstein once told me that he was not happy with his own theory of 'special relativity.'
This would be Albert Einstein, you know... the dead man... If Bell talks about "at the same time", then he is wrong - as far as special relativity is concerned. If you wish to argue this, then do it in theory development.

So FZ+ says "there was never a single intent and no sign of predestination." Is that your own theory?
No sir. That would be fact. No cavemen stood up and said "Hey, we need a pocket watch to exist at a certain point in the future, and on that basis, we are going to guide the entire future of our race." When Hooke stated his law of elasticity, pocket watches were not what he was thinking of. History is filled with chance happening from which order arises.

Now I am really worried! Your negative observations of my posting habits is of great concern to me. While I think your posting habits are really excellent and your validating your own concepts is flawless.
Not talking to you. Notice the quote just before it. If you are interested, look through Tenyears' posts and you will see what I mean.

onycho

Mar5-04, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by FZ+

Your logic. Your solution to the triplet is to introduce a loophole clause. This loophole clause means that it is possible to break the initial chain. This is sufficient to collapse the argument.

What are you talking about? There is no loophole (triplet?) or illogic when you are talking about that which cannot be proved absolutely. Everything is couched with 'in my personal opinion.'

This would be Albert Einstein, you know... the dead man... If Bell talks about "at the same time", then he is wrong - as far as special relativity is concerned. If you wish to argue this, then do it in theory development.

Chill out FZ+. Do you not understand sarcaism when referencing talking to a dead man? See the following Nature Science Journal, Exorcising Einstein's spooks. You want to argue logic and yet you dismiss what you do not understand.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/011129/011129-15.html

No sir. That would be fact. No cavemen stood up and said "Hey, we need a pocket watch to exist at a certain point in the future, and on that basis, we are going to guide the entire future of our race." When Hooke stated his law of elasticity, pocket watches were not what he was thinking of. History is filled with chance happening from which order arises.

Do you really think so???? You spoke with these DEAD CAVEMEN, did you???? Chance is more like the mother of invention or necessity. Who made the cavemen?

Not talking to you. Notice the quote just before it. If you are interested, look through Tenyears' posts and you will see what I mean.

Why don't you give me Tenyear's post site as I have never seen his name.

FZ+

Mar5-04, 10:24 AM

What are you talking about? There is no loophole (triplet?) or illogic when you are talking about that which cannot be proved absolutely. Everything is couched with 'in my personal opinion.'
I think you are miles away from the source of the issue, now.

Chill out FZ+. Do you not understand sarcaism when referencing talking to a dead man? See the following Nature Science Journal, Exorcising Einstein's spooks. You want to argue logic and yet you dismiss what you do not understand.
The article refers to QM, not to special relativity. Velocity related time dilation is experimentally very real, and that is the reason why photons do not experience time. Add physics on to the list of thing you do not understand, together with mechanics, history, biology...

Do you really think so???? You spoke with these DEAD CAVEMEN, did you????
So, okay. Cavemen envisioned pocket watches. The ultimate goal of science has always been to produce pocket watches. Probabilistic laws of physics were made with pocket watches in mind. The shape of pocket watches were determined by divine writ. The doctors in white coats are here to help you.

Unfortunately the theory of evolution has bascially been debunked. Example: The fossil record over the past 100 years or so has somehow failed to find those pesky evolutionary flow from one species to another.
Hahaha... Define "evolutionary flow", and I'll point out the straw man. Cascades are only meaningful with a given target, and there is no such thing as a failure since in evolution, there is no preset goal.

Why don't you give me Tenyear's post site as I have never seen his name.
On the previous page:
FZ, what are you afraid of? Over a decade ago I saw the living god not a vision or in the sky, but the god of all gods. It leaves you with two options to believe I am a liar or mad or is there another explanation? God is a scary experience, the unknown. Leave your fear and go forward, you will find things you cannot beleive, you will do things you cannot believe.

ahrkron

Mar5-04, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Take for example, the mitrochonria of each livng cell in your body. Current knowledge of the events that occur in these organelles constitute a cascading chain of events and mollecular availability and uses, that if during each event, one of them were altered, the entire system would fail.

But that is not amazing at all, since you are starting off by looking at a successful self-replicator, one out of a species that has kept going for many, many generations.

To put it in a different way: yes, if one piece was missing, then the full thing would not work. It is then just natural that the systems (cells) you see after a very long time are those that work fine and that do reproduce those (successful) mechanisms.

Do you have any idea of the statistical probability of these events happening in exactly the right sequence one after another for this little system to work without flaw?

That is a formally incorrect way to look at it.
What you are doing here is similar to throwing a coin and, once obtaining the result (say, tails), exclaiming: "do you have any idea of the probability of every single atom to be in that particular position right now?"

When computing the probability of an event, you need to specify the property of the system that is under study (which, in turn, specifies the denominator for the probability). In the case of the coin, we are usually concerned only with the face that ends up up. This allows only one out of two configurations.

If you want to get the probability of a particular atom-by-atom configuration, the probability of each event is surely much smaller, but that is not surprising given the size of the system.

In the case of the probability you want to construct, you would need to count of how many ways "life" arises given the known amount of time and the existent interactions between matter. The fact that, in this particular instance of living systems, things work in one particular way is akin to the atom-by-atom flaw I mentioned.

I don't think such probability would be so small, but even if it was, what does it prove?

Imagine a container with some gas on it. At every moment, gas molecules are moving and colliding. If you take a picture of it, the specific position and velocity of all molecules shown in your picture is one out of a huge amount of possible configurations.

Should you conclude anything from the fact that they have the specific configuration you photographed? The probability for such is clearly extremely small.

You may answer "yes, but it has no life and no conscience on it", but so what? why should we treat it differently? if natural laws allow for life and intelligence, then the configuration we have is as "good" or "bad" as any other. We just happen to be especially interested in us.

I'll get back to the rest of your post later.

onycho

Mar5-04, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by ahrkron

But that is not amazing at all, since you are starting off by looking at a successful self-replicator, one out of a species that has kept going for many, many generations.

There is only a small flaw in your proposition. To even consider self-replicated systems or organisms, you must initially explain the probability of magically organizing inorganic material into the very first life form on planet earth. Then if you stop to determine the probability of such an event occurring after many accidental events, it has been determined that the time required for same would be 10 (200) times of all the time estimated from the origin of the universe (Big Bang) until now.

To put it in a different way: yes, if one piece was missing, then the full thing would not work. It is then just natural that the systems (cells) you see after a very long time are those that work fine and that do reproduce those (successful) mechanisms.

You are correct in your first sentence in the fact that in each successful successive mutation, any single flaw at any point would result in a dead-end. Then you state a living cell appearing after a long period of time that works just fine and which reproduces those successful characteristics to the next generation has no error or flaw along the way.

Let me digress for a second to give you a small sample of the problems encountered in such a successful event without any error resulting in a dead-end.

In 1957 Arthur Kornberg demonstrated that a certain enzyme could polymerize the activated forms of deoxynecleotides into a new DNA molecule that was an exact copy of whatever “template” DNA Kornberg threw into the reaction mixture. He called the enzyme DNA polymerase I (Pol). The scientific community was ecstatic about the find. Over the years, however, it has been shown that Pol I’s primary role is not to synthesize DNA during cell division; rather, it is to repair DNA that has been damaged by exposure to ultraviolet light, chemical mutagens, or other environmental insults. Two other DNA polymerases, Pol II and Pol III, were later discovered. The role of Pol II remains murky: mutant cells lacking the enzyme exhibit no observable defects. Pol III has been identified as the major enzyme involved in DNA replication in prokaryotes.

DNA polymerase III is actually a complex of seven different sub units, ranging in length from about 300 to about 1,100 amino acid residues. Only one of the subunits does the actual chemical joining of nucleotides; the other subunits are involved in critical accessory functions. For instance, the polymerizing subunit tends to fall off the template DNA after joining only ten to fifteen nucleotides. If this happens in the cell the polymerase would have to hop back on hundreds of thousands of times before replication was complete, slowing replication enormously. However; the complete Pol III – with all seven subunits – does not fall off until the entire template DNA (which can be more than a million base pairs long) is copied.

And this single task becomes more complex with subunits in a myriad of complex interactions that I could describe which would bore you to no end. But the point is made relative to your successful traits following in that first successful life form. This is just a pinpoint of irreducible complexity in just one tiny part of DNA which you must multiply by a factor that would make any accidental or chance event to be IMPOSSIBLE.

That is a formally incorrect way to look at it. What you are doing here is similar to throwing a coin and, once obtaining the result (say, tails), exclaiming: "do you have any idea of the probability of every single atom to be in that particular position right now?" When computing the probability of an event, you need to specify the property of the system that is under study (which, in turn, specifies the denominator for the probability). In the case of the coin, we are usually concerned only with the face that ends up up. This allows only one out of two configurations.

If you want to get the probability of a particular atom-by-atom configuration, the probability of each event is surely much smaller, but that is not surprising given the size of the system.

This statement doesn’t make much sense. You seemingly intimate that the larger size if a given system allows for more readily organizing of individual atoms in a specific way. Using your analogy of coin tossing or the more complex system resulting in a greater probability of organization does not make logical sagacity.

In the case of the probability you want to construct, you would need to count of how many ways "life" arises given the known amount of time and the existent interactions between matter. The fact that, in this particular instance of living systems, things work in one particular way is akin to the atom-by-atom flaw I mentioned. I don't think such probability would be so small, but even if it was, what does it prove?

Okay, how many ways does “life” arise in all the time since the Big Bang multiplied by a factor of 100. It simply would not happen.

Imagine a container with some gas on it. At every moment, gas molecules are moving and colliding. If you take a picture of it, the specific position and velocity of all molecules shown in your picture is one out of a huge amount of possible configurations. Should you conclude anything from the fact that they have the specific configuration you photographed? The probability for such is clearly extremely small.

You may answer "yes, but it has no life and no conscience on it", but so what? why should we treat it differently? if natural laws allow for life and intelligence, then the configuration we have is as "good" or "bad" as any other. We just happen to be especially interested in us.

Your “natural laws” which allow for life and intelligence are based on what? Chaos or chance….. Whether we are interested in us or in the formation of super nova, where does life and consciousness derive? Gas bubbles banging into each other creating random chances for my very limited description above are meaningless.

I'll get back to the rest of your post later.

Great...

onycho

Mar5-04, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by FZ+

I think you are miles away from the source of the issue, now.

Sorry FZ+ but it is impossible to debate subjects with you as apparently you have no concept or understanding of the basic topics. Your 'thinking' on these subjects are rudimentary best. Continued discussion with you is futile as you make many declarative statements that are obviously without basis as you get off into tangents or fables that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Have a great day....

TENYEARS

Mar5-04, 10:58 PM

FZ, this is for you bud, wisdom is a state where I one need not have others to be wrong in order to be right. These words were born tonight. You have the capacity and the intelligence to find the truth, so find it. It goes for the rest of you who have the need to convince another. A war does not determine a winner, only a temporary flux in power. The balance always reestabilishes itself over time, so what is the point of this foolishness?

ahrkron

Mar5-04, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by onycho
To even consider self-replicated systems or organisms, you must initially explain the probability of magically organizing inorganic material into the very first life form on planet earth.

No magic needed. Things are much easier than "Intelligent Design" advocates usually portray it.

This is why: In order to start the chain, we don't need to start with a full blown complex organism (multicelled, or with multiple organelles). All that is needed is that, among the millions of possible chemical combinations on a primitive planet, one (yes, one!) turns out to have a primitive self-replicating ability. It is not even an "ability" as much as a property, since it basically depends on the geometry of the molecule and how it accomodates aminoacids that it grabs on the way.

Once you have a molecule that can attach itself to other molecules in such a way that, after some time, it releases a well-fitting "negative" of its own shape, a sort of snowball effect is in place, since it will naturally (inevitably) produce more and more duplicates of itself. The number of these primitive self-replicators will of course increase exponentially, limited only by the available resources.

How probable is it to make one of these primitive mechanisms? Maybe small, but you only need (at least) one of them, and you have 3 billion years and a planet's oceans full of water, heat and Carbon molecules to allow for combinations.

Once you have the first replicator, a primitive one, prone to errors and failures, the variations among them and the natural proliferation of those that are better at the task is a very difficult process to stop.

You are correct in your first sentence in the fact that in each successful successive mutation, any single flaw at any point would result in a dead-end.

Not at all.

If a replicator gets too attached to its second helix, so that it never releases its "negative" version, then yes, its "family branch" is doomed.

However, it is not hard to imagine (especially among the first self-replicating molecules) that some would pick up a "wrong" piece (wrong in the sense that it was not the usual "mirror reflection" of its molecules) precisely because that piece fits even better than its own original components. From that generation on, its "descendants" will have an advantage over other, less stable molecules around, and you can logically expect to have more of these in the long run.

As time passes, these small changes do add up. The process exponentially favors the continuity of the better replicators, and nobody would expect ineffective replicators to be around for too long.

Then you state a living cell appearing after a long period of time that works just fine and which reproduces those successful characteristics to the next generation has no error or flaw along the way.

Nobody states that a cell just "appeared" out of random combinations. As I said, the first organic molecules were just that, molecules able to do the neat trick of getting copies of them. As time passed, you get enough of them, and enough variations, to "test" many different approaches to do the tast of producing copies. Those that had a primitive shield were better equipped (prokaryots (sp?)), then those that had a somewhat centralized
section for the replicating core processes (eukariots). The fact that copies of those better at making copies stayed around more than those that were not so good should be no surprise.

I'll try to get back to more of you points (boy, I didn't expect to spend this much time! this is fun [:)]).

onycho

Mar6-04, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by ahrkron

No magic needed. Things are much easier than "Intelligent Design" advocates usually portray it.

This is fun, as you say, and you are apparently paraphrasing Nobel laureate and Harvard University biology professor George Wald and was actually published in the widely read Journal Scientific American.

However improbable we regard this event (the start of life), or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it….. once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

For decades leading biologists had promulgated the position, stated so well by Wald, that time and chance were the forces behind the miracle of life. It was logically correct. After all, what else could be operating?

Wald’s definitive statement, made on behalf of the scientific community rested firmly on research completed the previous year. In 1953, Stanley Miller, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, had produced amino acids by a series of totally random reactions. His experiment was simple but brilliant.

Miller evacuated a glass flask and then filled in it with the gasses thought to have been present in Earth’s atmosphere 3.8 billion years ago: ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor. Free oxygen was not present. It appeared only billions of years later, the product of life itself: photosynthesis. Using electrodes placed through the walls of the flask, Miller discharged electric sparks, simulating lightning, into the gases. Their energy induced random chemical reactions among the gases. After a few days, a reddish slime appeared on the inner walls of the apparatus. Upon analysis, the slime was found to contain amino acids!

The importance of Miller’s experiment was at once apparent. Amino acids the building blocks of proteins and proteins are the building blocks of life. As Wald pointed out, two billion years had passed between the appearance of water on Earth and the appearance of life. If random reactions in a small flask can produce amino acids in just two days, given two billion years of reactions throughout the Earth’s vast atmosphere and oceans, the first forms of life, bacteria and algae, must have been the product of similar random reactions during those eons. The impossible had become the probable and the probable certain. You and me and all other members of the biosphere are living proof of the theory’s accuracy.

The new media worldwide reported the significance of Miller’s seminal experiment. The public had been told the truth: life had started by CHANCE.

Or had it?

Wald’s article was such an important statement that twenty-five years later, in 1979, Scientific American reprinted it in a special publication titled Life: Origin and Evolution. The only difference was that this time it appeared with a retraction. I have seen no other retraction by a journal of a Nobel laureate’s writings. The reaction was unequivocal:

Although stimulating, this article probably represents one of the very few times in his professional life when Wald has been wrong. Examine his main thesis and see. Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowitz, in his book “Energy Flow and Biology,” computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the Universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.

C. Folcome, Life: Origin and Evolution, Scientific American Special Publication, 1979

In short, life could not have been started by pure chance…..

Lest you think that the scientific community has changed its opinion since 1979, the following appeared in the same journal in February 1991, in a review article by John Hogan on the origins of life. “Some scientists have argued that, given enough time, even apparently miraculous events become possible – such as the spontaneous emergence of a single-cell organism from random couplings of chemical. Sir Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer, has said such an occurrence is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling though a junkyard. Most researchers agree with Hoyle on this point.”

Ahkron for your information, since 1979, articles based on your premise that life arose through chance random reactions over billions of years are not accepted in any reputable journals. Articles authored by Nobel laureates are not lightly retracted. The statistical computations by Morowitz may have cast a shadow of doubt over Wald’s claims for the power of chance, but I question whether Scientific American would have actually retracted the article with letters disagreeing with Miller’s and Wald’s thesis on the random origins of life. Scientific opinion of the day was that life had started via a series of random reactions.

The article was withdrawn because research performed by another Harvard professor proved Wald wrong. In the 1970s, Elso Baghoorn, a paleontologist, discovered micro-fossils of bacteria and algae in rocks close to 3.5 billion years old. That is also when the first liquid water appeared on Earth, and hence the first time that life could survive. All life on Earth is water based. No water, no life, but with water, life was possible. It had only to develop, and develop it did, immediately in the presence of water. There were no “billions of years’ for the amino acids to combine randomly into life.

Hence, your premise of sudden life on Earth that, the theoretical biologist Francis Crick wrote, “Given the weakness of all theories of terrestrial genesis [the origin of life on Earth], directed panspermia [the deliberate planting of life on Earth] should still be considered a serious possibility. Crick apparently understood the complexity of life.

As time passes, these small changes do add up. The process exponentially favors the continuity of the better replicators, and nobody would expect ineffective replicators to be around for too long.

The reality is a little bit different than continuity by better replicators as I have previously stated. The magnitude of events of cascading interactions will ‘always’ have at least one flawed or ineffective replicator which always leads to a dead end for that first hoped for positive result. Not to mention that for a life form itself, the numbers for that magnitude of events are again zero.

TENYEARS

Mar6-04, 11:30 AM

onycho, this was a good post and informative. I did not know the exact experiment which was done in order to create the amino acids, but I sense it may have been as you worded with potentially high probability. You are right on the money, because this is how life formed. Wald though, you misunderstand his stance. That is all I will tell you. He was correct and I will not tell you why, even though your post is correct. How can they both be correct? This is your riddle, everyone gets a different kind. What I do not find amazing is that the scientific community does not understand the nature of his words. I am saving the explaintion for a chapter in an unwritten book. Maybe it will be a different kind of book. One without pages.

onycho

Mar6-04, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by TENYEARS

onycho, this was a good post and informative. I did not know the exact experiment which was done in order to create the amino acids, but I sense it may have been as you worded with potentially high probability. You are right on the money, because this is how life formed. Wald though, you misunderstand his stance. That is all I will tell you. He was correct and I will not tell you why, even though your post is correct. How can they both be correct? This is your riddle, everyone gets a different kind. What I do not find amazing is that the scientific community does not understand the nature of his words. I am saving the explaintion for a chapter in an unwritten book. Maybe it will be a different kind of book. One without pages.

Tenyears I am not certain of your meaning relating to misinterpreting Wald's stance.

First you agree with me that life could not have begun by random chance, then you say that Wald's perspective of random chance formation of life was correct and finally you say both are correct?

Darwin, himself, knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely breakdown."

-Eldridge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York. pg. 95

It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. From Mirvart's concern over the incipient states of new structures to Marguilis's dismissal of grandual evolution, critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure have been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by 'numerous, successive, slight modifications"?

Well for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex.

I hope that your book without pages is not as mysterious as your riddle...

Zero

Mar6-04, 02:35 PM

Irreducable complexity has never been shown to exist. Further, even if it were shown, it is absolutely no proof of mythological beings.

Mostly, though, it is a fancy-sounding term with little else going for it...brought to you by the Discovery Institute.

onycho

Mar6-04, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Zero

Irreducable complexity has never been shown to exist. Further, even if it were shown, it is absolutely no proof of mythological beings. Mostly, though, it is a fancy-sounding term with little else going for it...brought to you by the Discovery Institute.

Zero, first of all, get the spelling correct before you make such sweeping unsubstantiated statements.

The fact remains that you are an irreducibly complex organism closely related to a sea slug.

If you can concentrate and cease drooling for more than a second or two, you might want to take a peek at the following site.

http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_ic.htm

TENYEARS

Mar6-04, 03:06 PM

A man walks down street and is struck by a small meteor from the sky. Was it planned? No. Could it have happened any other way? No. How can this be? This is the key to the question to understand this...

Some of you are melting, I can see it.

If you answer the question you get an ice cold old fashion coke in a glass longneck bottle on a warm sunny day.

onycho

Mar6-04, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by TENYEARS

A man walks down street and is struck by a small meteor from the sky. Was it planned? No. Could it have happened any other way? No. How can this be? This is the key to the question to understand this... Some of you are melting, I can see it. If you answer the question you get an ice cold old fashion coke in a glass longneck bottle on a warm sunny day.

You seem to be referencing the conundrum between predetermination (causality) and freewill.

How can they both be in effect while seemingly at opposite ends of the pole?

TENYEARS

Mar6-04, 03:24 PM

onycho, why do you place these things in boxes of arguments? Is not the question of predermination the same as which you speak of Wald and evoulution. Is it the same argument? There is one question for all of this, but it's answer is everywhere. To ask one single question, will yeild more than you can every imagine. It does come at a price, nothing is free.

onycho

Mar6-04, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by TENYEARS

onycho, why do you place these things in boxes of arguments? Is not the question of predermination the same as which you speak of Wald and evoulution. Is it the same argument?

Actually there is no argument, neither in nor out of boxes. Predetermination nor causality contradicts 'directed creation' or QM.

There is one question for all of this, but it's answer is everywhere. To ask one single question, will yeild more than you can every imagine. It does come at a price, nothing is free.

If you will illucidate your enigma, everyone may be able to help you with the answer.

TENYEARS

Mar6-04, 03:39 PM

I figured out gravity and universal theory in 1991. I will never need answers again, and yet new questions arise all the time. From this one understanding, all things may be derived.

onycho

Mar6-04, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by TENYEARS

I figured out gravity and universal theory in 1991. I will never need answers again, and yet new questions arise all the time. From this one understanding, all things may be derived.

So you've figured it all out in 1991. You know everything and the nature of gravity is understood by no one other than yourself in the entire galaxy.

FZ+

Mar6-04, 06:06 PM

Since you deemed me ignorant, you might ignore this.

But irreducible complexity has indeed been fully falsified.

The critical error made is to once again implant the creationist idea of set goals to work to. It doesn't happen like that. The production of many "irreducibly complex" organs have been demonstrated by either peripherals shifting to different functions, or by the development of redundant systems that disappear, in the same way as scaffolding is removed. In the analogy of the watch, in constructing the watch, additional features like clamps exist, and then are removed. Many of these redundant features that are disappearing can still be seen. (eg. the appendix)

Behe is a laughing stock of the biological community.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

ahrkron

Mar6-04, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
Behe is a laughing stock of the biological community.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html [/B]

Excellent link FZ!

Zero

Mar6-04, 07:00 PM

No, Behe's cool!!! So what if he's got no credibility with real scientists? He sells books, which finances the political movement, and gets mentioned in print, which helps with the propaganda machine.

onycho

Mar6-04, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by FZ+

Since you deemed me ignorant, you might ignore this.
But irreducible complexity has indeed been fully falsified.
The critical error made is to once again implant the creationist idea of set goals to work to. It doesn't happen like that. The production of many "irreducibly complex" organs have been demonstrated by either peripherals shifting to different functions, or by the development of redundant systems that disappear, in the same way as scaffolding is removed. In the analogy of the watch, in constructing the watch, additional features like clamps exist, and then are removed. Many of these redundant features that are disappearing can still be seen. (eg. the appendix) Behe is a laughing stock of the biological community.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Since you seem to be less belligerant and appear to be using some restraint, I will reply.

Your discrediting the obvious complexity of life form biology and biochemistry of life with this meaningless nonsense. Did you take a close look at your site post and its own reliability? The content of this copied paragarph simply says 'it ain't so' with no attempt to validate or give proof of the premise that irreducible complexity is non-existant.

Your erroneous paragraph came from the University of Ediacara (E.U.) which is an on-line virtual university at the center of the academic world on the Galapagos Islands. The faculty of this on-line virtual school reads like a whos who of the unknown. Take a look at two of the faculty credentials.

James A. (Chris) Acker
Professor of Hypothetical Geophysics.

J. Harlan Bretz Chair of Unlikely
Geophysical Scenarios
U of E Swimming Coach

If you really want a good laugh take a look at this 'universities' faculty and their departments.

http://www.ediacara.org/fac03.html

If you are going to refute well established and reputable information, you might want to use scientific journals rather than dodo bird and turtle islands.

http://www.ediacara.org/ediacara2.html

Zero

Mar6-04, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by onycho
[B]
If you are going to refute well established and reputable information, you might want to use scientific journals rather than dodo bird and turtle islands.

Nothing about ID is established at all...and there is no real effort to establish anything scientific anyways. The point of ID is to convince people who already believe in creationism that their religious beliefs have a scientific basic. Behe has never, to my knowledge, done any research in a biological field. Instead, he cuts and pastes other people's work selectively, and then draws false conclusions from them.

onycho

Mar6-04, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by onycho

[i]Originally posted by FZ+

I just found this really significant information on the Univ of Ediacara where they found some jelly fish fossils that they say predates the Cambrian period explosion of all species that we have today. The Cambrian period dates from 490 to 540 million years ago are purportedly dated to the proximate same time frame. What a joke....

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html

Where did "Ediacara" come from?

The name "Ediacara" (pronounced Edi-ak-ra) comes from the Ediacara fauna, the first example of multicelled metazoans found in the fossil record. The significance of the fauna was first realized by geologists in South Australia, who found abundant fossils at the Ediacara Hills in the Flinders Ranges, about 650 km north of Adelaide. They realized that not only did the fauna contain jellyfish, soft corals and possibly worms and proto-arthropods, similar to modern forms, but that the fauna was significantly older than any other animal fossils yet found (600-540 million years old), even predating the Cambrian explosion. Whilst debate still continues as to the exact nature of the fauna, few now doubt that at least some of the forms represent examples of modern animal groups. The origin of the metazoa and thus all animal groups must now be placed even further back in time, and may never be found, since it is thought that the precursor organisms were miofaunal - tiny worm-like organisms living in the interstitial spaces between sand grains and thus having little chance of fossilizing.

"Ediacara" thus represents not only a major milestone in the history life on Earth, but also in the history of the Internet, being - as it is - the worlds first virtual university.

http://www.ediacara.org/ediacara.html

onycho

Mar6-04, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Zero

Nothing about ID is established at all...and there is no real effort to establish anything scientific anyways. The point of ID is to convince people who already believe in creationism that their religious beliefs have a scientific basic. Behe has never, to my knowledge, done any research in a biological field. Instead, he cuts and pastes other people's work selectively, and then draws false conclusions from them.

A little of the background on Dr. Behe. To your knowledge is very meaningful you have no knowledge, you say.

Michael J. Behe is professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), and a fellow of the International Society for Complexity Information and Design (ISCID). Behe's current research involves computer simulation of the evolution of protein binding sites.

Dr. Behe graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He did his graduate studies in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and was awarded a Ph.D. in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell anemia. From 1978 to 1982 he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985 he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University.

In addition to publishing more than 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals, Dr. Behe has written editorial features in the Boston Review, American Spectator, and New York Times. His book, Darwin's Black Box, discusses the implications for neo-Darwinism of what he calls "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems. In his writings, Behe does not contest Darwinian evolution for animals or plants; his claim is that evolution cannot explain a few subcellular structures.

Zero

Mar6-04, 08:05 PM

First off, you DO realize that the Discovery Institute is a front for religious organizations, and is not an actual center of scientific research, don't you?

And, well...I pointed out specifically that I didn't know what actual work he had done, in addition to his propaganda work...but did you know about the Discovery Institute?

onycho

Mar6-04, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Zero

First off, you DO realize that the Discovery Institute is a front for religious organizations, and is not an actual center of scientific research, don't you?

Oh my goodness.... A religious front that masqarades as an institute. Imagine that... You should take a look at the Discovery Institute and see who comprises their departments. Heads of US government agencies, scientists, physicians and many more.

http://www.discovery.org/fellows/

And, well...I pointed out specifically that I didn't know what actual work he had done, in addition to his propaganda work...but did you know about the Discovery Institute?

Apparently Zero there appears to be a great deal that you don't know. I suspect that you don't like the evidence, so like many, attack the messenger.

The following is the stated mission of this scientific institute which is well respected in the scientific community around the world.

http://www.discovery.org/

Mission Statement

Discovery Institute's mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Our mission is promoted through books, reports, legislative testimony, articles, public conferences and debates, plus media coverage and the Institute's own publications and Internet website ( http://www.discovery.org ).

Current projects explore the fields of technology, science and culture, reform of the law, national defense, the environment and the economy, the future of democratic institutions, transportation, religion and public life, government entitlement spending, foreign affairs and cooperation within the bi-national region of "Cascadia." The efforts of Discovery fellows and staff, headquartered in Seattle, are crucially abetted by the Institute's members, board and sponsors.

-------------------------
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.

ATTRIBUTION: Thomas Jefferson

TENYEARS

Mar6-04, 09:39 PM

onycho, that was funny, but I never said anyone else does not understand. I only know what I understand, much in this world is belief and 99.999 percent do not know the difference. It is not that they do not have the capacity or the ability, but it is that they do not have the desire. If you want truth, you must go beyond the written word into a basic place, where there is only the simplest of things. Here and only here can the universe form. It is fun to collect knowlege, the world is amazing, but to know the truth for just a moment is even more cool, because it is real. To experience this knowlege is the destiny of all people, the question is when and with the direction that the planet is heading, the question arises in what capacity.

Tell me, what do you believe, what do you know?

Zero

Mar6-04, 09:59 PM

LMAO!!

The Discovery Institute is NOT a respected international scientific organization in any way, shape, or form. They are a political organization set up to fool suckers.

onycho

Mar6-04, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by TENYEARS

onycho, that was funny, but I never said anyone else does not understand. I only know what I understand, much in this world is belief and 99.999 percent do not know the difference. It is not that they do not have the capacity or the ability, but it is that they do not have the desire. If you want truth, you must go beyond the written word into a basic place, where there is only the simplest of things. Here and only here can the universe form. It is fun to collect knowlege, the world is amazing, but to know the truth for just a moment is even more cool, because it is real. To experience this knowlege is the destiny of all people, the question is when and with the direction that the planet is heading, the question arises in what capacity. Tell me, what do you believe, what do you know?

The fact is that I know nothing whatsoever. That being said, I can read research papers, (I am a physician) think about what I have read, observe, separate the wheat from the chaff and be ready to change my perception in light of new scientific evidence presented by great thinkers and researchers and with work reveiwed by critics and peers.

I find that there is something very mysterious going on in the world of research and technology. There are questions that have great significance for me.

1) What is our universe?
2) What is on the other side of our universe?
3) What is consciousness and intellect?
4) What are particles and what is energy or gravity?
5) What is real and what is it in this universe that we assume exists?
6) What was there before the so-called big-bang?
7) Why do particles (inlcuding photons) appear to have an innate wisdom of their own? (as reproduced many times over in experimentation around the world)
8) Why does it appear that all matter in the universe seem to be aware of all other particles? (Bell's Theory)
9) Why must humans have a code of ethical and moral behavior? (When we could be like the beasts of the field)
10) Is there a possibility that nothing is real except our consciousness in a timeless dimension?

Check out the following site and read it carefully. It seems to answers a great deal of my questions.

http://www.holomall.com/Holographic%20Universe.htm

Mind you, nothing is provable or written in concrete.

TENYEARS

Mar7-04, 12:06 AM

1) What is our universe? x
2) What is on the other side of our universe? x
3) What is consciousness and intellect? x
4) What are particles and what is energy or gravity? x
5) What is real and what is it in this universe that we assume exists? x
6) What was there before the so-called big-bang? x
7) Why do particles (inlcuding photons) appear to have an innate wisdom of their own? (as reproduced many times over in experimentation around the world) x
8) Why does it appear that all matter in the universe seem to be aware of all other particles? (Bell's Theory) x
9) Why must humans have a code of ethical and moral behavior? (When we could be like the beasts of the field) x
10) Is there a possibility that nothing is real except our consciousness in a timeless dimension? X

I have already answered these questions for myself with out reading. It is just a matter of time before a vision I had comes true. It was a level B vision. You are physican, here is a good one for you I saw a man who was on deaths door once. He was my next door neighbor and I was friends with his son. He had MS and could not walk for years without even being able to move his legs. My aunt and mother gave he and his wife tickets to see a priest healer. Two days later, the door bell rang, he was standing there walking. Holding this new metal cross which is handed out to all the participants of the mass. The cross was blankend by the bolts of electricity that shot from the priest and electrified the man. It looked as if it had been hit by a large quantity of electricity.

I am not exagerating or lieing. Every word is true. It was because of this experience that my own search for truth was excellerated. I am no self consoling fool and yet we all are. Yea by the way this man was requested to be on national television years ago and was, because even the doctors could not explain his miraculous recovery. Now being logical you could say it was physocsematic and he was misdiagnosed even though he could not walk, but what of the cross. How is it that a human being can discharge large amounts of electricity in this way. Chemcial imbalance? Maybe, maybe not. I can see the future(sometimes). He was healed.

Because of the above 10 questions, I know how such a thing is possible.

onycho

Mar7-04, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by TENYEARS

I have already answered these questions for myself with out reading. It is just a matter of time before a vision I had comes true. It was a level B vision. You are physican, here is a good one for you I saw a man who was on deaths door once. He was my next door neighbor and I was friends with his son. He had MS and could not walk for years without even being able to move his legs. My aunt and mother gave he and his wife tickets to see a priest healer. Two days later, the door bell rang, he was standing there walking. Holding this new metal cross which is handed out to all the participants of the mass. The cross was blankend by the bolts of electricity that shot from the priest and electrified the man. It looked as if it had been hit by a large quantity of electricity.
I am not exagerating or lieing. Every word is true. It was because of this experience that my own search for truth was excellerated. I am no self consoling fool and yet we all are. Yea by the way this man was requested to be on national television years ago and was, because even the doctors could not explain his miraculous recovery. Now being logical you could say it was physocsematic psychosomatic and he was misdiagnosed even though he could not walk, but what of the cross. How is it that a human being can discharge large amounts of electricity in this way. Chemcial imbalance? Maybe, maybe not. I can see the future(sometimes). He was healed. Because of the above 10 questions, I know how such a thing is possible.

What you experienced is known as a sudden healing experience. You saw static electricity jump from the metal cross to the neighbor with MS and he was suddenly healed. You see future events and now think you understand all things.

Actually this type of event is not new. I have seen cancer patients close to death suddenly have a remission from their disease. I have seen people crippled or with severe strokes, people with severe heart damage and disease all heal and planes that crash into a ball of flame, have more than half the passengers survive. Mysteries or unexplained. Even Jesus Christ is said to have healed the sick, made the blind see and make the dead rise. But these events are also reported to have occurred long before Christ's appearance on this earth and since his crucifixion.

Do you remember the Star Trek series with Captain Kirk? There was a fictional episode when a young strong ship captain was on a planet where he suffered a severe accident resulting in his being deformed, blind, wheelchair bound and in severe pain all the time. The fictional aliens on this planet had the ability to place a new reality into the mind (consciousness) of that man where he returned to his former healthy self with all the strength and feelings he had prior to the accident. But all was as he assumed existed in his mind's eye.

What if 'we' all exist as consciousness in a picture or hologram that our mind's eye perceives as reality and life on this planet? That would explain many things. What is the limit of our universe, how do such complex events occur that are totally impossible to happen by pure chance events over millions of years. That would explain the nature of matter, gravity, energy and what and where you were before you were born and where you will be after you leave this veil of tears. That unseen hand that formed this holographic image for our consciousness in a timeless dimension would be the driving force, something like those fictional aliens in Star Trek episode.

But this is only my opinion. The following site I gave in previous post explains my own perspective.

http://www.holomall.com/Holographic%20Universe.htm

FZ+

Mar7-04, 07:51 AM

The content of this copied paragarph simply says 'it ain't so' with no attempt to validate or give proof of the premise that irreducible complexity is non-existant.
What the hell are you talking about?

(a) I did not copy that paragraph.
(b) The link contains proof that while irreducible complexity does exist, it does arrive through evolution.
(c) Why are you using ad hominem attacks?
(d) Talk origins is simply a server host that happens to be run in whatever university it is. In the same way that Greg hosts this page. The contributers are their own, and are usually not in the university.
(e) Behe simply does not know what he is talking about. That is the end of it. It does not matter who was, or what he works for (as Zero correctly stated, the Discovery Institute is a front, behind such initiatives as the "Wedge Project" http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html and http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs5023.htm
) - science does not work on arguments from authority. His ideas mark him out as a fool to those who do know what they are talking about.

For fun, quotes from the Discovery Institute:
"To tell you the truth, I’m not real knowledgeable about creationism," Behe said.

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."

As Institute President Bruce Chapman told The Washington Times, "[Intelligent design is] our number one project."

Nath

Mar7-04, 08:14 AM

God is an oudated instituition for the uneducated and meek. The concepts main task is to instill order through fear in a population, this benefits the state, hence the historical yet publicly challenged co-existence of church and state.

The concept is possibly THE ultimate evil - what better disguise for Lucifer?

I would give my eye teeth to view the finances of the Vatican. The only legal organisation on earth not subjected to legal / public financial audits.

onycho

Mar7-04, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by FZ+

What the hell are you talking about?
(a) I did not copy that paragraph.

Actually you did not copy your paragraph, you plagarized it. Let's take a look at that paragraph of yours again.

The critical error made is to once again implant the creationist idea of set goals to work to. It doesn't happen like that. The production of many "irreducibly complex" organs have been demonstrated by either peripherals shifting to different functions, or by the development of redundant systems that disappear, in the same way as scaffolding is removed. In the analogy of the watch, in constructing the watch, additional features like clamps exist, and then are removed. Many of these redundant features that are disappearing can still be seen. (eg. the appendix) Behe is a laughing stock of the biological community.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

If you wrote this paragraph on your own, why would you include a reference to some appendix not present in your post?

You are therefore obviously a blatant thief of other peoples ideas and written words therey invalidating anything you state about Behe has the same credibility as your own ability to lie.

Ad hominem attacks are apparently your tool and trade when talking about an institution that is recognized for its integrity and truthfullness. Unlike others like yourself.

The remainder of your post is thereby irrelevant.

Zero

Mar7-04, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by FZ+

What the hell are you talking about?
(a) I did not copy that paragraph.

Actually you did not copy your paragraph, you plagarized it. Let's take a look at that paragraph of yours again.

If you wrote this paragraph on your own, why would you include a reference to some appendix not present in your post?

You are therefore obviously a blatant thief of other peoples ideas and written words therey invalidating anything you state about Behe has the same credibility as your own ability to lie.

Ad hominem attacks are apparently your tool and trade when talking about an institution that is recognized for its integrity and truthfullness. Unlike others like yourself.

The remainder of your post is thereby irrelevant. You are frasping at straws, because you know the facts don't support your position.

And, of course, there you go claiming that the Discovery Institute is well-respected, which is an appeal to authority, and also simply not true. The Discovery Institute is a joke, a front, and a religious and poliical organization. Show me a non-creationist and non-rightwing group that "respects" the Discovery Institute. They are a FRONT, and they are LYING TO YOU. Don't you get it, or is your faith so weak that you need lies to prop it up?

The Discovery Institute is, for instance, well respected at Christianity.com ...as a ministry, not as a scientific organization.

TENYEARS

Mar7-04, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by TENYEARS

What you experienced is known as a sudden healing experience. You saw static electricity jump from the metal cross to the neighbor with MS and he was suddenly healed. You see future events and now think you understand all things.

************************************************** ******************
*** The electricity went from the priest through the individual who was holding a cross in the palm of his closed hand. The cross was "blackend" not a spot of black but blankend to the point where you would only see if you had a bad electrical connection which was arcing over a long period of time or a sudden relase of high voltage.

Wake up.

************************************************** ******************

Actually this type of event is not new. I have seen cancer patients close to death suddenly have a remission from their disease. I have seen people crippled or with severe strokes, people with severe heart damage and disease all heal and planes that crash into a ball of flame, have more than half the passengers survive. Mysteries or unexplained. Even Jesus Christ is said to have healed the sick, made the blind see and make the dead rise. But these events are also reported to have occurred long before Christ's appearance on this earth and since his crucifixion.

************************************************** ******************

"Yes Elisa". Fact is they were all returned to health, what is needed to see would be the accelerated reproduction of a body part or mend beyond the bodies normal means to heal in any statisticlly derived possibility. This would have to be witnessed and made public. This would infer that the conciousness was capable of redirecting energy to accelerate healing. In this case I would unequivically be the only choice, with any reasonable allowance for statistical probablity.

************************************************** ******************

Do you remember the Star Trek series with Captain Kirk? There was a fictional episode when a young strong ship captain was on a planet where he suffered a severe accident resulting in his being deformed, blind, wheelchair bound and in severe pain all the time. The fictional aliens on this planet had the ability to place a new reality into the mind (consciousness) of that man where he returned to his former healthy self with all the strength and feelings he had prior to the accident. But all was as he assumed existed in his mind's eye.

************************************************** ******************

No. The only way to the father is though the son. Zero this one is for you. It sounds like a christian spouting the superiority of christ right. Wrong. This statements intent is to say, the only way to god is through gods creation(Son). In essence the materialist transformation of what you are made of. This transformation is purely physical energy process. What it leads to is logical, but I cannot take you there, you must go through yourself to find yourself.

************************************************** ******************

What if 'we' all exist as consciousness in a picture or hologram that our mind's eye perceives as reality and life on this planet? That would explain many things. What is the limit of our universe, how do such complex events occur that are totally impossible to happen by pure chance events over millions of years. That would explain the nature of matter, gravity, energy and what and where you were before you were born and where you will be after you leave this veil of tears. That unseen hand that formed this holographic image for our consciousness in a timeless dimension would be the driving force, something like those fictional aliens in Star Trek episode.
http://www.holomall.com/Holographic%20Universe.htm

Ok, I may or may not rip your belief, but I do rip your realization. You are satisfied with opionion, and belief, aspects of this may be true or it may be pure fanstasy. You you are a physican, I suppose you don't have much time to think of the mysteries of this life. I once had huge chunks of time years ago, I used them.

I have physical explantions for every one of the questions you pose. Real answers figured out by me and sometimes the answers were far more than idea black box stored in my mind. Pure thought. Pure sweat. Real answers. When you are ready, you will do that yourself.

My concern as I will restate in the past is the planet and our lack of responsiblity to it, our childrens future and the "continued cycle of life". If humans understood this, the world would change.

Your post on creation was good, build on it or go deeper.

FZ+

Mar7-04, 12:30 PM

If you wrote this paragraph on your own, why would you include a reference to some appendix not present in your post?
[:D] [:D] [:D]

Oh my... Look at your nearest dictionary. Look up appendix, about the second definition.

2: a vestigial process that extends from the lower end of the cecum and that resembles a small pouch
The appendix in a human example of a vestigial organ. It is a left over of a human digestive system that was not irreducibly complex, that is in the process of being removed to leave a more efficient, and less complicated system. It is an example that in evolution, less is often more, and things do not always build up. Basic anatomy, anyone?

EDIT: I might have considered attaching an appendix, but the goriness... may have been rather messy.[6)]

onycho

Mar7-04, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by FZ+

You are frasping (?Spelling) at straws, because you know the facts don't support your position.

I suppose you are trying to say 'grasping' at straws. Actually you are grabbing for a flotation device when you have grabbed onto an anchor. Just disclaiming the obvious does not relieve you from intellectual dishonesty. When you use other people's works, all you have to do is quote it or give some indication of the work product as being from the person you use as reference.

Definition: Plagiarize

1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).

INTRANSITIVE VERB: To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.

Stealing other people intellectual property as your own is not permitted on this site.

You are being reported to this site's mentor for action at his discretion.

Any derogatory statements you make about the Discovery Institute remains in the same light as a plagiarizer and thief you are. Dr. Behe's work is beyond reproach and you are an ignormaous.

Have fun.......

Zero

Mar7-04, 01:09 PM

This just gets better and better...

Obviously, Behe's work is the opposite of "above reproach", since generally scientists think he is wrong, and for the reason of practicing bad science.

Keep hiding behind your blind faith in liars, though...I don't understand why you wouldn't be dismayed at the Discovery Institute for intellectual dishonesty, but I guess they are following the Biblical call to lie in the name of religious faith.

onycho

Mar7-04, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Zero

You are frasping at straws, because you know the facts don't support your position.

Learn to spell before you accuse others. You are putting yourself in the same light as a plariarizer of other people' works.

You make accusations of others like Dr. Behe with nothing more than invectives and distortions about religious bias.

You are a little man who is also a bigot.

onycho

Mar7-04, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Zero

This just gets better and better... Obviously, Behe's work is the opposite of "above reproach", since generally scientists think he is wrong, and for the reason of practicing bad science.Keep hiding behind your blind faith in liars, though...I don't understand why you wouldn't be dismayed at the Discovery Institute for intellectual dishonesty, but I guess they are following the Biblical call to lie in the name of religious faith.

How is it that you think that making libelous claims proves anything when you have no evidence for these accusations.

You are apparently born an microcephalic moron. Get a life....

Zero

Mar7-04, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Zero

You are frasping at straws, because you know the facts don't support your position.

Learn to spell before you accuse others. You are putting yourself in the same light as a plariarizer of other people' works.

You make accusations of others like Dr. Behe with nothing more than invectives and distortions about religious bias.

You are a little man who is also a bigot. LOL

If a group claims to be non-religious, and then it turns out to be a religious organization, that makes them liars, right?

Are you related to Behe, BTW? Is there a reason that you pretend that he is an unquestionable authority?

Zero

Mar7-04, 01:17 PM

Ok, onycho, here's your one and only warning: you are attacking members of PF for attacking public figures and organizations. Our attacks on Behe and the Discovery "Institute" are fair play; your attacks on us are not. Stop making personal attacks, remove yourself from conversations that make you too angry to control yourself, or find some other place to post.

onycho

Mar7-04, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by TENYEARS

Ok, I may or may not rip your belief, but I do rip your realization. You are satisfied with opionion, and belief, aspects of this may be true or it may be pure fanstasy. You you are a physican, I suppose you don't have much time to think of the mysteries of this life. I once had huge chunks of time years ago, I used them.

Rip away.... You apparently have large chunks but I do not think you are referring to time.

I have physical explantions for every one of the questions you pose. Real answers figured out by me and sometimes the answers were far more than idea black box stored in my mind. Pure thought. Pure sweat. Real answers. When you are ready, you will do that yourself.

You have PURE imagination but I doubt you have one idea about anything as you seem to be unwilling to share these brilliant, out of this world ideas about everything?

My concern as I will restate in the past is the planet and our lack of responsiblity to it, our childrens future and the "continued cycle of life". If humans understood this, the world would change.

Are you a 'tree-hugger'? The amazing thing is that this world has a built in continuous ecosystem to cleans itself no matter what humans or volcanos do the planet. Long before there were homosapiens, the earth had ice ages, major temperature changes without one car burning fuel or pollution being pumped into the air or sea. You apparently haven't the faintest idea about the magic built into this world for anything man can do to it. The future of mankind will have nothing to do with the world enviornment but more like the ability to destroy themselves with the invention of the subatomic world's mysteries (the atom).

Your post on creation was good, build on it or go deeper.

If I could go deeper, I would be a god.

FZ+

Mar7-04, 01:28 PM

You are being reported to this site's mentor for action at his discretion.
That would be her. Kerrie is female.

For the meantime, you might consider bringing your righteous fury to the maths forum, where their plagarism is evidence by terms such as indices, and numbers. (obvious reference to page numbers) Also, try that Values thread where they talk about being content. Long live the cause of justice![g)]

onycho

Mar7-04, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Zero

Ok, onycho, here's your one and only warning:

Uh Oh, you are so scary...

you are attacking members of PF for attacking public figures and organizations. Our attacks on Behe and the Discovery "Institute" are fair play; your attacks on us are not. Stop making personal attacks, remove yourself from conversations that make you too angry to control yourself, or find some other place to post.

Angry, me? You attack without one shred of proof or evidence with just accusations and envy of those scientists who are so far above your intellectual level.

Anger is always concerned with individuals, ... whereas hatred is directed also against classes: we all hate any thief or any informer. Moreover, anger can be cured by time; but hatred cannot. The one aims at giving pain to its object, the other at doing him harm; the angry man wants his victim to feel; the hater does not mind whether they feel or not.

ATTRIBUTION: Aristotle (384–322 B.C.

Zero

Mar7-04, 01:39 PM

I don't envy anyone who cannot be honest about their intentions. That pretty much overs the entire Discovery Institute...they are liars, and frauds.

Actually, their crime is worse than that. What makes them so horrible is how the corrupt the intellectual integrity of the people who trust them. I think it is great that people look beyond the attitude of "the Bible says so, so it is true" and try to find out whether their beliefs are backed up by reason and science. Maybe that is why I am so upset that the best they can find is something like the Discovery Institute. They aren't good Christians, because they denounce their Christian ties, but they aren't good scientists, because they start out with the Bible, and manipulate the data to fit that worldview. They are in fact the worst of both worlds, and should be rightly denounced by both sides.

Zero

Mar7-04, 01:40 PM

Oh, and BTW, I'm not "scary", but I'm a mentor on PF, and I am informing you that you violating PF rules.

onycho

Mar7-04, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Nath

God is an oudated instituition for the uneducated and meek. The concepts main task is to instill order through fear in a population, this benefits the state, hence the historical yet publicly challenged co-existence of church and state. The concept is possibly THE ultimate evil - what better disguise for Lucifer? I would give my eye teeth to view the finances of the Vatican. The only legal organisation on earth not subjected to legal / public financial audits.

Ignorance must be bliss.... Your Marxist concepts are very revealing about your fears of the unknown.

Zero

Mar7-04, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Zero

This just gets better and better... Obviously, Behe's work is the opposite of "above reproach", since generally scientists think he is wrong, and for the reason of practicing bad science.Keep hiding behind your blind faith in liars, though...I don't understand why you wouldn't be dismayed at the Discovery Institute for intellectual dishonesty, but I guess they are following the Biblical call to lie in the name of religious faith.

How is it that you think that making libelous claims proves anything when you have no evidence for these accusations.

You are apparently born an microcephalic moron. Get a life.... Just saving this so it can't be edited out later...evidence, it isn't just for scientists![:D]

onycho

Mar7-04, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Zero

LOL If a group claims to be non-religious, and then it turns out to be a religious organization, that makes them liars, right? Are you related to Behe, BTW? Is there a reason that you pretend that he is an unquestionable authority?

1) Where do you find any claim that any group claims to be non-religious?

2) No I am not related to Dr. Behe, have never met him and know him only from his books and papers.

3) I have never pretended that Dr. Behe is an unquestional source, it is you who make unsubstantiated statements to the contrary.

onycho

Mar7-04, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Zero

Just saving this so it can't be edited out later...evidence, it isn't just for scientists!

WHAT???? What kindergarten did you graduate from?

Zero

Mar7-04, 01:58 PM

Here's Behe:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

And here's the Discovery Institute: http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_&security=1001&news_iv_ctrl=1075

onycho

Mar7-04, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Zero

I don't envy anyone who cannot be honest about their intentions. That pretty much overs the entire Discovery Institute...they are liars, and frauds. Actually, their crime is worse than that. What makes them so horrible is how the corrupt the intellectual integrity of the people who trust them. I think it is great that people look beyond the attitude of "the Bible says so, so it is true" and try to find out whether their beliefs are backed up by reason and science. Maybe that is why I am so upset that the best they can find is something like the Discovery Institute. They aren't good Christians, because they denounce their Christian ties, but they aren't good scientists, because they start out with the Bible, and manipulate the data to fit that worldview. They are in fact the worst of both worlds, and should be rightly denounced by both sides.

Still just your vitriol without proof.

Intolerance is evidence of impotence.

ATTRIBUTION: Aleister Crowley

Zero

Mar7-04, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Zero

Just saving this so it can't be edited out later...evidence, it isn't just for scientists!

WHAT???? What kindergarten did you graduate from? Saving this one too...I can't wait for kerrie to take a look at this thread!!!

Zero

Mar7-04, 02:05 PM

Anyhoo, to get back on topic, it seems to me that anything like ID or "irreducable complexity" can't be used as a proof of "God", on account of the fact that it could have been Martians who did it.

onycho

Mar7-04, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Zero

Here's Behe:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
And here's the Discovery Institute: http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_&security=1001&news_iv_ctrl=1075

Zero, do you have a brain in your acephalic head?

You say here's the Discovery Institute as proof of being a religious front group.

Well you forgot to mention one little tiny detail. Your site proofs are the religious group known as the 'Americans United for Separation of Church and State' and that Galapagos Island virtual on-line university.

Hardly independent unbiased atheist anti-religious organizations decrying a scientific prestigious institute like the Discorvery Institute.

You'll have to do better. Try proving your point with The Discovery Site information site itself or a recognized unbiased scientific institute that finds 'Discovery Institute' a religious front.

Zero

Mar7-04, 02:13 PM

Nobody else really cares about the Discovery Institute, since they are a political and religious group, not a scientific organization.

Now, see if you can't get back on topic.

onycho

Mar7-04, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Zero

Anyhoo, to get back on topic, it seems to me that anything like ID or "irreducable complexity" can't be used as a proof of "God", on account of the fact that it could have been Martians who did it.

Never did try to prove irredicible complexity as proof of any G-d. It simply proves that putting broken cans and bottles into a mixer does not produce a working computer.

You are the one equating irreducible complexity with a diety.

Zero

Mar7-04, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Zero

Anyhoo, to get back on topic, it seems to me that anything like ID or "irreducable complexity" can't be used as a proof of "God", on account of the fact that it could have been Martians who did it.

Never did try to prove irredicible complexity as proof of any G-d. It simply proves that putting broken cans and bottles into a mixer does not produce a working computer.

You are the one equating irreducible complexity with a diety. Nice strawman analogy.

Anyhoo, if irreducable complexity has nothing to do with mythological beings, then why is it being discussed in this thread. Your posting about irreducable complexity is off-topic.

onycho

Mar7-04, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Zero

Nobody else really cares about the Discovery Institute, since they are a political and religious group, not a scientific organization. Now, see if you can't get back on topic.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? It just happens to be one of the many scientific insitutes, teaching facilities and universities that Dr. Behe is associated with.

You are the one trying to prove the impossible with devious accusations.

Zero

Mar7-04, 02:21 PM

So, getting back on topic, does anyone have any evidence for the existance of any mythological being?[:D]

onycho

Mar7-04, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Zero

Nice strawman analogy. Anyhoo, if irreducable complexity has nothing to do with mythological beings, then why is it being discussed in this thread. Your posting about irreducable complexity is off-topic.

Strawman analogy? Irreducbile complexity just happens to be a very real observation and well documented. You are the one on this thread that is totally uncomplex with your preconceived ideas about gods and mythological beings.

onycho

Mar7-04, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Zero

So, getting back on topic, does anyone have any evidence for the existance of any mythological being?[:D]

Are you referring to the mythological Monitar or the white flying horse of Hercules?

Zero

Mar7-04, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Zero

So, getting back on topic, does anyone have any evidence for the existance of any mythological being?[:D]

Are you referring to the mythological Monitar or the white flying horse of Hercules? Those, plus Zeus, Odin, Thor, Yahweh, whatever thing Joseph Smith claimed to have talked to, Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, Satan, Isis, or any one of the other 5000 or so deities that people have believed in.

(*the heck is a Monitar?!?*)

TENYEARS

Mar7-04, 02:30 PM

physican, look the smucks are trying to get your goat. They already stole it and are cooking it over a barbaque. The intent of the orignal conversation is gone and so am I on this thread.

When I refered to time as a physican, it was not ment as a derogatory comment, but that your mind was being channeled on other tasks. As to what I know, part of it will be known as fact in your lifetime. The world is not as it was when life regenerated in the past, today is far different. There are new factors which have never been present before. Everyone has the right to talk in absolutes even if they do not understand them, but to live in them when the tide is not just right will test the metal of your speach.

Zero/FZ, get a life.

TENYEARS

Mar7-04, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Those, plus Zeus, Odin, Thor, Yahweh, whatever thing Joseph Smith claimed to have talked to, Vishnu, Allah, Jehovah, Satan, Isis, or any one of the other 5000 or so deities that people have believed in.

(*the heck is a Monitar?!?*)

"Moroni". It may have happened. And they may have actually migrated to south america, also. Other sources buddist monks who supposedly landed in south america saw indians with blue eyes and carts I think oxen or donkeys. This was apparently not indiginous to the area. I don't know for all that I read may be a lie so that is why if one does not figure it out themselves they are not interested in the truth. That is the only way the truth may come.

Zero

Mar7-04, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by TENYEARS
"Moroni". It may have happened. And they may have actually migrated to south america, also. Other sources buddist monks who supposedly landed in south america saw indians with blue eyes and carts I think oxen or donkeys. This was apparently not indiginous to the area. I don't know for all that I read may be a lie so that is why if one does not figure it out themselves they are not interested in the truth. That is the only way the truth may come. You do realize how funny that is, right? "Moroni"?

Anyhoo, to get back on track, where is the proof?

onycho

Mar7-04, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by TENYEARS

"Moroni". It may have happened. And they may have actually migrated to south america, also. Other sources buddist monks who supposedly landed in south america saw indians with blue eyes and carts I think oxen or donkeys. This was apparently not indiginous to the area. I don't know for all that I read may be a lie so that is why if one does not figure it out themselves they are not interested in the truth. That is the only way the truth may come.

Misspelled: mythological Minotaur

http://www.offrench.net/photos/photo.php?photo=584&exhibition=5

The proof of a deity has been disproved by your essense causing this thread to have a putrid odor.

Zero

Mar7-04, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by onycho

The proof of a deity has been disproved by your essense causing this thread to have a putrid odor. Ummm...what the heck are you talking about?

ahrkron

Mar7-04, 03:06 PM

Form the website of the Society for Neuroscience (http://web.sfn.org/):

SfN Statement on Evolution and Intelligent Design

Recognizing that the theory of Evolution is the fundamental scientific theory or cornerstone that helps us to understand and study the origins and diversity of living organisms, the Society for Neuroscience supports teaching evolution in science classrooms, and opposes the assertion that Intelligent Design Theory (ID) is a valid scientific alternative.

The debate in America surrounding the teaching of Evolution in science classrooms began with the Creationist claim that the Darwinian concept of natural selection was incorrect, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of it. Creationism, a theory attempting to explain origins of life through supernatural causes, as opposed to scientific ones, failed. Intelligent Design, a revised Creationist effort to claim scientific legitimacy, purports to present a highly disputed philosophical theory as valid scientific theory. Differing from Creationism, ID is not directly supernaturally based. Intelligent design cites, as one of its core principles, “intelligent causes” as the explanation of the complexity of biological structures. Attempting to become credible in the face of Creationism’s failure, ID is devoid of potential to create sound scientific results and explanations. Therefore, it would, as its proponents intend, subserve the goals of the Creationist effort.

The theory of Evolution serves as the basis for the biological sciences’ understanding of the origins and diversity of all living organisms and is accepted with remarkable consensus in the scientific community. It explains and supports findings in scientific areas ranging from botany to zoology and embryology to neuroscience. Additional support is found within independent scientific sources such as archaeology and molecular biology. Though scientists can differ regarding certain aspects of Evolution, the differences constitute testable hypotheses. Thus, SfN believes that teaching Evolution is an essential component of modern science education. K-12 science education based on anything other than tested and accepted scientific theory is counterproductive to the education of America’s youth.

For these reasons, the Society for Neuroscience categorically opposes the teaching of ID in science classrooms. Further, the Society for Neuroscience emphatically supports the teaching of Evolutionary theory, as it is necessary for a valuable scientific education and for understanding of the diversity and origin of all living organisms.

The Society was formed in 1970. It has more than 34,000 members and is the world's largest organization of scientists devoted to the study of the brain. It publishes the scholarly journal The Journal of Neuroscience, and a variety of other publications.

(http://web.sfn.org/content/AboutSfN1/Guidlines/evolution.html)