Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Butterbean on October 11, 2006, 10:59:57 AM
-
When do you first let someone know you're an atheist? When they start talking about God? Or do you offer it as an FYI in general or......?
-
Why bring it up? Unless questioned I let other people make the assumptions.
-
When they assign me a religion, like Nordic does. ;D
-
When they assign me a religion, like Nordic does. ;D
In the context of CJ's message above, "assign" means: guess my religion correctly (but I will continue lying about my faith).
Does a god exist CJ?
-
I don't know many atheists, but most of the ones I've encountered are angry and/or bitter.
-
Id like a christians defnition of an athiest before answering :D
-
I've know several athiest. They all were pretty nice poeple and seem to follow a fairly strict moral code in regards to "killing, stealing, adultry and lying". They seemed a bit lost. :'(
-
In the context of CJ's message above, "assign" means: guess my religion correctly (but I will continue lying about my faith).
Does a god exist CJ?
How am I lying about my faith? I will admit that I stick up for muslims sometimes because I feel an ethnic attachment, but not because I follow Islam.
Now to answer your question, no, I don't think god exists. This puts me in a difficult position in my own community because it's so out of the norm and people think I'm fucking crazy or a bad person.
-
People in Australia are completely different to Americans as far as advertising their faith. I may see the odd 'fish' symbol on a car but generally christianity here is a cult. 'Born agains' are completely ridiculed and generally become outsiders to their pre 'saved' buddies, we dont tolerate that nonsense. Sure we have many thousands of christians but its a different mentality and they either keep to themselves or dont advertise the fact.
Ive never stepped into a church for any personal agenda however I was carried in once by my mother when I was 8 months old and assigned 'protestant' status. Whatever the flick that means.
As for when would I tell a christian that i dont believe in their trifle...I simply walk away, I dont owe them anything let alone my energy or time to hear another rant. I would never date someone that is religious I wouldnt knowingly hang out with religious people, because it just 'wouldnt work out'.
I use to compete on the skateboard circuit when I was a kid. I was/still am a fan of the band Bad Religion and was wearing one of their t-shirts at a christian sponsored event and was asked to change my shirt. (I wasnt wearing the shirt intentionally...was just a t-shirt) I kindly declined their request and was promptly disqualified. You think I'd care if I was running the gig and a dude turned up to skate in a 'I love jesus' t-shirt?
Im not an 'athiest' or 'agnostic', like Ive said before they're religious terms so obviously I cant be labelled as such (happy to argue).
So that being said, when would I tell someone I dont swim in their ocean? Never.
As for Beach Bum and Ozmo...your responses show your character and I feel sorry for you. You simply prove once again that christianity is a racist, hate cult. (write that down)
-
As for Beach Bum and Ozmo...your responses show your character and I feel sorry for you. You simply prove once again that christianity is a racist, hate cult. (write that down)
lol. Ozmo is actually a Christian? ???
-
People in Australia are completely different to Americans as far as advertising their faith. I may see the odd 'fish' symbol on a car but generally christianity here is a cult. 'Born agains' are completely ridiculed and generally become outsiders to their pre 'saved' buddies, we dont tolerate that nonsense. Sure we have many thousands of christians but its a different mentality and they either keep to themselves or dont advertise the fact.
Ive never stepped into a church for any personal agenda however I was carried in once by my mother when I was 8 months old and assigned 'protestant' status. Whatever the flick that means.
As for when would I tell a christian that i dont believe in their trifle...I simply walk away, I dont owe them anything let alone my energy or time to hear another rant. I would never date someone that is religious I wouldnt knowingly hang out with religious people, because it just 'wouldnt work out'.
I use to compete on the skateboard circuit when I was a kid. I was/still am a fan of the band Bad Religion and was wearing one of their t-shirts at a christian sponsored event and was asked to change my shirt. (I wasnt wearing the shirt intentionally...was just a t-shirt) I kindly declined their request and was promptly disqualified. You think I'd care if I was running the gig and a dude turned up to skate in a 'I love jesus' t-shirt?
Im not an 'athiest' or 'agnostic', like Ive said before they're religious terms so obviously I cant be labelled as such (happy to argue).
So that being said, when would I tell someone I dont swim in their ocean? Never.
As for Beach Bum and Ozmo...your responses show your character and I feel sorry for you. You simply prove once again that christianity is a racist, hate cult. (write that down)
At what point Bigger, did i indicate i was racist or i was a christian? Can you read? Where in this post did i say that or inffer that? I simply gave my opinion about Athiests i met and know. My comment about being a little lost is a personal observation only.
So i don't get where you define my character that way other than you are very prone to jumping to conclusions as a another form of working your quads.
-
At what point Bigger, did i indicate i was racist or i was a christian? Can you read? Where in this post did i say that or inffer that? I simply gave my opinion about Athiests i met and know. My comment about being a little lost is a personal observation only.
So i don't get where you define my character that way other than you are very prone to jumping to conclusions as a another form of working your quads.
Do you practice any main stream "religion" or do you practice some trendy hippy religion? If you practice a religion, name it!
Liberal apologist smoke horse pole!
-
Do you practice any main stream "religion" or do you practice some trendy hippy religion? If you practice a religion, name it!
Liberal apologist smoke horse pole!
I don't practice any organized religion. I believe it's mostly a bunch of BS to control poeple.
Conservative alarmists shag their sisters. ;D
-
I've know several athiest. They all were pretty nice poeple and seem to follow a fairly strict moral code in regards to "killing, stealing, adultry and lying". They seemed a bit lost. :'(
this post says
"I'm a christian and anyone that isnt: kills, steals, lies, and fucks married folk"
If youre not a christian, how do you know theyre 'athiests' and what does that make you?
fyi OJ is a christian
-
this post says
"I'm a christian and anyone that isnt: kills, steals, lies, and fucks married folk"
I have no idea where you interpret that.
All i said was the athiests i know follow a strict moral code. Where does that say:
"I'm a christian and anyone that isnt: kills, steals, lies, and fucks married folk"?
Geez talk about making shit up ::)
Next:
If youre not a christian, how do you know theyre 'athiests' and what does that make you?
Maybe because they told me they were athiests.
And if i'm not a christian then wouldn't that make me a non-christian?
Are we both speaking english here?
Are you talking about where i say: "they seemed a bit lost"?
What i meant there is that IMO they seemed a bit lost spiritually. That's certainly not a slant on athiests but just a personal observation.
Bigger if you want to attack/challange something i said I'm sure you can find better stuff I've posted to challange me on.
-
i call it as i see it with little regard for punctuality or thought.
it's my thing
-
i call it as i see it with little regard for punctuality or thought.
it's my thing
lol ;D Good to see you apologised for the unthoughtful comments ;)
-
How many of the threads in this section end up pissing people off and causing meltdowns? And that's just on the internet! Interesting social experiment. No wonder so many wars are fought over religion.
-
i call it as i see it with little regard for punctuality or thought.
it's my thing
Fair enough ;D
Might want to get your eyes checked ;)
-
People in Australia are completely different to Americans as far as advertising their faith. I may see the odd 'fish' symbol on a car but generally christianity here is a cult. 'Born agains' are completely ridiculed and generally become outsiders to their pre 'saved' buddies, we dont tolerate that nonsense. Sure we have many thousands of christians but its a different mentality and they either keep to themselves or dont advertise the fact.
Ive never stepped into a church for any personal agenda however I was carried in once by my mother when I was 8 months old and assigned 'protestant' status. Whatever the flick that means.
As for when would I tell a christian that i dont believe in their trifle...I simply walk away, I dont owe them anything let alone my energy or time to hear another rant. I would never date someone that is religious I wouldnt knowingly hang out with religious people, because it just 'wouldnt work out'.
I use to compete on the skateboard circuit when I was a kid. I was/still am a fan of the band Bad Religion and was wearing one of their t-shirts at a christian sponsored event and was asked to change my shirt. (I wasnt wearing the shirt intentionally...was just a t-shirt) I kindly declined their request and was promptly disqualified. You think I'd care if I was running the gig and a dude turned up to skate in a 'I love jesus' t-shirt?
Im not an 'athiest' or 'agnostic', like Ive said before they're religious terms so obviously I cant be labelled as such (happy to argue).
So that being said, when would I tell someone I dont swim in their ocean? Never.
As for Beach Bum and Ozmo...your responses show your character and I feel sorry for you. You simply prove once again that christianity is a racist, hate cult. (write that down)
Speaking of angry and/or bitter people . . . .
-
Faith isn't owned by the conservative left, any more than atheism is owned by the liberal left/
Both exist.
I know many conservative athiests, as well as many liberal christians. I am liberal christian, so are most of my friends. In fact the New Democrat premier in Saskatchewan, Canada, was a United Church Minister, he is both a socialist and a christian.
Most athiest I know don't talk about being an athiest unless religion is brought up. The same applies to being egonistic, gay, straight, christian, muslim. These conversations are out of the norm unless you seek them out.
-
bigger buisness how are you a moderator? you totally take posts out of context and form your own idea about what the person said, like ozmo was being abstract or something. your points are ridiculous also, i mean how do you get a racist hate cult out of anything that was said? you cause arguments by being ignorant and attacking members for no reason.
and atheist and agnostic are not religious terms, you can be an agnostic about many subjects and believing in no god, makes you an atheist. you can term them religious concepts all you want but that is the proper verbage. you sound very bitter and angry about something in your life as evidenced by your post.
also, you wouldnt go to a atheist convention with a shirt that says god exists, well thats the same analogy to your situation in the "christian" sponsered event. so no your point does not make any sense at all.
-
i call it as i see it with little regard for punctuality or thought.
it's my thing
god how did you become a moderator or leader of this forum. your post basically says i act without thinking and say what i want, you have beat suckmymuscle for dumbest post ever.
-
So anybody that dosnt follow your train of thought is bitter? (beach bum/pole)
-
So anybody that dosnt follow your train of thought is bitter? (beach bum/pole)
Not at all. I know a couple of atheists/agnostics that I like very much. In fact, I've accused one of them of being a closet Christian. I work with lots of people who aren't "religious" at all.
But just to review our respective comments, I made the fairly benign comment that "I don't know many atheists, but most of the ones I've encountered are angry and/or bitter." That's simply my opinion based on my personal observations.
You responded with "As for Beach Bum and Ozmo...your responses show your character and I feel sorry for you. You simply prove once again that christianity is a racist, hate cult. (write that down)[.]"
There was absolutely nothing racist, hateful, or cultish about my comments. That's why I replied "Speaking of angry and/or bitter people . . . ." You sound angry and/or bitter. I don't know if you are, but you sure sound a little uptight. Your comments were a little misdirected.
BTW, not all Christians are happy people. I know plenty of unhappy, uptight Christians.
-
If I lived in a muslim community and publicly displayed such distaste for that religion as I do for christianity Id probably be made an example of. However, I live in a 'christian' society which also celebrates free speech. And I have every right to suggest that christianity is the weakest excuse for a religion in the world and christianity is going to be at fault for the downfall of the human race.
One other thing. I can leave this thread and not think twice about the fact that youre a christian and have a civil discussion on any topic with you somewhere else. On the other hand, in the back of your mind Im just a blaspheming 'athiest' to you, perhaps even a devil worshipper? ::) .
There inlies the difference :D
-
If I lived in a muslim community and publicly displayed such distaste for that religion as I do for christianity Id probably be made an example of. However, I live in a 'christian' society which also celebrates free speech. And I have every right to suggest that christianity is the weakest excuse for a religion in the world and christianity is going to be at fault for the downfall of the human race.
One other thing. I can leave this thread and not think twice about the fact that youre a christian and have a civil discussion on any topic with you somewhere else. On the other hand, in the back of your mind Im just a blaspheming 'athiest' to you, perhaps even a devil worshipper? ::) .
There inlies the difference :D
Whatever dude. I don't know you from Adam (so to speak), so I don't have any opinion about you or your religious/non-religious practices (other than you sound angry and/or bitter). The day you start having an impact on whether or not I can pay my mortgage or put food on the table, is the day I start thinking about you outside of this board. :)
I'm very comfortable and happy with my faith. If you're happy with yours, or the lack thereof, then good for you.
-
I'm very comfortable and happy with my faith. If you're happy with yours, or the lack thereof, then good for you.
BB I have zero tollerance for religion and how you interpret that is entirely up to you. Christians live in fantasy land, how can you be friends with people that are convinced some guy walked on water 2000 years ago and that we were 'created'?
The homeless guy out the front of the train station who wears his manties outside his jogging pants thinks he's elvis. Im sure theres people around who believe him too.
-
BB I have zero tollerance for religion and how you interpret that is entirely up to you. Christians live in fantasy land, how can you be friends with people that are convinced some guy walked on water 2000 years ago and that we were 'created'?
The homeless guy out the front of the train station who wears his manties outside his jogging pants thinks he's elvis. Im sure theres people around who believe him too.
Dude, you are way too angry to the point of losing any and all objectivity. Take some deep breaths. Chill. Go hug a christian.
-
oh brother i will keep this short or neo will start posting links agian. you dont know if god exsists or not, nobody does if empirical evidence is what you seek. atheism is a dumb position, and i am agnostic which indicates that because i cant know i wont pretend to know like you. you act as if you know that god does not exsist but i ask you one question i would like answered what is eternal in this universe as your explanation for exsistence?
i say your angry because your posts stink of animosity and frustration.
-
Yeah out of nowhere this guy starts labeling and putting words in everyone's mouth. Did his Girlfriend get born again and dump him?
Is his frustration and anger stemming from never having a spiritual experience in his life like most people?
-
Dude, you are way too angry to the point of losing any and all objectivity. Take some deep breaths. Chill. Go hug a christian.
Imagine the most religious person you can
now imagine the complete opposite
thats me :D
can you clarify your question pole? "one question i would like answered what is eternal in this universe as your explanation for exsistence?"
Are you asking me why we exsist?
-
i dont like to tell people im an athiest when they talk about god, its would be like telling a kid there is no santa
-
BB I have zero tollerance for religion and how you interpret that is entirely up to you. Christians live in fantasy land, how can you be friends with people that are convinced some guy walked on water 2000 years ago and that we were 'created'?
The homeless guy out the front of the train station who wears his manties outside his jogging pants thinks he's elvis. Im sure theres people around who believe him too.
in one way or another, my child, everyone clings to some far fetched notion. for some, its that we are going to a paradise when we die. for others, its that their parents are perfect. for others, its that their fat ass is skinny. could be a drug addict not coping to an addiction ... whatever, its part of the human condition. to avoid haning out with them on that basis is premature
wait till they tell you about rapture for that ;D
-
BB I have zero tollerance for religion and how you interpret that is entirely up to you. Christians live in fantasy land, how can you be friends with people that are convinced some guy walked on water 2000 years ago and that we were 'created'?
The homeless guy out the front of the train station who wears his manties outside his jogging pants thinks he's elvis. Im sure theres people around who believe him too.
I agree with Ozmo: you need a hug. :)
Hey did you know Ted Turner dumped Jane Fonda because she became a Christian? Or so I heard. Do you and Jane have anything in common? :)
And if you have "zero tolerance for religion," why are you hanging around and posting on the religion board? ???
-
And if you have "zero tolerance for religion," why are you hanging around and posting on the religion board? ???
Its not a religion board...its a religious discussion board
and I am the voice of reason
-
Its not a religion board...its a religious discussion board
and I am the voice of reason
And the difference between a "religion board" and "religious discussion board" is . . . ?
If you're the voice of reason then I'm Ronald Reagan.
-
And the difference between a "religion board" and "religious discussion board" is . . . ?
Well Mr Reagan...a religious board would probably be full of god toss and pats on the back about who can quote the most awesome jesus saying. A discussion on the other hand invites opposition and creative argument.
hope this 'heps'
-
Well Mr Reagan
Whahaha!! :D
-
Well Mr Reagan...a religious board would probably be full of god toss and pats on the back about who can quote the most awesome jesus saying. A discussion on the other hand invites opposition and creative argument.
hope this 'heps'
Oh, you mean like the devotionals thread? ::) Isn't that "god toss and pats on the back and who can quote the most awesome jesus saying"? Except for my barbs at Jag's psychobabble of course. ;D
Call it what you want: religion, religious, etc., whatever. You're still spending an inordinate amount of time on a "religious discussion board," given your extreme distaste for religion. Sort of reminds me of Eddie Murphy consistently picking up transvestite hitchhikers. ;D
Hey it's okay to share your frustrations with religion. No one knows your identity (at least I don't). You never know. You might just find your way. Heathen.
Kidding. :)
-
I'm just curious...before you press 'post' do wonder what jesus thinks of your replies?
-
I'm just curious...before you press 'post' do wonder what jesus thinks of your replies?
If you have such a disdain for religion and a contempt for those of us who believed that a man walked on water more than 2000 years ago, I have ask you why you would then turn around and ask Beach Bum what he things Jesus would think of his posts? ???
-
yeah what? I asked him if he asks Jesus...not because I think his posts are unchristian, but because Im curious if he asks jesus
theres nothing to look into big guy
-
yes im asking if god did not create us then what is your explanation for the exsistence of this universe, since it is not infinite something is eternal, so what is eternal?
your no voice of reason my friend, you are the minority and believing in no god and inprobabilities is just as much of a faith issue.
-
yes im asking if god did not create us then what is your explanation for the exsistence of this universe, since it is not infinite something is eternal, so what is eternal?
this rock we live on suits our species...thats it. we're nothing more than amoebas on a planet that is a speck in the universe. do you believe we (human mammals) are the most important thing going on in all of the trillions (for lack of a better word) of other planets?
your no voice of reason my friend, you are the minority and believing in no god and inprobabilities is just as much of a faith issue.
minority? thats laughable. the rest of the sentence makes no sense, i'm not even sure if i answered your first question right...with all due respect is english your first language?
-
People in Australia are completely different to Americans as far as advertising their faith. I may see the odd 'fish' symbol on a car but generally christianity here is a cult.
Usually I see a cult defined as some group that "rejects the biblical teaching that salvation is a “free gift” from God by grace through faith alone. Instead, cults and all other “religions” falsely say that people must “earn” their salvation by certain works and deeds, often works that will perpetuate the cult (this glorifies man rather than God)."
And "cults are often exclusive, centering around a strong leader (or late founder) who has the only “true” interpretations of Scripture. Whereas Christ came to give us freedom, (Galatians 5:1), cult members are in bondage to that cult leader, with the threat that leaving the cult will cause a loss of salvation.
So I don't see how Christianity can be defined as a cult unless it's some denomination or church that claims to be Christian but really isn't.
-
Usually I see a cult defined as some group that "rejects the biblical teaching that salvation is a “free gift” from God by grace through faith alone. Instead, cults and all other “religions” falsely say that people must “earn” their salvation by certain works and deeds, often works that will perpetuate the cult (this glorifies man rather than God)."
And "cults are often exclusive, centering around a strong leader (or late founder) who has the only “true” interpretations of Scripture. Whereas Christ came to give us freedom, (Galatians 5:1), cult members are in bondage to that cult leader, with the threat that leaving the cult will cause a loss of salvation.
So I don't see how Christianity can be defined as a cult unless it's some denomination or church that claims to be Christian but really isn't.
run lola run is a cult movie
its a loose term dont look so much into it
-
'Born agains' are completely ridiculed and generally become outsiders to their pre 'saved' buddies, we dont tolerate that nonsense. Sure we have many thousands of christians but its a different mentality and they either keep to themselves or dont advertise the fact.
Sometimes when people here in America are born-again their pre-'saved' buddies drop them too and ridicule them. It's hard for people that haven't had the experience to understand what has happened to them.
Also here some people are more vocal about their faith than others. I have aquaintances that are Christian that I can't stand to be around because they seem like they are judging people sometimes and they tend to preach AT me on how I should be living my life when they, themselves are committing sins (as we ALL are every single day). If they want to be helpful to people, fine, but don't preach AT me please! :P
-
I use to compete on the skateboard circuit when I was a kid. I was/still am a fan of the band Bad Religion and was wearing one of their t-shirts at a christian sponsored event and was asked to change my shirt. (I wasnt wearing the shirt intentionally...was just a t-shirt) I kindly declined their request and was promptly disqualified. You think I'd care if I was running the gig and a dude turned up to skate in a 'I love jesus' t-shirt?
This was wrong of them in my opinion.
-
I wouldnt knowingly hang out with religious people, because it just 'wouldnt work out'.
This is wrong because we would have a blast hanging out! ;D And Jimmy could come too :D
-
PS I don't know how to quote someones post that is not on the last page of teh thread...as the latest posts are under the "post reply" text box and you can just grab them from there....that's why I had to make several posts on BB's quote.....is there a way to do it? :-[
-
I wouldnt ridicule a born again...we would simply have nothing more in common. I watched a friend convert and destroy his life...burnt (literally) all his music, tore down posters moved in with other christians. 2 years later he 'unconverted'. weird
i have acquantices that are christians...its hard not to, but i dont know if its a vibe i give off but theyve never once discussed the subject with me. :D
i went to an indian retaurant for dinner tonight. Its free, well you pay what you want/can. everyone that works there is volunteering and the money goes back to india to finance free health care hospitals. a party of 4 in front of us gave him $80 bux, the next two guys had no money, I gave the guy a 20...he said 'god bless' I thanked him for the meal and left. he meant that shit i could tell...and i felt that, but a thankyou would have been fine. ;)
-
PS I don't know how to quote someones post that is not on the last page of teh thread...as the latest posts are under the "post reply" text box and you can just grab them from there....that's why I had to make several posts on BB's quote.....is there a way to do it? :-[
and you call yourself a moderator :P
(look in the upper right part of anybodys post and it should say "Quote" ... click on it and it will insert the quote in your reply :))
-
This is wrong because we would have a blast hanging out! ;D And Jimmy could come too :D
have you been talking to my boy!! ;D ;)
-
and you call yourself a moderator :P
:-[
(look in the upper right part of anybodys post and it should say "Quote" ... click on it and it will insert the quote in your reply :))
I know that part but when I want to quote the quote several times but it's not on the same page as the "reply post" box....how do I quote it again w/o making a brand new post? ???
:)
have you been talking to my boy!! ;D ;)
Yes :D Finally got set up on Messenger so we can chat instead of just email :)
-
I know that part but when I want to quote the quote several times but it's not on the same page as the "reply post" box....how do I quote it again w/o making a brand new post? ???
in that case the easiest thing to do is manually insert {quote} {/quote} (but with the [] instead of {}) around each portion of text you want to quote .... just remember that the first {quote} and the last {/quote} are already included
:D
-
I'm just curious...before you press 'post' do wonder what jesus thinks of your replies?
Sometimes.
Because I'm not the "knock on your door and share my faith" type Christian, I have to be what's called a "lifestyle evangelist." I don't really talk about religion much on a daily basis. Most of the people I work with aren't very "religious." I try and let my lifestyle let people know that I'm a Christian. Sometimes I'm successful, sometimes not.
You should try reading the book of Proverbs. It has a ton of stuff that can help you. I read portions of it every week. Much of it is just practical advice that even an atheist can use.
-
in that case the easiest thing to do is manually insert {quote} {/quote} (but with the [] instead of {}) around each portion of text you want to quote .... just remember that the first {quote} and the last {/quote} are already included
:D
Ok...I will try that next time. Thank you very much :D
-
i use the engrish langauge to perfection. and no you never answered my question i dont think you even comprehend my question, let alone give me anything worth thinking about. my statement about inprobability and atheism is based on the mathematic impossilbility of chance and formation of the universe etc without guidance. atheism and improbabilty are inextricable with use of logic. i dont want to get back into this argument because i have said my piece i just wanted to hear another atheist pov on origins, for a different perspective. the question is what is your explanation for singularities exsistence or ex nihilo
-
i use the engrish langauge to perfection. and no you never answered my question i dont think you even comprehend my question, let alone give me anything worth thinking about. my statement about inprobability and atheism is based on the mathematic impossilbility of chance and formation of the universe etc without guidance. atheism and improbabilty are inextricable with use of logic. i dont want to get back into this argument because i have said my piece i just wanted to hear another atheist pov on origins, for a different perspective. the question is what is your explanation for singularities exsistence or ex nihilo
I like it
-
I am an Egnostic and I've had more than one person tell me that I'm also a "closet christian" because I guess I live my life like a christian. What exactly does that mean? I don't even believe in God, how can I live life like a Christian? Just because I'm a good person and do what I think is right?
-
I am an Egnostic and I've had more than one person tell me that I'm also a "closet christian" because I guess I live my life like a christian. What exactly does that mean? I don't even believe in God, how can I live life like a Christian? Just because I'm a good person and do what I think is right?
in your terms what is morality and were does the standard for morality come from?
-
Sometimes.
Because I'm not the "knock on your door and share my faith" type Christian, I have to be what's called a "lifestyle evangelist." I don't really talk about religion much on a daily basis. Most of the people I work with aren't very "religious." I try and let my lifestyle let people know that I'm a Christian. Sometimes I'm successful, sometimes not.
You should try reading the book of Proverbs. It has a ton of stuff that can help you. I read portions of it every week. Much of it is just practical advice that even an atheist can use.
thanks for the honest answer
i use the engrish langauge to perfection. and no you never answered my question i dont think you even comprehend my question, let alone give me anything worth thinking about. my statement about inprobability and atheism is based on the mathematic impossilbility of chance and formation of the universe etc without guidance. atheism and improbabilty are inextricable with use of logic. i dont want to get back into this argument because i have said my piece i just wanted to hear another atheist pov on origins, for a different perspective. the question is what is your explanation for singularities exsistence or ex nihilo
ya speaking in tongues man
-
basically what is the cause to the effect which is the universe. what created the universe from your point of view? you can use science in your answer or your own opinion i just wanted the pov of another atheist on this board. basically one of the ways i see it is that the laws of physics would have to preceed matter in order for matter to exsist for without laws matter is impossible. so this is one of the reasons i believe in an eternal god. also, the word eternal gets mixed up alot and people say well then what created god but they mis-interpret the word eternal for it has no cause. something in this life has to be eternal for infinity is not possible with logical reasoning.
-
When do you first let someone know you're an atheist? When they start talking about God? Or do you offer it as an FYI in general or......?
It depends on where you are? It also depends on the person. Religion & Politics are subjects that make people "go off"!! People who get on their "soapbox" suck! :)
-
basically what is the cause to the effect which is the universe. what created the universe from your point of view? you can use science in your answer or your own opinion i just wanted the pov of another atheist on this board. basically one of the ways i see it is that the laws of physics would have to preceed matter in order for matter to exsist for without laws matter is impossible. so this is one of the reasons i believe in an eternal god. also, the word eternal gets mixed up alot and people say well then what created god but they mis-interpret the word eternal for it has no cause. something in this life has to be eternal for infinity is not possible with logical reasoning.
dude... Im a gym rat from the western suburbs of Sydney. I dont have the first clue as to how the universe was created and frankly I dont care. :D
-
then your position as an atheist is ludicris and frankly ignorant. and your intolerance for people who have studied information and label themselves christian or whatever is without base, because you dont have a clue what your talking about. so in other words you shouldn't be arguing anything at all.
-
Why dont you go read your bible and then stick it up your ass
:D
-
I think religion used to be important to provide guidance and morals for people but now that people are educated and can think for themself (or should be able to), they should be able to decide for themselves what decisions are morally justified and which ones are not. If you live by a law, ie religion, to tell you on how to behave you are excluding choice from your life, which per definition, means you are not choosing good over evil, you are merely following instructions like a robot.
If you can decide for yourself which choices are good over evil, then you are truly a good person.
-
smaul, good points but how does a kid no right from wrong, and if it is because of older generations then wouldnt morality right and wrong change with generations, or leaders. also, if you go back in time morality is basically the same, but some people choose not to obey morality(murderers etc all knew it was wrong but choose not to obey morality, for ref read about jeff dahmer). basically what im getting at is that morality seems to be engrained wether through genes or morphilogical resonance for instance. the question i ask is why do we have this standard for morality if god didn't engrain it, and what purpose does it serve in a strong shall survive civilization?
also, bigger buisness i havent read the bible but am versed somewhat in science and that is were i draw my inspiration from(ie god).
-
I see where you're coming from and although I dont agree with you I think you make a good point!
-
in your terms what is morality and were does the standard for morality come from?
morality to me is simply one's beliefs in what is right and what is wrong. I don't think the standard for morality comes from anywhere. There really is no standard. I mean, it really depends. There are so many different levels of morality to consider. You have rules to follow in school or at work, you have laws to follow and you have internal "rules" or morals to follow in personal situations. It's hard to say where the standard comes from.
-
morality exists entirely in the minds of men
for instance, to many over here flying planes into towers is immoral while invading other countries is not
whereas, in those other countries you will find many who think invading their country is immoral while flying planes into towers is not
500 years ago banging 15 year olds was kosher, now it is not
charging interest used to be usery, now it is not
-
im talking about right and wrong within humans that cant come from "beliefs", morality need not be dissected, but is a basic dichotomy. why does a infant know not to kick a baby in the face or the universal right and wrongs throughout societies. i get what your saying but children no right from wrong and thus wouldn't be catergorized as there moral beleifs but that of their parents for instance. however, if it is the authority figures that teach beliefs why doesn't moral attitudes change through the generations, things like incest etc.. there must be a standard which people attend to, in that morals of basic right and wrong do not change within each person for the most part as seen in society. what im getting at is there is some programmed entity of morality, wether it serves a evolutionary purpose i dont know but there seems to be a universal right and wrong, with regards to friendship, incest etc..
most cultures have taboos about incest and morality in children and is evident before coercion.
-
People often focus on gray areas when talking about morality, but there is a lot of black and white:
rape
murder
incest
child molestation
cheating (in business)
-
I think animals have an innate sense of right and wrong. From an evolutionary stand point, a population that doesn't go around killing each other for no reason has a greater chance of survival. Also, humans are social animals. I believe we are more 'programmed' to feel sympathy for others.
-
I think animals have an innate sense of right and wrong. From an evolutionary stand point, a population that doesn't go around killing each other for no reason has a greater chance of survival.
Well then we are doomed.
-
People often focus on gray areas when talking about morality, but there is a lot of black and white:
rape
murder
incest
child molestation
cheating (in business)
youre the last guy in the world and the only female is a 16 year old cousin of yours who doesnt want to have sex.
human survival now depends on you raping an underage relitave of yours.
murdering a terrorist might prevent an attack
cheating in business could feed your starving family
is it still black and white?
-
yes alturism and evolution, but you have no proof that we are programmed for this feat by evolution more so then god. ok so why dont i rape every women in sight, would increase my chances of procreating thus increase fitness. there is more at work then the basic emotions in humans(anger,fear,sadness,disgust,happiness and surprise) this may be due to the expansion of the prefrontal cortex but it plays a role in our right and wrong. if we are nothing special then why not eat each other like other animals, why not rape like i said. why is a species programmed to care about the population, i would think personal positives would out weigh the care for the group(altruism again).
but go back to the first animals, or bacteria that we all came from. morality evolved from this for that purpose, and is goverened by what. why did we evolve morality, just like why did we evolve reproduction, it is purpose driven. did the first bacteria by accident evolve reproductive structures to say i need to reproduce?.
and to clubber lang it is black and white you are confusing choice. we can choose not to obey morality but we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. your post is missing the point, morality on some subjects is black and white.
-
awesome book that gets a little tangly and might exceed someones boggle factor but is very convincing. this is a small portion.
Every thousand years or so, there comes a thinker whose life is as striking as his or her intellectual output is stunning. Viewed from this perspective, it is remarkable indeed that within a period of 300+ years, the world was to witness the convergent odysseys of four titans of thought who set the agenda for the study of reality at every level. This is the period I like to call the Golden Age of human thought. Between them, Avicenna of Persia (980-1037), Moses Maimonides of Egypt (1135-1204), Thomas Aquinas of Italy (c.1225-1274) and Madhvacharya of India (c.1238-1317) created a magnificent monument of thought that underpins the very possibility of the scientific enterprise. It was the mother of all Theories of Everything, one that was validated both by its inherent logic and the success of modern science.
The point of departure for these thinkers, let's call them the Four, was simply that things exist. From this bare fact their minds soared to the greatest insight possible to the human mind - the realization that things exist only because there exists One who cannot not-exist, who exists without beginning or end or any conceivable limitation. The very essence of this Being is to BE - there is no question of was or will be for It always IS. Thus we speak of "It" as "He who IS", the "I AM." Each one of the Four considered this "equation of God" to be THE fundamental truth:
Avicenna: In God alone, essence, what he is, and existence, that he is, coincide. God's essence is to exist. "The essence of the Necessary Existent [God] can be no other than existence."
Maimonides: "His existence is identical with his essence and his true reality, and his essence is his existence."
Aquinas: "There is a being, God, whose essence is His very act of existing."
Madhvacharya (Commentary on verse 17 of the Isavaya Upanishad Basya): "'SO AHAM ASMI.' This is the great ineffable name of God, 'I am that I AM' 'That Supreme Being (asau) which indwells in Asu is the I AM.'"
The great discovery of divine self-existence, the "God equation" of Essence=Existence that has inspired hundreds of writings, is foundational for the Matrix. From it flows a dynamic vision of reality rooted in a living, ever-active and infinitely creative source and conserver of everything that was, is and will be. By working out all the implications of this "equation", the Four arrived at all their other findings: the world is real and rational, the human person can think and know, every phenomenon has an explanation given that infinite Intelligence is the ground of all things.
Why is the Matrix important for science? Well, for modern science to work, for the very possibility of a scientific method that bears fruit in theory and experiment, we must make certain basic assumptions about the nature of the world. For instance, we can't "do" science in the sense of seeking out underlying causes and laws if we didn't believe that the world operates with causes and laws. Nor could we pursue our inquiries if we didn't think our minds are capable of making deductions and reaching valid conclusions.
But why should we believe any of these assumptions to be true? And how did we come up with them in the first place? Did scientists discover them like they discovered Pluto or invent them like they invented jet engines? The fact of the matter is that science and the scientific method didn't drop out of nowhere. There's a framework of thought behind science that goes beyond the methods of science. It's a set of pre-scientific and pre-philosophical insights accepted by the first scientists.
We call them "meta-scientific" and by that we mean a principle or reality that is fundamental to science but cannot be tested with the methods of science. The domain of the meta-scientific includes:
things that have no physical characteristics (e.g., consciousness, abstract thought),
claims that can be proved or disproved by reasoning but not by experiment (e.g., are our minds capable of knowing?) and
questions about the nature of existence (e.g., what does it mean for something to "be").
A classic meta-scientific issue is the belief that the universe exists. This can only be assumed by science and not proven because every physical experiment will necessarily assume the world exists. A proof for the reality of the world (as laid out by Madhvacharya, for instance) is necessarily meta-scientific. The Matrix does two things. It:
affirms the meta-scientific principles that were later adopted by science and then
builds a case for accepting the truth of these principles.
To put it another way, it supplies science with its foundations and provides the ground on which these foundations can be laid. Most scientists are too busy (as they should be) building on the foundations to worry about the foundations themselves. But if we assume (as science does and must) that there's rationality in the world embodied in the laws of nature, then we should know if and why this assumption is true and what it implies. It's here that the Matrix takes us beyond the assumption itself to the ultimate reality on which it is founded.
The importance of the Matrix becomes apparent when we consider the idea of scientific laws. The notion of fundamental laws of nature is now a commonplace in science. But where did the idea of such "laws" come from? Not from atheists or materialists. Intellectually it originated in the idea of a divine Mind who instituted immutable laws of nature (as even critics of the concept of laws of nature admit). Paradoxically, the scientist who today reflects on these laws talks of the Mind of God. So here are the two sequences: historically, the idea of God led to the idea of fundamental laws; currently, the idea of fundamental laws leads to the idea of God.
his outcome is that there is a god, but not a biblical god per se. awesome writer and won the templeton award.
-
yes alturism and evolution, but you have no proof that we are programmed for this feat by evolution more so then god. ok so why dont i rape every women in sight, would increase my chances of procreating thus increase fitness. there is more at work then the basic emotions in humans(anger,fear,sadness,disgust,happiness and surprise) this may be due to the expansion of the prefrontal cortex but it plays a role in our right and wrong. if we are nothing special then why not eat each other like other animals, why not rape like i said. why is a species programmed to care about the population, i would think personal positives would out weigh the care for the group(altruism again).
but go back to the first animals, or bacteria that we all came from. morality evolved from this for that purpose, and is goverened by what. why did we evolve morality, just like why did we evolve reproduction, it is purpose driven. did the first bacteria by accident evolve reproductive structures to say i need to reproduce?.
and to clubber lang it is black and white you are confusing choice. we can choose not to obey morality but we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. your post is missing the point, morality on some subjects is black and white.
and you are not understanding the point of my post, pay attn:
the act itself is only one criteria for the morality of an action, the intentions and circumstances must also be considered. morality can never be "black and white" because it is an opinon, not a fact. history has shown morality changes with the ages, as i pointed out in my previous post, even on issues as contentious as murder and what we now consider child molestation.
assuming your opinion on any issue (aka your morality) is "black and white" is both arrogant and small minded
-
youre the last guy in the world and the only female is a 16 year old cousin of yours who doesnt want to have sex.
human survival now depends on you raping an underage relitave of yours.
murdering a terrorist might prevent an attack
cheating in business could feed your starving family
is it still black and white?
Yes, still black and white. Like I said, people sometimes focus on gray areas . . . and unrealistic hypothetical situations.
1. I'll never be the last man on earth with a 16 year-old-female cousin, so I cannot answer your question. Too much willful suspension of disbelief involved.
2. All killing isn't murder, including self defense. Killing your wife and baby because you don't want to be married and want to carry on an affair with another woman is murder. Scott Peterson.
3. Honesty and integrity in business could feed your starving family. Lying to your employees so you can make more money is immoral. Enron.
Yes you can mention numerous situations where certain conduct is debatable, but much of what we do and what many consider "immoral" is pretty clear.
-
and my point is morality is not opinion, so to neos point, animals seem to have a sense of right and wrong, is it there opinion. morality hasn't changed throught the ages you just think it has. cultures around the world may have different opinions or morality but most social psychological studies show that incest, friendship morality are the same in all cultures relatively. morality isnt an opinion if it was then each person on this earth would have different morals, culture may shape the grey areas but there are universal moral codes.
-
Yes, still black and white. Like I said, people sometimes focus on gray areas . . . and unrealistic hypothetical situations.
1. I'll never be the last man on earth with a 16 year-old-female cousin, so I cannot answer your question. Too much willful suspension of disbelief involved.
2. All killing isn't murder, including self defense. Killing your wife and baby because you don't want to be married and want to carry on an affair with another woman is murder. Scott Peterson.
3. Honesty and integrity in business could feed your starving family. Lying to your employees so you can make more money is immoral. Enron.
Yes you can mention numerous situations where certain conduct is debatable, but much of what we do and what many consider "immoral" is pretty clear.
if youe avoiding a subject cause its "unrealistic" we may as well trash this entire board, however, ill oblige
1) you are a settler in north america 400 years ago on the frontier. the only woman available to you is your 16 year old cousin. is it still wrong to get with her??
2) murder v self defense is a matter of opinion, how imminent does the threat have to be? i have my gun to someones head and you shoot me to save their life but find out its a toy gun, is that right? i kill a man who in 20 years would have raped a girl, is that right?
as convincing an argument as "pretty clear" is, i hope you can do better
-
we all have a basic sense of write and wrong that isnt my opinion. i might think my sister is sexy and want to have sex with here but i know it is wrong, this wasnt taught to me or learned i know that it is immoral.
you dont understand the difference between choice and innate morality my friend. if i was the last person on earth with my sister i would choose to have sex while i know it is immoral.
-
but there are universal moral codes.
if there really is a universal moral code im sure youll have no problem reciting it for me :)
-
we all have a basic sense of write and wrong that isnt my opinion. i might think my sister is sexy and want to have sex with here but i know it is wrong, this wasnt taught to me or learned i know that it is immoral.
you dont understand the difference between choice and innate morality my friend. if i was the last person on earth with my sister i would choose to have sex while i know it is immoral.
do you think if you were raised by wolves you would know not to f**k your sister?
maybe
just maybe
you developed that notion from those around you and it wasnt magically stamped on your brain at birth ::)
-
yes alturism and evolution, but you have no proof that we are programmed for this feat by evolution more so then god.
ha ha ha, give me a break! Evolution selects for favorable variables and discards unfavorable ones. It is advantageous for populations not go around killing each other for no reason. Any species that did are probably extinct now. Furthermore, altruism increases the likelihood of the offspring passing on their DNA to the next generation. The notion that morals came from god(s) carries as much weight as the belief that an invisible pink unicorn created the universe.
ok so why dont i rape every women in sight, would increase my chances of procreating thus increase fitness. there is more at work then the basic emotions in humans(anger,fear,sadness,disgust,happiness and surprise) this may be due to the expansion of the prefrontal cortex but it plays a role in our right and wrong. if we are nothing special then why not eat each other like other animals, why not rape like i said. why is a species programmed to care about the population, i would think personal positives would out weigh the care for the group(altruism again).
Humans are social animals. I believe we are genetically more 'programmed' to feel sympathy for others. Look at how social animals in the wild care for one another such as elephants and gorillas. There is no elephant or gorilla god(s) that I'm aware of. The ability to sympathize with others represents a tremendous evolutionary advantage. Raping a girl goes against this. Also, we don't eat each other b/c humans aren't naturally cannibals.
but go back to the first animals, or bacteria that we all came from. morality evolved from this for that purpose, and is goverened by what. why did we evolve morality, just like why did we evolve reproduction, it is purpose driven. did the first bacteria by accident evolve reproductive structures to say i need to reproduce?.
we don't know yet.
-
my statement about altruism is that evolutionary model can explain it neatly but you avoided my question on why i dont rape other women etc. also, the point of the altruism issue is that the model can explain it, but there are numerous species that are not alturistic. a bear doesnt run to save another drowing bear like we would. we have moral fabric that animals dont have, we know right and wrong in the absolute sense but we also have choice. animals merely act on ingrained instinct it seems not opinions and logic, how and why did this evolve in humans. animals seem to get along just fine without us why did we evolve emotions which often interfere with choice in a negative fashion. how did inorganic material gain consciousness? and for what reason.
-
my statement about altruism is that evolutionary model can explain it neatly but you avoided my question on why i dont rape other women etc.
I answered your question. Re-read my last post. I said raping a girl goes against our social nature.
also, the point of the altruism issue is that the model can explain it, but there are numerous species that are not alturistic. a bear doesnt run to save another drowing bear like we would. we have moral fabric that animals dont have, we know right and wrong in the absolute sense but we also have choice. animals merely act on ingrained instinct it seems not opinions and logic, how and why did this evolve in humans. animals seem to get along just fine without us why did we evolve emotions which often interfere with choice in a negative fashion.
I have a feeling you don't understand what altruism is. A mother bear will most definately try to save her young. However, a random bear might not try to save another. You also chose an example of an animal which is not social. Many social animals from the same family have been documented in the wild to help each other, such as elephants, wolves, gorillas, and lions.
how did inorganic material gain consciousness? and for what reason.
we don't know yet.
-
if youe avoiding a subject cause its "unrealistic" we may as well trash this entire board, however, ill oblige
1) you are a settler in north america 400 years ago on the frontier. the only woman available to you is your 16 year old cousin. is it still wrong to get with her??
2) murder v self defense is a matter of opinion, how imminent does the threat have to be? i have my gun to someones head and you shoot me to save their life but find out its a toy gun, is that right? i kill a man who in 20 years would have raped a girl, is that right?
as convincing an argument as "pretty clear" is, i hope you can do better
What is your point? That there might be gray areas? I've already acknowledged that. I understand you're trying to play Devil's Advocate (I do that a lot) and trying to act like you're a moral skeptic, but moral skepticism isn't reality for the most part. For example, you could argue whether homosexuality is immoral based on the Bible, but most reasonable people would likely consider child molestation immoral, regardless of their religious beliefs.
-
my point, once again, is that morality is not black and white and it changes with the times/circumstances. basically, im saying morality amounts to nothing more than an opinon
-
my point, once again, is that morality is not black and white and it changes with the times/circumstances. basically, im saying morality amounts to nothing more than an opinon
Maybe. But in the 21st century, there is lots of black and white when it comes to the items I already listed:
rape
murder
incest
child molestation
cheating (in business)
-
Maybe. But in the 21st century, there is lots of black and white when it comes to the items I already listed:
rape
murder
incest
child molestation
cheating (in business)
if something is "black and white" (as in indisputable fact) shouldnt it be so every century?
perhaps you would argue that past societies were simply wrong in their morales (which differ from ours on the child molestation, murder and rape issues) and to that i would say how do you know that you are not wrong now ?
once again, morality is opinion, not fact. dont confuse present day consensus with eternal truth.
-
if something is "black and white" (as in indisputable fact) shouldnt it be so every century?
perhaps you would argue that past societies were simply wrong in their morales (which differ from ours on the child molestation, murder and rape issues) and to that i would say how do you know that you are not wrong now ?
once again, morality is opinion, not fact. dont confuse present day consensus with eternal truth.
Rape has always been immoral. That's an "eternal truth."
-
you need to assume less and research more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rape
In antiquity and until the late Middle Ages, rape was seen in most cultures less as a crime against a particular girl or woman or man or boy than against the head of the household or against chastity. As a consequence, the rape of a virgin was often a more serious crime than of a non-virgin, even a wife or widow, and the rape of a prostitute or other unchaste woman was, in some laws, not a crime because her chastity could not be harmed.
The penalty for rape was often a fine, payable to the father or the husband whose "goods" were "damaged".[citation needed] That position was later replaced in many cultures by the view that the woman, as well as her lord, should share the fine equally.[citation needed]
...
Early Christianity also maintained, as paganism did not, that slave women were entitled to chastity, and that therefore a slave woman could be raped, and honored as martyrs slave women who resisted their masters.
for like the 6th time, nothing is black and white
-
nothing is black and white
so, it's not black and white, or cut and dry that 1+1=2? :-\
if you live your life based soley on perceptions, i could see how you would believe that nothing is white and black. but i think it's safe to say that, at some point in your life, you will be faced with a reality that forces you to make a decision. Case in point, some day we will ALL die. No perceptions about that truth.
-
so, it's not black and white, or cut and dry that 1+1=2? :-\
if you live your life based soley on perceptions, i could see how you would believe that nothing is white and black. but i think it's safe to say that, at some point in your life, you will be faced with a reality that forces you to make a decision. Case in point, some day we will ALL die. No perceptions about that truth.
True.
-
you need to assume less and research more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rape
for like the 6th time, nothing is black and white
I see. So some rape was not a very serious crime in some ancient society. So what. It is and always has been immoral. You cannot make any reasonable argument that says rape is in a "gray area." I'm not talking about date rape, where there is often a "he said, she said" situation. I'm talking about where a woman does not want to have sex, or doesn't know the rapist, but is forced to have sex with a man against her will. That is about as black and white as they come.
Same with child molestation. No. Wait. Because we have groups like NAMBLA, child molestation is in a gray area too, right?
-
Who ever is trying ot suggest RAPE is ok or accepted in any capacity is wacked.
RAPE is bad.
I don't care what cultures supported it. Hell, Islamic culture supports beating your wife. Still not good.
-
so, it's not black and white, or cut and dry that 1+1=2? :-\
if you live your life based soley on perceptions, i could see how you would believe that nothing is white and black. but i think it's safe to say that, at some point in your life, you will be faced with a reality that forces you to make a decision. Case in point, some day we will ALL die. No perceptions about that truth.
nothing related to morality is black and white
the point im trying to make is 1+1=2 is a fact, where as morality is an opinion
-
I see. So some rape was not a very serious crime in some ancient society. So what. It is and always has been immoral. You cannot make any reasonable argument that says rape is in a "gray area." I'm not talking about date rape, where there is often a "he said, she said" situation. I'm talking about where a woman does not want to have sex, or doesn't know the rapist, but is forced to have sex with a man against her will. That is about as black and white as they come.
Same with child molestation. No. Wait. Because we have groups like NAMBLA, child molestation is in a gray area too, right?
the point is morality changes with the times and is therefore not black and white. you said rape has always been immoral, and i showed you that isnt the case. for instance, raping a whore wasnt seen as any sort of crime.
from your eyes, rape is a very serious crime and those societies that didnt treat it as such are barbaric.
from their eyes, the only crime in rape is destroying a mans property and you are too harsh on the rapist.
maybe in 500 years society will have the opinon that women who withold sex are evil for forcing a man to rape them.
my point is you shouldnt confuse your opinion on a subject with eternal truth. that is small minded.
-
you dont understand the concept of morality, i have already stated this and you keep pointing out things like raping a whore isn't a crime. you are correct but the person raping the whore knows that it is wrong to rape the whore but with no external shackles chooses to anyway. this is the point there is an innate sense of right and wrong in everyone that is programmed into our genes, that no external coercion can induce. if someone was raping your wife because he could would you see it as wrong because rape itself is wrong or because it is against the law. i would think you would say it is wrong but for what reason.
and to neo, you say evolution has programmed us to be moral, for the good of society etc. who installed this program? that is basically how did fields of energy(basically all we are up to a macroscopic level) learn to be moral. it must have had this program instilled at the quantum level. but how does this instillantion occur. intelligence is the basis for everything, dna is intelligent because it is programmed to do something(embedded intelligence) which is the same as computers, the electron and protons are intelligent because they behave in a manner which elicits specific movement. intelligence preceeds constraint in the world, look at any invention that adheres to specifics and it was intelligently created by us. now look at laws etc which maintain specific ranges for operation of nature, how come they arent intelligently designed.
do you as an atheist accept that the world is only matter and nothing more? this is the tenat of atheism. how do explain the mind which has no physical substance, cannot be measured, observed, abstracted or tested. it is not material thus puts a hitch in the atheist world view.
i ask you these questions to any atheist and would love to hear your answers for general interest.
why do you accept that the world is not an illusion, that we are real and the world is real?
why is there something rather then nothing?
what does it mean to exsist?
how did reality come to be structured such that there are laws which protect us and a hierachy of intelligence in the world. natural selection can be an answer for this but NS can only work within structure, how did this structure come to be?
what tells and organism to adapt to the envoiroment?how did they develope the capacity to replicate and purposeful activity?
what are life, consciousness and conceptual thought and how could they come from inorganic matter, or better yet energy fields?
i dont have the answer to these questions, but id like to hear your best guess or idea etc.
-
nothing related to morality is black and white
would this be why even amongst the most hardened criminals frown upon child molesters in the prison system? ??? morality, by it's very definition is about what is right or of purity, it's opposite being words like indecency or vulgarity. when you break down the definitions of all those words you see a correlation between "black and white". There is ALWAYS right and wrong!
-
and to neo, you say evolution has programmed us to be moral, for the good of society etc. who installed this program? that is basically how did fields of energy(basically all we are up to a macroscopic level) learn to be moral. it must have had this program instilled at the quantum level. but how does this instillantion occur. intelligence is the basis for everything, dna is intelligent because it is programmed to do something(embedded intelligence) which is the same as computers, the electron and protons are intelligent because they behave in a manner which elicits specific movement. intelligence preceeds constraint in the world, look at any invention that adheres to specifics and it was intelligently created by us. now look at laws etc which maintain specific ranges for operation of nature, how come they arent intelligently designed.
I already told you every animal has an innate sense of right and wrong. How come lions don't randomly kill for fun? Why does a mother bear protect its young? Why do elephants take care of weak or injured members of the herd? I guess they must have learned their morals from an animal bible. Humans are capable of more complex morals b/c we evolved a more powerful brain.
do you as an atheist accept that the world is only matter and nothing more? this is the tenat of atheism. how do explain the mind which has no physical substance, cannot be measured, observed, abstracted or tested. it is not material thus puts a hitch in the atheist world view.
The only "tenet" of atheism is the lack of a belief in god(s). It is not a philosophy like you have implied several times. I believe that when we die, we cease to exist. This does not mean that I cannot value people, hobbies, music, sports, places, etc while I'm still alive.
-
would this be why even amongst the most hardened criminals frown upon child molesters in the prison system? ??? morality, by it's very definition is about what is right or of purity, it's opposite being words like indecency or vulgarity. when you break down the definitions of all those words you see a correlation between "black and white". There is ALWAYS right and wrong!
I believe what Clubber Lang is trying to say is there are some wrongs that are less wrong than others. Of course, this doesn't apply to everything as you have demonstrated with child molestation.
-
I believe what Clubber Lang is trying to say is there are some wrongs that are less wrong than others. Of course, this doesn't apply to everything as you have demonstrated with child molestation.
Actually he's saying that essentially everything is debatable and there is no "black and white" when it comes to morality. But as Colossus said, "There is ALWAYS right and wrong!" Now that is an eternal truth. :)
-
When there is a Victim, who didn't want what happened to them, you can usually say something was "wrong"
That's where the line is. Everything else is subjective based on individual morals.
-
i ask you these questions to any atheist and would love to hear your answers for general interest.
why do you accept that the world is not an illusion, that we are real and the world is real?
b/c then everything wouldn't be real and "illusion" would lose it's meaning. If every single person in the world is tall, then how would you define tall?
why is there something rather then nothing?
more matter was created than anti-matter in the beginning.
what does it mean to exsist?
to exist means to not be dead.
how did reality come to be structured such that there are laws which protect us and a hierachy of intelligence in the world. natural selection can be an answer for this but NS can only work within structure, how did this structure come to be?
ha ha ha, creationism logic is funny. "God is real. Now what facts can we find that proves this conclusion? The world appears to be intelligently designed. God = intelligent. Therefore, God must have created everything. Brilliant!"
what tells and organism to adapt to the envoiroment?how did they develope the capacity to replicate and purposeful activity?
nothing tells an organism to adapt to the environment. We cannot change our own genetics. However, organisms that are better-suited to the environment live to pass their genes on to the next generation and so on. This process continues until the population has adapted. I don't know what provided the initial stimulus for reproduction.
what are life, consciousness and conceptual thought and how could they come from inorganic matter, or better yet energy fields?
I don't know. You tell me since you are the one who believes whole humans spontaneously formed all of a sudden from energy fields.
-
When there is a Victim, who didn't want what happened to them, you can usually say something was "wrong"
That's where the line is. Everything else is subjective based on individual morals.
There is a pretty easy line to draw in a number of instances. You don't have forcible sex with a woman. You don't molest kids. Nothing subjective about that.
-
I believe what Clubber Lang is trying to say is there are some wrongs that are less wrong than others. Of course, this doesn't apply to everything as you have demonstrated with child molestation.
Even if something is less wrong, it's still wrong, which has to mean there's an antithesis of it...which is right.
-
ok neo i will slow down for you to come so i can reach you as you seem to avoid the tenats of my questions and the implications. the pax-6 gene which is similar in organisms with eyes created different eyes in each species, this is a brief rundown. anyway the point im making is that you say ok these genes created this and that but something initially has to contain the information to create that data(mutations are just scrambling of the data, they cant make something that wasnt there to begin with). therefore dna had the inherent already programmed capability to form eyes, ears, intelligence, consciousness etc.. but were did this program come from. ok some animals are programmed differently but to program implys intelligence to ignore this is ridiculous. who programed these organims?
how did nothing create something neo, im still waiting for your answer. and when you give me the same one you've been giving i will show your ill logic.
you also obviously dont know what athesim or materialism implys. the belief in no god implys that the universe is nothing more the purely physical non-supernatural and completely made of matter nothing more. this is the tenat of athesim as implied by its contentions. i see no point to argue factual point. but then comes consciousness and chrushes the material explanation for everything. i will elaborate but how did nothing come from something.
you dont see your ill logic is the funny thing. why is there something insted of nothing. your answer inplys that matter is infinite and always exsisted. here i fix it up for you using einstein, aquinas and others. something exsists rather then nothing because there is something that exsists that essence is to exsist and cannot not exsist. it preceeds everything and is eternal. so you say matter is eternal am i correct?
-
another example is garbage in = garbage out in that a program can only produce what it contains. you can mutate it all you want but that data to make life, consciousness , and the mind must already be in the program. i along with others beleive it hard to imagine that inorgnic matter contained these possiblities. dna must already contain the information to create purposeful behaviour(replication, awareness of "i") but who put the initial information into the program.
your cells continually change and are dying and some are changed etc. if you reduce everything down into fields of energy(quanta) them how is it that "I" am aware of myself because of these quanta. i know i know what im doing and this is seperate from artificial intelligence which is uniquly human. my cells may change and "i" am always the same person, i know this personally. this is an non-matter tenat that states that not everything is consistent with matter.
and again i will ask so you will answer how did nothing create something?
your answer will be vaccum fluctuations correct?
-
i asked this before but ill ask again, if there is a universal moral code of right and wrong can one of you please write it down for me .... if you cant, why not?
-
that would be a painstaking process that i assume social psychology would have to ensue upon. but i know that friendship morals and incest appear to be the same across cultures from my studies in psychology in which i am trained. for review see david g myers and steven j spencer social psychology(2006) as for your question you are asking for an all encompassing theorem that is bascally impossible to produce, much like the string theory or toe theories. you wont find a clear cut answer, but morality is clear cut in some cases but not so in others. however this grey area should not be mistaken as not black and white for there are areas of black and white in morality already mentioned but some are open for discussion. but they may be reduced to the primal issues raised above at some juncture, they may be the basis for all morality like there may be a few simple laws in physics that govern everything.
-
i asked this before but ill ask again, if there is a universal moral code of right and wrong can one of you please write it down for me .... if you cant, why not?
Here:
When there is a Victim, who didn't want what happened to them, you can usually say something was "wrong"
That's where the line is. Everything else is subjective based on individual morals.
-
usmokepole, I haven't avoided ANY of your questions. I have responded to each individually. I also responded to you in multiple threads, which you have yet to reply. I'm not afraid to have an intelligent discussion with you b/c honestly it's fairly easy for me. Regarding your comment about DNA replication, it is believed that DNA evolved gradually from a less complex nucleic acid such as RNA or PNA. Both have the ability to catalyze their own replication.
I cannot answer how nothing came from something b/c we're not sure if there was ever truly nothing. For all we know, matter could have always existed. This universe may simply have spawned from another or could oscillate between multiple universes. Please show me my "ill logic." While you're at it, show me how god(s) is the only plausible explanation. How can an immaterial, supernatural being so much as lift a grain of sand let alone create a material, natural universe? I look forward to your response.
I know plenty well what atheism means. There are no tenets like you suggests. It is not a philosophy no more than a lack of a belief in the spaghetti monster is a philosophy. I believe the universe is non-supernatural. However, this does not mean I cannot value people, hobbies, music, sports, places, etc while I'm still alive. Existence per se is meaningless. What does matter is how we choose to live our lives.
-
you keep stepping around the question of how these dna molecules were programmed to perform there functions. autocatalysis is an unproven science and has many critics but i am not equipped at this point to handle that debate, put perhaps will be. im glad you enjoy the discussion but dont think my beleif in a god is a lack of intelligence on my part and i wont do the same for your materialist view, which you havent clarified yet. your autocatlysis doenst even address the question and this is part of the reason the argument go's stale between us.i used the gigo argument along with mutation to explain why dna or whatever(quanta, quarks leptons etc) have programs and contain the intrinsic value to create consciousness and the mind for no reason apparent, then you reply the dna replicate auto-catalytically which adds nothing to the discussion. if you cant explain something scientifically and there are things that exsist that cant be(that is meta-physics) then use logic.
also i know nothing had exsisted because of the law of cause and effect which states that time is real and everything has a cause and effect. people may argue time ala hawking etc but the fact is that time is linear from experience (causes happen before effects) and certain things cannot be reversed for it wouldnt be logical. therefore do to the law which we abid by there was a first cause, not causes that caused causes like hawking states, linear time had a beginning which was nothingness before it. also, your multiverse idea has no merit and is wishful thinking, youd still have to describe laws which allow multiverses to which nothing exsists. vaccums are the best explanation in quantum physics as to why nothingness produce somethingness. but vaccums are something and not nothing and it is a confusion of meaning which dillutes the situation. singularity, quantum mechanics, and cause and effect all point to a state of nothingness before somethingness. your ideas are wishful thinking at best and do nothing but add mystery. my questions are not really questions for i would venture that i am the one with more knowledge from your para phrasing while my knowledge comes from pre-read material. and i am not limited to physics or biology, but can discuss clinical nutrition, psychology and neuroscience in depth as well. i just hate when you try and paint me as uneducated because we take the same data and interpret it differently. like transitional fossils, agian they are fully formed in the fossil record at the cambrian explosion with fully functional parts that resemble other species, i take this as a seperate species and you say it is an evolution in progress, then the slow steps were not accepted because the fossil record was replete with only full forms and you guys say punctuated equilibria, yes you are making hypothesis that describe the data but have no proof. and cant be tested.
i will answer your questions and try to demonstrate why beleif in a god is appropriate through science i just need some time to formulate the argument to my liking as to answer your questions. i could answer them now but i missing a few arguments that i cannot answer yet but will be able to do so in a couple of days. might sound retarded but i would rather form a good argument then a half assed one to a such a question as why there is a god, you can dismiss this as ridiculous but none the less i will post a concise argument. also i responded for 71 replys until you started talking about awards and wouldnt read the material i presented from renouned scientists, plus i dont dis agree with science(except evolution, but only some of its parts. i agree with adaptation) so i would rather argue with it for god then against.
as for the tenents of atheism sure there are some one is there is no god, see. anyway i have to study for a exam so i will respond to your question appropriately.
-
Here:
sorry i missed that the first time.
if i get struck by lightening, is lightening evil?
how about bit by a shark ?
cancer ?
and unplanned pregnancy ?
what about death ?
is it ok for me to rape a retard ?
since children dont really know what they want, how can child molestation be evil?
;D
-
usmokepole, I enjoy having discussions with you but please try to keep the length of your posts to a minimum. I have noticed that people are more likely to lose interest in a thread with lengthy replies. I am simply asking you out of courtesy for others. Now, to respond to your last post:
you keep stepping around the question of how these dna molecules were programmed to perform there functions. autocatalysis is an unproven science and has many critics but i am not equipped at this point to handle that debate, put perhaps will be. im glad you enjoy the discussion but dont think my beleif in a god is a lack of intelligence on my part and i wont do the same for your materialist view, which you havent clarified yet. your autocatlysis doenst even address the question and this is part of the reason the argument go's stale between us.i used the gigo argument along with mutation to explain why dna or whatever(quanta, quarks leptons etc) have programs and contain the intrinsic value to create consciousness and the mind for no reason apparent, then you reply the dna replicate auto-catalytically which adds nothing to the discussion. if you cant explain something scientifically and there are things that exsist that cant be(that is meta-physics) then use logic.
I'm not really sure what is your question. If you are asking where DNA gets its information from, mutations in the DNA of an organism result in new information being added to its genome. This new information is not normally "useful", but natural selection allows for beneficial mutations to persist and accumulate in a population over time. So far I have explained how early life may have reproduced and where DNA gets its 'programming' from. I hope I have answered your question.
also i know nothing had exsisted because of the law of cause and effect which states that time is real and everything has a cause and effect. people may argue time ala hawking etc but the fact is that time is linear from experience (causes happen before effects) and certain things cannot be reversed for it wouldnt be logical. therefore do to the law which we abid by there was a first cause, not causes that caused causes like hawking states, linear time had a beginning which was nothingness before it. also, your multiverse idea has no merit and is wishful thinking, youd still have to describe laws which allow multiverses to which nothing exsists. vaccums are the best explanation in quantum physics as to why nothingness produce somethingness. but vaccums are something and not nothing and it is a confusion of meaning which dillutes the situation. singularity, quantum mechanics, and cause and effect all point to a state of nothingness before somethingness. your ideas are wishful thinking at best and do nothing but add mystery.
Where does the law of cause and effect come from? I never learned about it in physics or chemistry. It sounds to me like something in the realm of philosophy rather than science. If everything has a cause and effect, then what caused god(s). You cannot argue that the universe violates this principle yet make an exception for god. In addition, all the natural laws only pertain inside the universe. It's possible they could have been broken during the creation of the universe. I proposed the multiverse hypothesis to give an example of how matter could have always existed. I find it amusing you consider it wishful thinking since creationism has even less merit.
-
god exsists cause his essense is exsistence and he cannot not exsist, it is neccesary. something had to be eternal, that is a given from logic. it is just as logical that something doesnt have to exsist but does so that assumes some meta physical priciples. science rests on the pre-sumptions of meta-physics or ontological principles, otherwise there would be no point in continuing the scienctific method. even at the quanta cause effect is evident, like quantum entanglement, one photon has and effect on another one regardless of distance(non-locality)that is there is first a cause then an effect. if the world didnt behave that way science cannot be conducted yet science cannot prove it. however, it is presumed in order for science to work, just like we presume there is a reality outside our consciousness, otherwise science cannot occur, or is pointless. there are many meta-scientific principles that science rests on, as outlined by einstein, aquinas, and others from eastern thought. i can elaborate but it would be pointless because you must accept cause and effect.
-
The universe exists cause it's essence is existence. See how easily I can use the same argument? You cannot say the universe violates the cause-and-effect principle yet make an exception for god. It is worth pointing out that there is no such law in the physical sciences. This is purely a philosophical discussion. The premise of your argument "everything had a cause" is itself contradicted by the conclusion that "god did not have a cause." Furthermore, even if there was a first cause, it still does not prove god(s) exists.
-
as for the tenents of atheism sure there are some one is there is no god, see.
That is no more a "tenet" than the belief the sun will rise tomorrow or the lack of belief in leprechauns. Following your definition, any belief can be considered a tenet. It loses its meaning.
-
i can not show you the god equation, but reading the works of the aforementioned philosophers. something has to be eternal and its essense is to exsist this is logical. for a complete nothing cannot create a something because something is not a type of nothing. so logically something has to be infinite. something has to violate this law and the only thing that is logical is a being operating outside it or something which essence is to exsist, that is its purpose , it is everything that is and will be. you have to accept meta-scientific principles for science to work at all this is a given, science cannot prove consciousness but knows it exsists, or that the world is not an illusion, yet science must assume this to continue, just like the link between causation and effect. again i will sum the arguments up into one conglomerate, but i am no expert, i will try i just dont have the time to open up a big discussion right now, but will shortly. however, i can argue these small points briefly.
-
i would also point out that you still did not give an adequete answer for why there is something rather then nothing. more matter then anti-matter provides no answer for matter is something not a type of nothing, why is there something insted of nothing. it is a philosophical argument since science rests on empiracal, and thus things like consciousness and before the big bang cannot be tested. that is when you turn to self evident truths like the one the converted antony flew and why people like einstein and hawking dont disagree with a deity because they see this philosophical and meta physical truth. einstein wanted to know the mind of god and the rest were details. whats fasicinating about mathmatics in our world is that mathematics even allow us to take away anything from the world. why is the world such that we can make reason and such that everything is in perfect order so that we can reason and can make sense, have intelligence, who holds the patent for the laws of physics since they had to start somewere? intelligence can only be created by intelligence do you agree with this statement?
if not give me and example of non intelligence, non-life creating life, for instance a pillow becoming conscious. i will outline the attributes of a living system as outlined be the symposium in 1993 if you would like clarification, to make a better point.
-
sorry i missed that the first time.
if i get struck by lightening, is lightening evil?
Lightling is not a concious entity and there for doesn't deliberatly choose to strike you.
how about bit by a shark ?
You remember we were talking about right and wrong not good and evil. Good and evil are related to right and wrong but are more complex.
So the Shark was wrong.
cancer ?
Cancer is a desease. Same as lightning.
and unplanned pregnancy ?
That's an accident, not a deliberate action.
is it ok for me to rape a retard ?
since children dont really know what they want, how can child molestation be evil?
;D
Retarded people fall in the same catagory of a normal person. Becuase you don't know if the retard person does want or deosn't want you to rape them and also becuase of plain decentcy as a human being it's woring to rape them.
It's pretty much the same way with children. Until they are at the age to intelligently give consent, to molest them is the same as sexual harrasment with an adult. Becuase you have to assume as a adult they wouldn't want to be molested.
-
your first definition was void when you consider victims who cant intelligently chose for themselves. based on your last post it sounds like we can redefine your definition of wrong to
When there is a Victim, who had something happen to them a reasonable person wouldnt want to have happened, you can usually say something was "wrong"
which means its a matter of concensus, which brings us back to square one.
ask 12 people from ancient sparta if its ok to pluck your enemies eyes out and you will probably get 12 yay's
ask 12 people on this board and youd be luck to get 6 ;D
-
your first definition was void when you consider victims who cant intelligently chose for themselves. based on your last post it sounds like we can redefine your definition of wrong to
which means its a matter of concensus, which brings us back to square one.
ask 12 people from ancient sparta if its ok to pluck your enemies eyes out and you will probably get 12 yay's
ask 12 people on this board and youd be luck to get 6 ;D
The point is not to ask the 12 spartans, but rather the ones getting their eyes plucked out.
If they can;t chose for themselves such as a young child then you have to make the determination based on an adult who would know the consequences of getting their eyes plucked out.
Becuase if a normal person wouldn't want it, then it's logical a retarded person wouldn't either.
Nice try, CL, but this is pretty black and white here.
You could have more fun if you applied your idea to good and evil instead of wrong and right.
-
The point is not to ask the 12 spartans, but rather the ones getting their eyes plucked out.
actually the point is sparta was a draconian society and wouldnt frown upon violence which would shock modern day people.
If they can;t chose for themselves such as a young child then you have to make the determination based on an adult who would know the consequences of getting their eyes plucked out.
Becuase if a normal person wouldn't want it, then it's logical a retarded person wouldn't either.
Nice try, CL, but this is pretty black and white here.
as i clearly stated in my previous post, its a matter of the moral concensus of the times, not "black and white". which is why, as i have repeated thrice now, you will get a vastly different concensus from ancient sparta than modern day america. youll get a different opinion on torturing jews in midevil eurpoe than post holocaust europe. 50 years ago locking up nips during wwII seemed like a great idea, from our politically correct eyes its practically a war crime.
i could go on and on but i dont see this point sinking in any time soon :D
-
actually the point is sparta was a draconian society and wouldnt frown upon violence which would shock modern day people.
as i clearly stated in my previous post, its a matter of the moral concensus of the times, not "black and white". which is why, as i have repeated thrice now, you will get a vastly different concensus from ancient sparta than modern day america. youll get a different opinion on torturing jews in midevil eurpoe than post holocaust europe. 50 years ago locking up nips during wwII seemed like a great idea, from our politically correct eyes its practically a war crime.
i could go on and on but i dont see this point sinking in any time soon :D
I see what you are saying CL. Like 16th Century Japan and the Shogun loping everyone heads off. I get it. Different societies put a different value on life , torture, rape, etc....
You are very right.
BUT, at it's core, you can define wrong based on the victim.
Did the japaneese pesant "want" thier head chopped off becuase he/she didn't bow at the right time?
Now the society might have viewed that as perfectly ok. But that doesn't mean it was right. Much as throwing virgins into a volcano.
-
g*ddamit, yet another circle.
i thought i showed that defining wrong based on the victim is incomplete, because when you look at victims that cant intelligently know they have been wronged you have to use the standard of a normal person (u should say just say "reasonable person" and make it all legal like ;D)
which implies general concensus
which changes with the times
which implies morality is mutable
which implies im awesome ;D
-
Morality isn't based on what is socially acceptable. It isn't based on opinion polls. That's where we have a fundamental disagreement.
-
whats it based on??
-
goddamit, yet another circle.
i thought i showed that defining wrong based on the victim is incomplete, because when you look at victims that cant intelligently know they have been wronged you have to use the standard of a normal person (u should say just say "reasonable person" and make it all legal like ;D)
which implies general concensus
which changes with the times
which implies morality is mutable
which implies im awesome ;D
Bush's handling of the Iraq intially implied he was awesome too................ :P
Now to the point.
It's not a general concensus. Who would want to get raped? Who would want something done to them against their will?
Anthony Robbins, (for example, not that i'm a fan of his.) says people are motivated by 2 things:
1. Avoiding pain
2. Attaining pleasure
Even at it's core it's not a general consensus that retarded person wouldn't want something a normal person would want. It's a human fact not a concensus.
-
Ozmo, just curious how would you define what are the right or wrong actions in these scenarios?
a) preemptive war to prevent a future attack
b) torturing a person to extract information which could possibly save thousands of lives
c) stealing to feed your poor family who would die otherwise
d) ordered to rape a girl while having a gun put to your head
-
Ozmo, just curious how would you define what are the right or wrong actions in these scenarios?
a) preemptive war to prevent a future attack
b) torturing a person to extract information which could possibly save thousands of lives
c) stealing to feed your poor family who would die otherwise
d) ordered to rape a girl while having a gun put to your head
There we go. I was waiting for someone to bring up points like these.
I don't have much of an answer for you other than there are still victims. And although in c and d you don't have much choice, and in a and b, your actions seem justified, in the pure sense of the definition, it's still wrong.
Now, i'm not saying i wouldn't do any of these scenarios becuase i believe would. I'm only saying that although these actions may be for ther right reasons they are still wrong becuase you are harming someone against their will.
BTW on the last one: we are both victims here, because i'm doing something against my will.
-
When do you first let someone know you're an atheist? When they start talking about God? Or do you offer it as an FYI in general or......?
just an FYI in general....
i wish i believed in god...life would be easier...so i dont look down upon people that do believe...
i just like to challange em...on here...in real life..i just change the subject..there r better things to talk about and look at..at bars..
-
i can show you that your belief in no god is less probable then a beleif in a god through quantum physics, philosophy, meta-physics(which are self evident assumptions science makes) and the mind. along with a little parapsychology i thought up on my on. i will post my thoughts later but i am having trouble organizing into one picture without having to write a book. but for your comfort those that studied science like einstein and hawking have pointed towards a deity or god, people seem to look to the smart for answers when human intelligence is factually finite as is the universe and the electrons which carry information in it. if you understand quantum physics you would be amazed at how fairy tailish it really is. for example did you know the iron for instance is 99.999999999% non matter or energy only that small fraction is solid like it feels. also quantum entanglement has revealed that everything is one and anywere is everywere all at once in the universe. photons seperated for instance have cause effect relationship on each other regardless of distance as if they were still together. this whole universe is one thing, atoms for simplicity(quarks, leptons, and even more) are all acting in concert with each other across the vast stretches of the galaxy and nothing differentiates them, no difference between you and this letter on the screen they are composed of the same thing and these things operate in concert thanks to quantum entanglement. i am getting ahead of myself but i will have a bigger, factual, more intricate explanation for everything soon. some would like to think that the M-theory or string theory would put to be everything but refer to kurt godels theorem for how this wont and cant happen. also, a material explanation that atheism rests on is not sufficient to explain the facts. im not attacking anyone just going to show there is more then matter through science.
-
anything you show me is nothing more than a rationalization to justify your belief structure, im sure i could find an athiest with that kinda time on his hands to refute all your findings (and then you could refute his refutation and on and on)
fact is there is no proof either way about god, just as there is no proof either way about santa clause and the easter bunny. far as i can tell the only difference is at some point we acknowledge the latter 2 are made up ;D
-
you wont be able to refute my scientific facts because they are facts as you will see, and i will not use a shred of conjecture, quantum physics is established and is melding with metaphysics, i will use quotes from top physicists with no agenda and atheists who say the same thing. no one can dispute what i say, you lack knowledge my friend and i will put it in laymens terms for you. to study physics, evolution and is one thing but to know what they imply is another. take for example reproduction, it is purposive and goal oriented, how bacteria came already equipped with this purpose driven intellect is unknown as is how the structures were magically there. i wont get into the implications this points too, but i will later because forming bits of the argument is useless without the whole thing. but accept this there is only one truth, two things cannot be the opposite at the same time, this is a meta-physical truth and is presupposed by science as fact. i will display this one truth, so no refutation as you say can be made.
-
this is a smaller version of a theorem which will help my argument in the future. and you ask me to prove something, in honesty we cannot prove anything, say gravity for example we know how it works between objects of mass and can have calculations which we can predict it etc.. but we dont know why or how it works, this is were gravitons come in, although we dont know what they are we assume they or speculate they create gravity or allow gravity to operate. we can provide evidence that is so strong for gravity that it is accepted, just like i will provide evidence that the materialistic view of the world is so wrong and evidence for a deity(im not arguing pantheism) that you will be compelled to accept it. i will argue specifics against monism if you would like in my paper
now for the theorem, A can create B only if A contains the potentiality to create B,in that A cannot create something say C that is does not contain.in biological terms the parent has to contain the potential to create everything in the child and cannot create anything it does not contain, cant creat a different type. this is the premise of this theorem. also, i would like to say that atheist and theists alike must agree that something outside space time or some non-thing created the universe. multi-verse does not answer this as again would would have to ask what put the multiverse there, nothing cannot create something i have already shown this given eternal time nothing is nothing and has no potential. some non-thing would have to create the universe(vaccum is somethin by the why, what created the vaccum). it becomes evident that some non-thing had to create the universe for something cannot create itself even a vaccum, and vaccums located in atoms etc. NEO i can expand this point later to make it even more convincing using physics but it will have to wait. i am showing links in the chain i will create but it will be much stronger and become obviouse when i put the chain together. i will answer any hard questions you guys will have. you might ask how can i answer these questions,truth is i stole some of it but i wrote it in my own words. the information comes from eight books, and i have two left to read on quanta. i am not arguing for a anthropomophic god either.
anyway to clubber lang, nothing i post can be refuted except for variables as it is fact like i have already stated, wait until you read it to post thoughts. and you arguments against it should help to make it better.
im no genius or phd so my arguments will have some quotes from phd's to verify my arguments so you understand things about physics are not made up, in case some people dont understand them.
-
again this is not a rationilization of my belief structure but beleiving the obvious provided the evidence. i had no belief structure before this but studied much material to end up at a conclusion. you will do the same thing and a belief in something without any rationilization or evidence is ignorant. i will provide evidence for a god, but no one can prove a god exsists beyond doubt, but like antony flew(former atheist) said " given the evidence it is highly probable that a deity exsists, or a material explanantion if ever there could be one for this world is unacceptable". i will show you the evidence he is talking about.
-
lol ... so did you like memorize the entire intelligent design pamphlet ::)
ill save you the trouble of expanding any further and summarily say that an intelligent designer would itself require an intelligent designer, so the argument is self defeating
-
nope im not arguing intelligent design arguments what so ever, these arguments are much more elequent and have changed the worlds top minds and atheists alike.your foolish to use that argument, to be infinite indicates an uncaused caused or eternal for that matter. to be eternal you have to be uncaused or not-created. something that exsists as its essence to exsist is the uncaused caused, this is known as the god equation as purported by four of the greatest minds in atheism and theism. you have to have something that is uncaused for cause to exsist, nothing cannot create something therefore logically nothing never exsisted and some non-thing created everything, wether that is the laws of physics i will determine but your argument flies in the face of logic and experience and is foolish at every level and has been put to bed much more aggresively then i have done by ontologists and great minds alike. agian some uncaused cause would have to create this world outside of space time, what that is , is the problem, i will show you how it is not a material argument. god would not need a creator for it is a nessecity for it to exsists for something rather then nothing, something has to exsist as its essence or exsistence would not be here, follow. your argument has been put to bed, so relax and take a deep breath, i will further anihilate this argument later although i dont think i need to.
again i am not arguing intelligent design or any other refutable argument. science can test the empirical but rests on the "matrix" of the metaphysical, such as we assume the world is rational and we can make sense of it, and we exsist and the world does too. science says there is an explanation for everything, that is the premise of materialism and the scientific method, so there is an explanation and that explanation will be discussed.
-
as i said, god needs a creator
next :)
-
hahah. seriously though, add something if you can because it would refine my argument like NEO did in the evolution thread. im not trying to bash your belief but show you mine is better ;D. but if you aren't kidding and my argument didnt convince you the im sorry for your troubles down syndrome will be cured one day :D
-
you cant say that everythng needs a creator, and then say "except the creator"
if you dont see why this is a self defeting argument youre dumb
-
it is not a self defeating argument i have already outlined why, is it too hard for you to understand. your a uneducated tiny tit.
here something exsists rather then nothing-fact
nothing cannot create something-fact(vaccum is a type of something) if your having trouble grasping this i can help
therefore nothing never exsisted.
so something is eternal that is the result of us and this unverse-this is a given and accepted in science, based on the meta physics i laid out and reason and experience
eternal means to not be created un-created, something in this universe is uncreated-this is the premise of the athiest and theist agreement that a non thing created the universe, they differ on that non thing, i say god you say matter is everything and eternal
therefore there is an uncaused cause this is a theorem by the way and you know what theorems are right.
again i will not defend this postion again as your argument is uneducated and flies in the face of logic,reason and experience let alone science. so anyway you should abort your tatic as it is showing how unintelligent you are.it is accepted by everyone as a self evident truth you can deny it but people of reason will not listen for your are illogical.
also, if you would like to argue that there was nothing then, the only explanation is god because it would defy all our laws and reason, therefore something supernatural above the laws. this position is weak at best and something always exsisted, therefore you are arguing the latter argument which is ridiculous.
you have been supremely owned like suckmymuscle and his rant about memory that i shoved up his stupid ass. i dont like ad hominen arguments but when someone attacks me, this is not the main board by the way, i will return the favor, also those arguments are known to be used by the weak minded my friend. i rest my case on this argument.
sorry for the spelling i am studying for an exam and am in a rush to own you.
-
i can tell your iq is low, since i had to repeat my argument several times and you still dont understand the theorem. send my condolences to your parents please.
-
common sense doesnt apply to quanta or cosmology im sorry this is the reason for your mis-understanding.
-
god shows aspects of intelligent design therefore god must have an intelligent designer :)
something cant come from nothing, therefore something eternal exists, yet this came from nothing by virtue of being eternal.
are you honestly too stupid to see how your argument shoots itself in the foot ?
-
god shows aspects of intelligent design therefore god must have an intelligent designer :)
something cant come from nothing, therefore something eternal exists, yet this came from nothing by virtue of being eternal.
are you honestly too stupid to see how your argument shoots itself in the foot ?
im not arguing for intelligent design. nothing never exsisted, stop falling short of intelligence and realize this. and if nothing exsisted then you wouldnt be typing for the reason you already said. look at the definition of eternal and enlightenment is yours in this situation, my argument does nothing you claim it does but yours is a jumble of sentences that does not work. you say eternal came from nothing, this is convaluted beyond belief and then say that nothing could create something. i dont want to keep arguing this point because there is nothing left to argue, it is fact sorry nothing cannot produce something, at least physics, and reason and meta physics say it cannot so therefore nothing has ever exsisted or something would not exsist, do you follow. there is only one truth and two things cannot exsist as the opposite thing at the same time. therefore nothing could not exsist or something would never exsist and we know something exsists=something is uncaused cause or eternal(this word means to be perpetual or everlasting thus always was). your argument has been defeated by people smarter then me at a more pronounced pace, really you dont understand what intelligent design is from your arguments, nor morality, nor what the exsistence of the world implies, stop the ignorance and read a book please.
funny you should mention shot in the foot your sentence is a display of mutually exclusive terms bunched together to show ignorance at its peak
"something cant come from nothing, therefore something eternal exists, yet this came from nothing by virtue of being eternal".
you show lack of ability to decipher nothing from something then show that you dont understand what the word eternal suggests hahahah, the other atheists are cringing when they read your posts as you make their arguments seem stupid by virture of affiliation ahaha.
-
i was trying to use simple sentences so as not to confuse you (honestly)
ill try again:
if something is eternal
it didnt come from anything
if something didnt come from anything
it came from nothing
i really dont see how i can dumb this down any further ??
-
you are fooling yourself my friend. i dont how to describe it to you, you cant conceptualize infinity because we dont see it, but rest assured it exsists. this i think is the problem, dumb it down if you want but the only one confused is you.
anything is not a type of nothing, nothing is nothing therefore something or anything could not exsist if there ever was nothing, are you following. your having a problem conceptualizing nothing as many people do but your describing something not nothing, herein lies the problem. if something is eternal(which is logical since we are here)then there never was nothing, as nothing did not exsist.
you lack philosophical tuning is the problem. nothing cannot create anything or something therefore nothing has never exsisted and something exsists that is at its essence to exsist, therefore is eternal aka not caused aka didnt come from nothing aka. your arguing in circles because of lack of knowledge.
look ill fix up your reasoning
if something is eternal
nothing never exsisted
therefore something has always exsisted or is eternal or infinite or not finite
anything is a type of something not nothing your getting confused and arguing in circles. just stop and think about the mutually exclusive terms your using and then think of how only one or the other can exsist then try to conceptualize infinite to the best of your intellect and you will come to the conclusion that something always had to exsist for anything to exsist at all.
-
here something exsists rather then nothing-fact
nothing cannot create something-fact(vaccum is a type of something) if your having trouble grasping this i can help
therefore nothing never exsisted.
so something is eternal that is the result of us and this unverse-this is a given and accepted in science, based on the meta physics i laid out and reason and experience
eternal means to not be created un-created, something in this universe is uncreated-this is the premise of the athiest and theist agreement that a non thing created the universe, they differ on that non thing, i say god you say matter is everything and eternal
therefore there is an uncaused cause this is a theorem by the way and you know what theorems are right.
Usmokepole, there are several problems with your argument. Quantum physics tells us a vacuum is not truly empty. Pairs of real particle-virtural particles spontaneously pop in and out of existence continuously and very rapidly. You claim this is a type of something. However, the quantum vacuum is still an example of something created from nothing. It's theoretically possible these fluctuations have always occured - even before the Big Bang.
You assume whatever created this universe is uncaused. This premise has absolutely no merit. Perhaps whatever created our universe was caused by something else and the chain of events stops there. Or maybe something created that something else that caused whatever created this universe. We simply don't know. It's possible this universe spawned from another with different physical laws than our own.
Moreover, your conclusion is flawed. You suggest there is an uncaused cause and then make the logical jump that it must be god. None of your premises hint at a supernatural deity. In fact, even if we ignore your false assumptions, all that your argument establishes is there was an uncaused cause. It does nothing to prove what that cause is.
By the way, you never answered my question. How can an immaterial, supernatural being so much as lift a grain of sand let alone create a material, natural universe?
-
excellent to see you posting but i am appalled by your lack of logic you usually display. who created the vaccum, or what created the vaccum are you saying the vacumm is eternal. i said to wait for my whole argument but i wanted to disprove stupid ill logic that is being used. i jumped to the conclusion because you havent heard my whole argument yet, so therefore i will provide steps into my logic. the vaccum is something not nothing, it is in no way shape or form something created from nothing. you guys dont understand what the word nothing is. given eternal time nothing cannot create you me or a vaccum because it contains no potentiallity it is void of potentiality. understand this concept and the argument ends.
you have no idea that the vaccum was not created from nothing, your trying to use science in the realm of the metaphysical. the vaccum is not eternal and all your doing is delaying the question what is the first cause.
again im sad to see your logic fall this low, the law of cause and effect must end in an uncaused cause for your perfectly pointing to my argument, there was never nothing. something cannot create nothing this is a self-evident truth, the vaccum is something creating something the vaccum is not a kind of nothing, something is not nothing they are mutually exclusive. mutually exclusive is a meta physical proof that cant be proved but science rests on it. the vaccum that created us has always exsisted or was created, this is logical. i havent proved god exsisted yet nor can i, i can just provide so much evidence that your view seems irrational.
again your logic is flawed. if there is a chain of events in which the first cause was uncaused like your saying then something is eternal. the first action of the universe cannot be made from nothing, what law dictates this. the first cause, say a vaccum could not come from nothing, and the vaccum is a type of something creating something. i dont know what your arguing but it isnt even logical, you also are confusing the two terms my friend.
my purportion that whatever caused the universe was uncaused has all the merit in the world for nothing has never created something and the laws of nature require something to work, they cannot exsist before matter, follow. this is confusing but after practice the terms will seem easy.
mutually exclusive here ya go
if nothing has ever at one time exsisted, based on logic, reason and experience something could never exsist. either something or nothing, but neither could have exsisted at one time. if you doubt me read some old antony flew which is the leading atheist who talks about the non-thing. again i will wrap much more then this in a rational unit but your logic has no merit. the law of cause and effect cannot just pop out of the air, it requires to end in an uncaused cause the must itself exsist, for if nothings essence was to exsist the first cause would never be.
-
i got an idea go on avant labs and go to the metaphysics section and say that a quantum vaccum is an example of nothing creating something, you will be put to shame for that illogic. by the way did i mention your arguing against a theorem, a theorem like pythagorus for example, you will find it silly if you understood your premise at all.
-
you assume too much in your premise. An argument that rests on faulty premises is not very convincing. I have to eat now, but I will respond after I'm done.
-
this is not my premise and it is in no way faulty it is the crux of meta physics and philosophy for years. a great read is aquinas on this subject, they established a matrix of metaphysics which science rests on. i will expand much more i promise but something has to be eternal and that which created the universe has to be a non-thing this i a theme in all the recent literature from both sides i have read. anyway i will present the whole argument soon, but there is no point arguing this as it is a theorem and is factual. nothing cannot not ever, ever,ever,ever,ever create something this much we know. so if nothing has ever exsisted something would not be here, there is no arguing. but yes it still doesnt prove a god, but that something is infinite, this could be matter etc. but i will argue that later. i would suggest you save it for after i write the argument, i cant write it now as it will take a while and a bit more reading so i dont make mistakes in the quantum part.
-
the vaccum is something not nothing, it is in no way shape or form something created from nothing. you guys dont understand what the word nothing is. given eternal time nothing cannot create you me or a vaccum because it contains no potentiallity it is void of potentiality. understand this concept and the argument ends. you have no idea that the vaccum was not created from nothing, your trying to use science in the realm of the metaphysical. the vaccum is not eternal and all your doing is delaying the question what is the first cause.
Your definition of nothing is wrong. It refers to the condition or quality of being nonexistent. Nowhere does it say nothing cannot have potential. At the quantum level, pairs of real particle-virtural particles routinely emerge from nothingness to exist for a brief while. This is an example of something coming from nothing. It's theoretically
possible quantum fluctuations have always occured since they are not dependent on the universe.
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
again im sad to see your logic fall this low, the law of cause and effect must end in an uncaused cause for your perfectly pointing to my argument, there was never nothing. something cannot create nothing this is a self-evident truth, the vaccum is something creating something the vaccum is not a kind of nothing, something is not nothing they are mutually exclusive. mutually exclusive is a meta physical proof that cant be proved but science rests on it. the vaccum that created us has always exsisted or was created, this is logical.
ha ha ha, your argument relies on faulty assumptions yet my logic is 'flawed.' There is no law of cause and effect in the physical sciences. This is merely philosophical conjecture. Furthermore, not all effects require a cause. Quantum particles are observed to behave on their own without any influence.
again your logic is flawed. if there is a chain of events in which the first cause was uncaused like your saying then something is eternal. the first action of the universe cannot be made from nothing, what law dictates this. the first cause, say a vaccum could not come from nothing, and the vaccum is a type of something creating something. i dont know what your arguing but it isnt even logical, you also are confusing the two terms my friend.
How can my logic be flawed if I never claimed something is eternal? I was only showing why your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Regarding a quantum vacuum, I have already explained why your concept of "nothing" is wrong.
my purportion that whatever caused the universe was uncaused has all the merit in the world for nothing has never created something and the laws of nature require something to work, they cannot exsist before matter, follow. this is confusing but after practice the terms will seem easy.
No, your assumption has absolutely no merit. Perhaps whatever created our universe was caused by something else and the chain of events stops there. You cannot say for sure whatever created this universe was the first cause. For all we know, this universe could have spawned from another which spawned from another, etc. Or maybe the universe has gone through a series of cyclic expansions and crunches.
-
ok i will pose the whole argument. agian the vaccum is something not nothing dont see how this something creating something proves that nothing exsisted. if the law of cause and effect wasnt viable then science would fail. quantum physics do show relationship of cause and effect probablistically, i will show this. your a fool if you think nothing can have potential you are merely playing on words like most physicist who claim the vaccum is nothing, it is something. basically all nobel laeurates accpet that something is eternal just cause you lack the education behind the implications of physics to decipher this does not matter to me. nothing can never create something, it is nothing not something this is known as the law of mutually exclusivity, another scienctific assumption.
you havent demonstrated why my concept is wrong, your using the wrong definition and expecting me to beleive that a vaccum poped out of nothing when nothing has nothing for anything to exsist from, follow. premise isnt false it is an age old theorem. my definition is not wrong , ahahh your playing on words you dont understand.
happenings in a vaccum are not nothing creating something, your concept of nothing is in fact wrong, occurences in the atom are governed by pre exssiting laws and matter around them which allow "nothing" to create something. a vaccum is not nothing so the creation of something within them is not nothing to something. true nothingness cannot create something, it is nothing, this is like talking to a child with you guys, your describing something then using it as a premise to say nothing created something.
-
I don't know how to explain quantum fluctuations any simpler to you. I want you to imagine there is nothing. From this state of nothingness, a pair of particles spontaneously pop into existence, annihilate each other, and vanish. This is an example of something coming from nothing. At the quantum level, pairs of real particle-virtural particles emerge from nothingness to exist for a brief while. Quantum fluctuations are not dependent on the universe. Ergo, it's theoretically possible they were present before the Big Bang. I think the reason you struggle with this notion is b/c your definition of 'nothing' is a philosophical concept that only exist in the mind.
-
best reply you have had all night. show me how a vaccum can come from nothing. i do agree with you that a vaccum may be eternal, but you are arguing that something is not eternal, something has to be eternal and some non-thing must have created the universe.
-
best reply you have had all night. show me how a vaccum can come from nothing. i do agree with you that a vaccum may be eternal, but you are arguing that something is not eternal, something has to be eternal and some non-thing must have created the universe.
Asking me to show you how a vacuum comes from nothing is like asking me to show how nothing comes from nothing. Your question makes no sense. I don't know if a quantum vacuum is eternal or not. Notice I said earlier that it's theoretically possible. Futhermore, I'm not aruging that anything is eternal. We simply don't have enough information. I brought up quantum fluctuations b/c you stated that "nothing cannot create something" in your premise. This is untrue.
-
it is not untrue, in nothing no laws which govern movement action of matter could exsist. these laws are in place in a vaccum and rule your whole argument out. there are examples of seemingly nothing creating something however, in this world of something there is no true nothing, follow. so your example holds no weight. i can further talk about the vaccum but i want to make a whole concesive argument not bits and pieces which are weak on their own.
-
Your definition of 'nothing' is a philosophical concept that only exist in the mind. It would be like me saying "unless God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, then he's not really a god." We know from logic that such a god is not possible. In addition, you assume that everything must have a cause. Quantum mechanics tells us that particles at the sub-atomic level behave without causation. Therefore, no laws are needed to govern how virtual particle pairs come from nothing. The physical laws only dictate how these particles interact while in existence.
-
you dont know what your talking about in terms of quantum mechanics, they do not behave without causation, you just dont understand there relationship. i will adress all this in my argument relax bro, to deny there is a god is to deny exsistence.
you have no meta-physical safistication and i no longer will argue its merits with you. without meta-physics science cannot operate enough said, your arguments are see through. you have trouble conceptualizing nothing, anything to do with a vaccum is something, got to go i will elaborate more.
-
Meta-physics belongs in the realm of philosophy and not science. Quit trying to pretend you know what you are talking about. For example, the law of cause and effect (which you vehemently defend) is a philosophical concept that has been disproven by quantum mechanics. Also, you keep using a definition of 'nothing' that only exist in the mind. It would be like me saying "unless God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, then he's not really a god." We know from logic that such a god is not possible. I guess he isn't real then. ::)
-
you ginger cookie, cause and effect exsists at the quantum level and i will show you why. you are dealing with a super intellect mind you ;D. it can be said that there are noprecisely measurable classical deterministic causes at the quantum level. but this is not hte same thing as saying there are no causes. as peter hodgsen notes(good book by the way) we may not be able to predict which atom is going to undergo radioactive decay in the case of each atome is driven by internal parameters eg the state of motinon of the necleons at a particular instant, and the quantum mechanical laws, this is eveidence for example i dont no lets say uranium and radiuum undergoing alpha decay cansistently turn into intermeidate isotopes nad then elements like lead, not puddles of water. the inability to ascertain the case of change does no tjustify the conclusion that the change has no cause.
im leading you down this trail of cause and effect so wait. grter hermann wroth the limits of preditive calculability of future events have indeed turned out to be in principle incalcuable. " yet there is no couse of events for which no causes could be found in the frameworkd of the quantum mechanical formalism". because " quantum mechanism presupposes and calls upon an explanation bases on natural law also for events which are not predictively calculable. "gapless causelity is not only consistent with quantum mechanism, but is demonstrably presupposed by it.
also, the nobel prize winner julius schwinger obs that both classical and quantum physics assume the law of cause and effect, since they both hold that knowledge of the state of a system at one time gives knowledge of its state at a later time. so follow me, in any case, the principle that every phenonmenon and event has an explanation is as fundamental in quantum physics as it is in the rest of physics, it is not simply a presupposition of science or a thesis to be proven, it is rather a condition that has to be accepted if we are to do science. like it or not, the quantum physicist cannot say anything about a quantum state taht is not implicitly an attempt to explain it. even to say that there are no causes at the quantum level is to give an explanation, albeit a mistaken one, for quantum phenomena. when bohr offered his principle onf complementarity, he was trying to explain quantum phenomean. it could be said that this was a description not an explantion, but then it was a description that sought to explain. all quantum experiments and fomalisms are attempts to explain quantum pheenomena. quantum theorists are often, in fact, driven by the search for symmetry. bizarre quantum phe like non-locality my be bizarre from the viewpoint of conventional science but the non locality experiments actually re-introduce causality. we do not understand how one photon affects the other at such distances but we do know that one has an effect on the other.
now cause and effect is actually a meta scientific priciple like you have eluded to. science cannot prove it;science simply operates on the assumptions that it is valid. in the einstein-copenhagen debate on measurement and causality, capenhagen had the right premise but the wrong conclusion. einstined adopted cop conclusion as his premise and reached an equally flawsd conclusion. from the premise that exact measurement is not possible at the quantum leverl(uncertinty principle), copenhagen concluede that the law focause and effect does not apply there. this process of reasoning is obciously flawed because the exsitence of cause and effect between two phenomena does not requie us to believe that this relationship can be demonstrated by the rules of classical physics. einsteing, on the other hand, stated off with the premise that there can be no caus and effect if there is no exact measurement and concluded that acceptance of indeterminacy at the quantum level eliminateds causality and objectivity. here he fell into the copenhagen trap becasue he took exact observation, measurement and prediction as criteria for cause and effet and reality.
adolf grunbaum who is an atheist observes that the so-called pair cration of a particle and antiparticle occures throught the conversion of other forms of energy, and he emphatically notes that this is not a creation out of nothing. the laws exsists to allow this to occur and i have already demostrated why there is truly has never been nothing, plus you cannot observe nothing. i have more if you like but i will save it but your argument has been put to bed and tucked in. also i would like you to read my thread in the metaphysics section at avant on this topic were i ask of any better arguments in history, it is the best answer. you are a weak minded atheist in the grand scheme of things and to deny god is to deny exsistence, however, is pantheism or theism correct is the question, i can show why pantheism is incorrect and theism is the one truth.
http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23897
if have the right to deny anything i say but i wont listen, because you my friend have no more understanding of quanta then what google can supply and shit on reasoning when you say the quantum vaccum creates something out of nothing. i wont outline the argument but finite has never exsisted nor has nothing, to deny this is ignorant and i can suggest some reading if you like. i do enjoy having debates with you but your arguments are ridiculous and you have no idea what meta physics implies and how science rests on this matrix. your materialist view is totally ignorant. good night.
-
first clubber lang now you, just wait for my whole argument were dismantle atheism and its ill logic. what logic leads you to believe god isnt all the things you say he is. you dont know what your talking about, i would enjoy this debate more if we could move from one topic to another without all the hold up when you assume i use the definition of nothing that only exsists in the mind, haha go read a book man, stop with the dumb arguments. again you dont know what nothing or infinty means just like clubber lang, it is impossble to conceptualize but has merit, you cling to materialism and science like it is all that exsists, when reason, logic and experience tells us otherwise. science looks to explain everything, do this tell me how thinking a thought comes before the neural firing. that is think of black right now and then tell me wether the thought or neural firing came first. the thought is the horse and the brain the cart my friend.
also, its funny you ask how a intangible god could create anything when einstein has already showed that this world is made of an intangible, undescribable entity known as energy. matter is condensed energy, which you cant touch or grasp, iron is mostly not there, as is the chair your sitting on. i would go further but will save it for later. atomic bomb is the release of this energy and matter is energy vice versa so it is intangible at the quantum level.
-
show me your reasoning that god is not everything you outlined, should be interesting to see how your argument stacks up with some of the greatest thinkers ever. im a pretty well mannered easy going guy but when you attack me and talk about ignorance it pisses me off like i have already said. i did it with clubber lang because his argument insulted my intelligence :D
-
alright, here is my refutation to your law of cause and effect.
objection 1: some effects do not require a cause. Quantum mechanics tells us that particles at the sub-atomic level behave without causation. You claim something must be responsible. However, no evidence for sub-quantum forces has ever been found. The forces ARE the result of quantum particles (e.g. strong forces are caused by gluons, not vice versa).
objection 2a: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This means the chain of causes of your future actions extend backwards to before you were born. In essence, your whole life is predetermined and free will doesn't exist. If you object that any of these causes is an isolated event, then you are implying an uncaused cause which violates the "law of cause and effect."
objection 2b: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This chain of causes may be traced back to the first cause. A familiar paradox arises - what caused the first cause? According to the "law of cause and effect," every cause must be caused by something else. If we assume there is an uncaused cause, then its premise is violated and the whole argument fails.
objection 3: the "law of cause and effect" postulates that a specific cause always leads to a specific effect (i.e. there may be some attribute X which always leads to some attribute Y). However, we have never observed two instances of X which led to two instances of Y. Every X is different in some respect from every other X. Likewise, every Y is different from every other Y. If you object that we may infer the same outcome when each X is exactly the same, then you are creating a definition for cause and effect that cannot be falsified. Since all you would have to do whenever someone challenges you is propose additional 'unknown' causes, this is not really a valid argument. It would be like me claiming "the universe was created by a black hole. We just don't understand all the factors that were involved" no matter how many objections are raised. Although this argument can never be falsified, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's true.
-
i do enjoy having debates with you but your arguments are ridiculous and you have no idea what meta physics implies and how science rests on this matrix.
You are wrong. Science may have at one time rested on the notion of cause and effect. However, this school of thought has long been abondoned by most scientists. Modern science attempts to understand the relationships between variables. For example, the equation F = ma is a mathematical relationship between measurable quantities. It says that force, mass and acceleration are related; it does not say that acceleration causes force or vice versa. It is also worth pointing out there is no "law of cause and effect" in science. Hmm, I wonder why...
Can you please keep the length of your posts to a minimum? I think it's safe to say that everybody has officially lost interest in this thread after your marathon posts. If you cannot express yourself clearly and concisely, then you are not the "super intellect" you claim to be. Some of your posts come across like the ramblings of a child trying to explain quantum mechanics.
-
you completely ignored everything i said as i demonstrated why there is cause and effect in quantum physics and it is obvious is daily life. i wrote a marathon post to completely destroy your notion of no cause and effect, by showing you what top physicist have to say and why there is cause and effect. your equation is explained away above if you can decipher what i said.
listen science rests on the assumptions of meta physics this is a fact, you can cry that it does not but that doesnt change the fact and i have demenstrated why while you refer to and equation that is descriptive, which i have already explained why it shows cause and effect, if you cant comprehend that then i dont know how this can continue, you've been proven wrong, and you say im wrong, i got my material from three different books on quantum mechanics, about combined seperate conclusions about cause and effect and you proclaim there wrong hahahah, you dont have a clue what your talking about or what cause and effect entail.
heres another meta physical assumption that science rests on, that the world is rational and we can make sense of it. it is just as logical that it is rational, but we assume it is orderly and reductionable, your an outright fool to think meta physics doesnt apply to physics, they are melding son. sorry for the long posts but i have to fully defend my position.
-
your objections have been discussed above, see for further details. cause=effect, not vice versa, infinity did occur so what are you denying this pre mise. your refutation is already delt with, i dont know how to put it anymore clearly.
-
i was kidding about the super intellect thing i dont know my ass from my elbow. ;D
-
you completely ignored everything i said as i demonstrated why there is cause and effect in quantum physics and it is obvious is daily life. i wrote a marathon post to completely destroy your notion of no cause and effect, by showing you what top physicist have to say and why there is cause and effect. your equation is explained away above if you can decipher what i said.
I wrote my objections to the law of cause and effect b/c your theological argument is built on it. In philosophy, all you need is one unanswered counter-example to refute any argument.
listen science rests on the assumptions of meta physics this is a fact, you can cry that it does not but that doesnt change the fact and i have demenstrated why while you refer to and equation that is descriptive, which i have already explained why it shows cause and effect, if you cant comprehend that then i dont know how this can continue, you've been proven wrong, and you say im wrong, i got my material from three different books on quantum mechanics, about combined seperate conclusions about cause and effect and you proclaim there wrong hahahah, you dont have a clue what your talking about or what cause and effect entail.
You are still blowing smoke out of your ass. Science doesn't rest on the notion of cause and effect. Please show me one credible science website that claims without the law of cause and effect, there would be no science. It is nothing more than a philosophical concept that you keep trying to pass off as fact. If this law is so important that all of science rests on it, then how come it's never taught in school? I've already explained to you that science attempts to understand the relationships between variables. For example, the equation f = ma tells us that force, mass and acceleration are related; it does not say that acceleration causes force or vice versa.
-
you are wrong science has assumptions it must accept in order to conduct science, this is metaphysics, the reason it is not taught is that it cant be proven but assumed, just like the world is set up in a rational way. i already wrote about scienctists who accept the law of cause and effect read the book if you want.
-
go to a philosophy class if you want to see were it is taught
-
the law of cause and effect has been refuted by logic. Therefore, it cannot be assumed like you say in science.
-
it is not refuted by logic, read my marathon post.
-
I read your post. The law of cause and effect is a philosophical concept which you assume is true. So I wrote a list of objections - 1 empirical, 3 logical - that disprove causality. In philosophy, all you need is one unanswered counter-example to refute any argument. I have 4 of them.
-
your refutations have been delt with. your formula is descriptive, read above. cause=effect, cause does not have to have a cause hence uncaused cause. and the others were delt with.
what is the mechanism that has been shown to work in punctuated equilibrium, i mean empiracally.
-
you haven't refuted anything. It would be like me saying your counter-arguments to my objections have already been dealt with. All talk and no show. The example I provided f = ma is an accurate representation of science as a whole. Science attempts to understand the realtionships between variables. Cause and effect are just labels we give to observations that meet the causality principle. In nature, there are many examples where no independent cause is responsible. For instance, rain appears to be associated with temperature and humidity. Yet none of these variables "cause" rain. It's the balance between temperature and humidity that results in rain.
-
but you are wrong i talked about how descriptive entities are in fact causality and non-locality has re-introduced causality thus establishing cause and effect in science.
-
also, the nobel prize winner julius schwinger obs that both classical and quantum physics assume the law of cause and effect, since they both hold that knowledge of the state of a system at one time gives knowledge of its state at a later time. so follow me, in any case, the principle that every phenonmenon and event has an explanation is as fundamental in quantum physics as it is in the rest of physics, it is not simply a presupposition of science or a thesis to be proven, it is rather a condition that has to be accepted if we are to do science. like it or not, the quantum physicist cannot say anything about a quantum state taht is not implicitly an attempt to explain it. even to say that there are no causes at the quantum level is to give an explanation, albeit a mistaken one, for quantum phenomena. when bohr offered his principle onf complementarity, he was trying to explain quantum phenomean. it could be said that this was a description not an explantion, but then it was a description that sought to explain. all quantum experiments and fomalisms are attempts to explain quantum pheenomena. quantum theorists are often, in fact, driven by the search for symmetry. bizarre quantum phe like non-locality my be bizarre from the viewpoint of conventional science but the non locality experiments actually re-introduce causality. we do not understand how one photon affects the other at such distances but we do know that one has an effect on the other.
now cause and effect is actually a meta scientific priciple like you have eluded to. science cannot prove it;science simply operates on the assumptions that it is valid. in the einstein-copenhagen debate on measurement and causality, capenhagen had the right premise but the wrong conclusion. einstined adopted cop conclusion as his premise and reached an equally flawsd conclusion. from the premise that exact measurement is not possible at the quantum leverl(uncertinty principle), copenhagen concluede that the law focause and effect does not apply there. this process of reasoning is obciously flawed because the exsitence of cause and effect between two phenomena does not requie us to believe that this relationship can be demonstrated by the rules of classical physics. einsteing, on the other hand, stated off with the premise that there can be no caus and effect if there is no exact measurement and concluded that acceptance of indeterminacy at the quantum level eliminateds causality and objectivity. here he fell into the copenhagen trap becasue he took exact observation, measurement and prediction as criteria for cause and effet and reality.
-
you describe what copenhagen got wrong and try to re-introduce it as doing away with cause and effect. so explain rain without humidity etc. it is clear there is cause and effect or a chain that leads to cause i dont understand your point. yes they do cause rain, go to the quantum level, then micro to macro and you will see a cause and effect, sorry i dont know a ton about the hydrological cycle, but rain could not occur without these variables, since this is accepted cause and effect, much like julius said is inferred.
-
you still haven't refuted my objections. ;)
-
sure i never, what is the mechanism of punctuated equilibirium again? i forgot.
-
if you cannot refute my objections, then your argument is no longer valid b/c it rests on the assumption of cause and effect. I don't have to explain the mechanism for punctuated equilibrium since it doesn't have anything to do with this discussion (note: I know the mechanism responsible). I don't want to stray off-topic from your argument that God exist. By the way, I'm still waiting for your "proof."
-
what are you talking about i havent even posted the argument, then i make a post on getbig to show you that essence does equal exsistence and that a vaccum is not a example of nothing(vaccum is not nothing) creating something. then i say how rain is not possible without humidity temp but you assume no causal relationship. i then say cause=effect, cause does not have to have cause. and explain why descriptive statements or formula=causation from my marathon post. you are getting delusional my friend what point havent i specifically refuted.
I DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT, YOU HAVE BEEN REFUTED, TOP PHYSICIST HAVE SPOKE ABOUT NON-LOCALITY RE-INTRODUCING CAUSALITY, AND HOW QUANTA HAVE EFFECT ON EACH OTHER. RAIN IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE OTHER TWO VARIABLES THUS ITS EFFECT RAIN IS INHERENTLY CAUSED BY IT.
the god equation over at avant is enough to prove god"s exsistence like nightop said, anyone who has reflected on it will come to this conclusion. to deny god is to deny exsistence, and section 8 concurs, and so do aquinas, madchryaya, acivenna, and moses moaidems four seperate philosophers who arrived at the exact same conclusion. you have been refuted, and atheism is the most ignorant position possible, there never was nothing bucko.
-
what are you talking about i havent even posted the argument, then i make a post on getbig to show you that essence does equal exsistence and that a vaccum is not a example of nothing(vaccum is not nothing) creating something. then i say how rain is not possible without humidity temp but you assume no causal relationship. i then say cause=effect, cause does not have to have cause. and explain why descriptive statements or formula=causation from my marathon post.
You used causality in your premise. I don't need to listen to the whole argument to show why it rests on faulty assumptions. Earlier, you claimed that everything that happens must have a cause. You also said cause = effect. Therefore, it logically follows (according to you) that each cause must have an earlier cause. I mentioned quantum fluctuations to give an example of an uncaused cause. You claim they are still caused by something else. Now you have contradicted yourself by saying a "cause does not have to have a cause." I'm not sure even you know what the hell you are talking about.
you are getting delusional my friend what point havent i specifically refuted.
this post:
"objection 1: some effects do not require a cause. Quantum mechanics tells us that particles at the sub-atomic level behave without causation. You claim something must be responsible. However, no evidence for sub-quantum forces has ever been found. The forces ARE the result of quantum particles (e.g. strong forces are caused by gluons, not vice versa)."
"objection 2a: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This means the chain of causes of your future actions extend backwards to before you were born. In essence, your whole life is predetermined and free will doesn't exist. If you object that any of these causes is an isolated event, then you are implying an uncaused cause which violates the "law of cause and effect."
"objection 2b: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This chain of causes may be traced back to the first cause. A familiar paradox arises - what caused the first cause? According to the "law of cause and effect," every cause must be caused by something else. If we assume there is an uncaused cause, then its premise is violated and the whole argument fails."
"objection 3: the "law of cause and effect" postulates that a specific cause always leads to a specific effect (i.e. there may be some attribute X which always leads to some attribute Y). However, we have never observed two instances of X which led to two instances of Y. Every X is different in some respect from every other X. Likewise, every Y is different from every other Y. If you object that we may infer the same outcome when each X is exactly the same, then you are creating a definition for cause and effect that cannot be falsified. Since all you would have to do whenever someone challenges you is propose additional 'unknown' causes, this is not really a valid argument. It would be like me claiming "the universe was created by a black hole. We just don't understand all the factors that were involved" no matter how many objections are raised. Although this argument can never be falsified, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's true."
the god equation over at avant is enough to prove god"s exsistence like nightop said, anyone who has reflected on it will come to this conclusion. to deny god is to deny exsistence, and section 8 concurs, and so do aquinas, madchryaya, acivenna, and moses moaidems four seperate philosophers who arrived at the exact same conclusion. you have been refuted, and atheism is the most ignorant position possible, there never was nothing bucko.
ha ha ha, whatever helps you sleep at night. ;)
-
I will let you get the last word in, and I promise I won't respond until you post your whole argument. I'm looking forward to reading your "proof" of God's existence.
-
i dont care if you give me the last word, i stop arguing with you when you dont make sense, like abiogenesis happened cause were here, or the utter improbability of evolution by random mutations is close to impossible see the wister symposium were mathmeticians confronted biologists about this, the biologists reply i quote was "evolution must have happened were here" haha delusion. no such thing as speciation, fully formed fossils indicating whole species not halfway mutants=punctuated equilibria. this theory has no water because its mechanism has never been demonstrated ever, at all. the bacteria in the fossil record date back to 3.8 billion years(some recent studies date the world at 1.9 billion by the way) this is basically instant catalysis of bacteria/ 34 phyla appear all at once in the fossil record, guess random mutations occured all at once haha.dont kid yourself they make whole fucking skeletons from a cheekbone and half the time they are fucking frudulent, desperate .wait a minute mutations just scramble information not add anything and 99% of the time it is a negative mutation this has led nobel laureate de Duve to say "eternity would not suffice".
the funny thing is that the improbability has been growing do to the recent increase found in the complexity of the biosphere. dr gerold schoeder notes that as lona the intricate workings of the cell are disregarded, "theres no problem for steven pinker, gould, or dawkins to talk of random reactions producing the good of life". "the little charts had me fooled too, then i studied molecular biology" to which he holds a phd in.
then you go on to state that nothing can produce something which has been refuted by even atheist, and the boys at avant agree for good measure. hint a vaccum is something, therefore anything produced by it or in it are governed by laws that do not exsist in nothing, and nothing truly isnt in exsistence. simply accept this so we can move on, i accept hovind makes some dumb points and makes his own definition, when everyone is saying your wrong just accept it.
then you attack cause=effect to which i specifically write about equations and use the example of radio active decay supplied by a physicist and how quantum mechanics and non-locality establish causation. then you talk about laws being broken when cause equals effect not vice versa they are not interchangeble it merely states that all effects have causes that effects are not self sufficient.
your thrid objection is ludicris as alpha decay is not understood but we realize that the decay has a cause as noted above. then you refrain to the rain argument which is not a good argument at all and you have abandoned it.
then you deny the god equation, and laugh at me for being delusional, trust me people smarter then you and me combined have spent there lifes at this and this is as far as logic will take you. atheism is so stupid it is beyond beleif. to deny a non-material world is to deny this world, the world of energy, and to deny consciousness or thoughts, it is too easy to discredit. just cause you dont understand my marathon post and then post and equation doesnt mean i have to keep responding.
-
not my argument at all by the way so post away when i post the argument you can have at er. but it might be a while as i have some schoolwork to do and a few things to flesh out, but im not adonis so i will supply. if you dont beleive me then doesnt matter, i will post it anyway.
-
here im attacking evolution again
In 1978 Dr. Colin Patterson (senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History) published a book called "Evolution". A reader wrote to Dr. Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. In a reply dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Patterson wrote: "... I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?" ... "You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no, there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
So the person in charge of one of the largest fossil collections in the world says that even 120 years after Darwin, no undisputed transitional forms had been found. Similar statements have come from Dr. Niles Eldredge, head of the fossil collection of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and Dr. David Raup, leading paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, among others. Collectively these three scientists have been in charge of at least 50% of the major fossil collections of the world. Given their close proximity to, and inherent familiarity with, the ACTUAL fossil evidence, I'm inclined to give much more credence to their conclusions than to Dr. Collins.
In subsequent years (i.e. since 1979), when a new supposedly transitional fossil is discovered, it typically still makes headlines in Time, National Geographic, Scientific American, The New York Times, etc. as the new smoking gun missing link that finally proves evolution once and for all. But if prior fossil discoveries have already conclusively proven evolution, wouldn't any new fossil discoveries just be yesterday's news? Why do they continue to receive front page treatment - why should anyone care? Or to put it another way, Charles Lindbergh made headlines all around the world after his first non-stop solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1927, but who cares to hear about a successful transatlantic crossing today? Here's a recent example: a discovery occurred last April when scientists found a reportedly transitional fossil named "Tiktaalik" in northern Canada. An article in the April 5, 2006 "New Scientist" entitled "First fossil of fish that crawled onto land discovered" included the statement: "As Shubin's team studied the species they saw to their excitement that it was exactly the missing intermediate they were looking for. 'We found something that really split the difference right down the middle,' says Daeschler." Now whether or not Tiktaalik is judged to be a true transitional fossil is beside the point. Notice that the excitement and newsworthiness of this discovery is due to the hope that Tiktaalik may finally be able to fill in the missing gap. This reaction clearly reveals the "transitional forms" gap is still a very real problem today. So if Dr. Collins' claim is true regarding the variety of transitional forms in existence today, what's the big deal about another discovery? The truth is, there are still no indisputable samples, so each new discovery elicits the usual celebratory back-slapping with the hope that "maybe this will be the one!"
haha to easy, funny that you act as if evolution is fact. my argument has nothing to do with evolution by the way or antropomorphism at all. just want some factual evidence before we go calling evolution fact. abiogenesis=nothing, dont care what you say about it, it is the starting point, you must talk about how evolution began before you talk about how it carries on. punctuated e=nothing. fossils=nothing concrete or that can even be proven to be intermideate. also, molecular biology has unlocked pandoras box
-
"[M]ajor discontinuities simply could not, unless we are to believe in miracles, have been crossed in geologically short periods of time through one or two transitional species occupying restricted geographical areas. Surely such transitions must have involved long lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds or probably thousands of transitional species. To suggest that the hundreds, thousands or possibly even millions of transitional species which must have existed in the interval between vastly dissimilar types were all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on incredible" micheal denton molecular biologist.
bro, argue against me, i enjoy the debate, i will post a comprehensive argument for god in sometime, until then argue away.
-
alright, you asked for me to respond.
You are confusing fact with theory. Abiogenesis is the process by which life originated from non-living material. There are several theories that attempt to explain this process. Whether these theories are correct or not is irrelevant. The fact remains abiogenesis did occur. We had to come from something. The only way abiogenesis can be disproven is if life spontaneously popped into existence out of nothing. Even the Bible claims that man was created from non-living material.
Genesis 2:7 (KJV) "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
The Wistar Symposium was held 50 yrs ago. Needless to say, using such an outdated source doesn't exactly strengthen your argument. The theory of evolution is better understood today than it was half a century ago. A decision was never reached at the conference as far as I know. Regarding the fossil record, evolution theory predicts that there have been millions of transitional organisms. It does not predict that all these organisms were preserved as fossils. Just b/c there are gaps in the fossil record does not mean we can jump to the conclusion that no more fossils are left to be discovered.
Speciation has been observed. For example, a new species of mosquito, the molestus form, has speciated from Culex pipiens. Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy such as Primula kewensis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Your comments about punctuated equilibrium reflect a misunderstanding of what the theory says. Punctuated equilibrium is the process by which evolution continues through periods of rapid change alternating with periods of relative stability. It is based on positive evidence from independent geological sites. The theory is supported by the stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils, and the apparent morphological differences between ancestral and daughter species. Punctuated equilibrium occurs when a small sub-population is isolated from the parent population. Mutations in the gene pool of the isolated population accumulate faster. The result is speciation takes place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years instead of millions of years.
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
I have already explained why your definition of 'nothing' is a philosophical concept that only exist in the mind. How do we know there was ever truly nothingness (as you put it)? Maybe space has always existed but was empty. This may be viewed as a form of nothing. All you have done is come up with 1 definition of 'nothing' and ignored other interpretations. It would be like me saying "unless God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he's not really a god." We know from logic that such a god is not possible. However, he might not be omnipotent and omniscient yet still be a god. I don't know how to make this concept any simpler for you to understand.
-
You still haven't refuted my objections. ;D
objection 1: some effects do not require a cause. Quantum mechanics tells us that particles at the sub-atomic level behave without causation. You claim something must be responsible. However, no evidence for sub-quantum forces has ever been found. The forces ARE the result of quantum particles (e.g. strong forces are caused by gluons, not vice versa).
objection 2a: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This means the chain of causes of your future actions extend backwards to before you were born. In essence, your whole life is predetermined and free will doesn't exist. If you object that any of these causes is an isolated event, then you are implying an uncaused cause which violates the "law of cause and effect."
objection 2b: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This chain of causes may be traced back to the first cause. A familiar paradox arises - what caused the first cause? According to the "law of cause and effect," every cause must be caused by something else. If we assume there is an uncaused cause, then its premise is violated and the whole argument fails.
objection 3: the "law of cause and effect" postulates that a specific cause always leads to a specific effect (i.e. there may be some attribute X which always leads to some attribute Y). However, we have never observed two instances of X which led to two instances of Y. Every X is different in some respect from every other X. Likewise, every Y is different from every other Y. If you object that we may infer the same outcome when each X is exactly the same, then you are creating a definition for cause and effect that cannot be falsified. Since all you would have to do whenever someone challenges you is propose additional 'unknown' causes, this is not really a valid argument. It would be like me claiming "the universe was created by a black hole. We just don't understand all the factors that were involved" no matter how many objections are raised. Although this argument can never be falsified, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's true.
-
usmokepole, just a reminder that it's been a week since you responded.
-
i get bored arguing with you, you simply are a talkorigins link provider which gets rather boring. plus im working on my thesis and dont have time right now to argue. when im ready i will begin to post again, you think nothingness and infinity are concepts of the mind, showing lack of knowledge of matematics, you think because punctuated equilibrium is merely a description of the fossil record it supports evolution. i dont want to read all your links and am busy reading material in book form, from people like ellis and penrose among many others, micheal shermer is a gearbox. i provided direct quote from the holder of the largest fossil depot in the world saying transitional fossils are merely interpretation you post a link from someone saying there not. it is cyclical and redundant and when i posted links to spetner and others who have lab evidence that mutations cannot work, and people like De Duve saying the same thing you ignore me, or ask for awards. you keep using tautologies as arguments showing your lack of logical argumentation. nuff said. i will post when im ready, you are the only one waiting on my reply.
the site does have the basis of evidence against evolution, but the individuals who have there articles on that site are merely showing what there finding are indicative of nothing more. the site is simply a collection of articles and the individuals arent evolution bashers just those with conflicting real data.
-
de duve won the nobel prize, is that award enough to warrant basis for criticism.
-
i dont have time to write a huge paper write now, so if you want we can argue points as i present them. i dont want many links if possible, quotes are fine, i dont wish to read lesser scientists view on science over at talkorigins, i read from the minds of wave makers.
we already argued nothingness, were eternal is reality, if you dont accept this truth then the argument cannot continue, you are closed minded and unable to accept truth. a vaccum is not nothing so dont use this tired argument. you could say that the vaccum is eteranal, but basically some non-thing outside of space time had to create the universe.
first point worth arguing is that everything in the universe is one, that is everything is one thing and not seperate. do you agree? if not then we can argue about it, if you do then we can move on. point im making is that there is only one thing, consciousness, and matter is the epiphenomenon, along similar lines and the physicist amit gaswami. information or wisdom is the substrate for life, mind of god argument.
http://www.wie.org/j11/goswami.asp?page=3
i have more points but we will argue one at time if you want. basically im saying that i dont have a ton of time on my hands to have an all out internet debate right now as you know this is exam time for schools in about three weeks so this is all i can handle. you could be a dick and not want to do it like this, but its the best i can do right now. link is interesting for anyone interested in physics.
-
the reason i say outside of space time is that without time first causes would not be an issue, there is no linearity, this seems to be our sticking point. a vaccum cannot operate outside of time. some like hawking have argued against time but have failed, i think we can agree time is a dimension.
-
i get bored arguing with you, you simply are a talkorigins link provider which gets rather boring.
ha ha ha, sure. I'm a "talkorigins link provider." ::) Here is a list of websites I've used as references.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html
http://www.kent-hovind.com
http://www.skeptictank.org/hovind2.htm
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hovind_fractured_fairy_tales.htm
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14770
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s249630.htm
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/COMPLETE/learn/star_and_planet_formation.html
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
you think nothingness and infinity are concepts of the mind, showing lack of knowledge of matematics
No, I think your interpretation of nothingness only exist in the mind. Don't put words in my mouth. I explained to you that it's possible space has always existed but was empty. This may be viewed as a form of nothing. All you have done is come up with 1 definition of 'nothingness' and ignored other interpretations. Furthermore, I have never commented on infinity in this discussion. So I don't know where you pulled that from. Perhaps out of your ass?
you think because punctuated equilibrium is merely a description of the fossil record it supports evolution.
I never said punctuated equilibrium is simply a description of the fossil record. In fact, in addition to the fossil record, I said the theory is supported by the stability of morphology in widespread species and the apparent morphological differences between ancestral and daughter species. You're the one who keeps trying to reduce punctuated equilibrium to a 'mere guess to explain a lack of fossils' - not me. You asked for a mechanism. I provided you with a response.
i dont want to read all your links and am busy reading material in book form, from people like ellis and penrose among many others, micheal shermer is a gearbox.
I never asked you to read my links. Funny how many times I have to keep reminding you I never said this or that. The links only serve as references so you can double check my work. It's similar to writing a research paper. If you write a thesis, do you leave out your sources b/c your readers may not want to read them? No.
i provided direct quote from the holder of the largest fossil depot in the world saying transitional fossils are merely interpretation you post a link from someone saying there not.
I never said transitional fossils are not interpretation. I'm not sure where you got that from.
the site does have the basis of evidence against evolution, but the individuals who have there articles on that site are merely showing what there finding are indicative of nothing more. the site is simply a collection of articles and the individuals arent evolution bashers just those with conflicting real data.
bullshit. Anytime a website contains so much religious propaganda, I question their credibility. I have already caught them lying. One of the guys from True Origins claims he never recieved a response from an evolutionists when this is not true. Moreover, half of the articles posted there only raise questions in evolution. None of them actually disprove the theory otherwise the authors would recieve a Nobel Prize and evolution would no longer be taught.
-
de duve won the nobel prize, is that award enough to warrant basis for criticism.
I'm not sure what your point is. Who is De Duve, and what did he say?
-
i dont want many links if possible, quotes are fine, i dont wish to read lesser scientists view on science over at talkorigins, i read from the minds of wave makers.
I guess it doesn't matter if these men have PhD's in evolution and biochemistry, they are "lesser scientists" according to you. So they must not know what they are talking about. ::)
we already argued nothingness, were eternal is reality, if you dont accept this truth then the argument cannot continue, you are closed minded and unable to accept truth. a vaccum is not nothing so dont use this tired argument. you could say that the vaccum is eteranal, but basically some non-thing outside of space time had to create the universe.
you are so ignorant. I honestly feel sorry for you. Between you and me, I'm the one whose kept an open mind. I freely admit I don't know the answer in certain areas of discussion. You have this notion ingrained in your head that your belief is the only way. I have refuted comment after comment from you. All you do is change topics or say "I get bored arguing with you" when you lose.
first point worth arguing is that everything in the universe is one, that is everything is one thing and not seperate. do you agree? if not then we can argue about it, if you do then we can move on. point im making is that there is only one thing, consciousness, and matter is the epiphenomenon, along similar lines and the physicist amit gaswami. information or wisdom is the substrate for life, mind of god argument.
everything in the universe can be one thing or separate depending on your interpretation. This is why philosophical discussions are pointless. I'd rather address facts rather than opinions.
-
haha space doesnt exsist dumbass, ahah you think space is an entity. i didnt lose one argument in this whole debate, i said quantum entanglement re established cause effect, and you still ignored it(i even gave an example, and can describe the slit experiment if you want). nothingness is not a concept of the "mind", again space doesn't exsist as something tangible it is merely a reference for distance between objects, there goes your theory(prove space exsists as something seperate then we can continue).im open minded to peoples arguments and argue with people much smarter then you my friend. they at least understand the concepts im giving, the never was nothing, you cant accept it is not my fault go read some cosmology from the link i provided long ago.
you are a materialist, explain consiousness then using material terms. explain how this world is an intangible thing in reality. you asked how an intangible god could create matter through e=mc2 simply put, since this world is made of it. also, read about the grand unification epoch to find out when photons were converted to matter.
quantum entanglement is fact not opinion, yes we are all the same thing and there is only one thing or reality, i wont explain it to you because you annoy me with your non sense. your the one who ignores phd's, spetners work is no good because he is supported by religious folk.
hahah go on avant or a philosophy forum, or physics forum and say nothing exsisted, you retard, i made the thread over there to show you what a ignorant fool you are then you say it is a concept of the mind, ahah you refuted aquinas, one of the greatest thinkers in history with one felt swoop. templeton prize here you come.go back and look at the thread then, look at the thread started by RAS about the same subject only much more advanced and you'll understand how stupid your points are. thats why i stop arguing, you dont have a clue what your talking about.
punctuated equilibrium is only a description, what is the testable mechanism, if nothing exsists it is only a simple hypothesis. it is merely a description, they said look gradual evolution doesnt happen, it happens in short bursts, lets call it punctuated equilibrium and pretend it has a mechanism. show me the mechanism, copy and paste it from the link. dont feel bad for me seriously, im fine. ;)
-
cool, you're right. I must be dumb. How silly of me! ::)
-
you have been supremely owned like suckmymuscle and his rant about memory that i shoved up his stupid ass. i dont like ad hominen arguments but when someone attacks me, this is not the main board by the way, i will return the favor, also those arguments are known to be used by the weak minded my friend. i rest my case on this argument.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You couldn't own me even in a parallel universe where stupidity is the currency in use! ;) No, it was me who called out your bullshit claims that somehow the frontal cortex had anything to do with perception. I owned you so badly that you evne stopped posting in the truce thread. You're so pathetic that you got owned by a layman at a field you're majoring in at academically! ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
you didnt even respond to me, and i received pms from people talking about what a meathead you are, you said memory was stored in limbic system, i will haul up the quotes if you like. you have a defence complex were you say you own everyone after you have been owned, i didnt keep responding because you didnt respond to me.stop being so ignorant and admit when your wrong, you can barely spell let alone own.
-
you didnt even respond to me, and i received pms from people talking about what a meathead you are, you said memory was stored in limbic system, i will haul up the quotes if you like. you have a defence complex were you say you own everyone after you have been owned, i didnt keep responding because you didnt respond to me.stop being so ignorant and admit when your wrong, you can barely spell let alone own.
Hmmm...but memory is stored in the limbic system. It is the center of emotions. The visual cortex is related to perception, not storage. I't's like a route program that analyses data, but archives it elsewhere. You have been seriously owned by me and I honestly feel sorry for you. The reason why I didn't repsond to you was because there's no point in debating the obvious. It's not like debating quantum mechanics vs general relativity. This is not a matter of contention, but simply of fact. Owned. ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
the law of cause and effect has been refuted by logic. Therefore, it cannot be assumed like you say in science.
"the law of cause and effec has been refuted by logic". Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha! This has got to be the most retarded thing I've ever read here. :-X The law of cause and effect is logic, you incredible moron. Deductive logic is axiomatically tied to the notion that that there is a non-contradictory pattern of deductions that are made based on infered inductions.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
last post was good sucky, but you posts on the neuroscience are retarded, the limbic system is not the only place memory is stored and i outlined why, you owned no one. i even outlined major areas and there function therefore if and only if im incorrect you are right, we cannot both be right in so far as the facts provide. the visual cortices in the occ. lobe are more related to visual perception(lateral geniculate nucleus), however is involved in storage of memory, or archives as you gayly put it. but you do not have a very good comprehension of what memory storage intails(working, episodic, semantic, visual, olfactory) i even posted links to top research. also, if you review and mri or pet scans you will see that retriving memories of different modalities activates mutiple neural correlates etc.
i am impressed however with your argument for cause and effect, however, his argument boiled down to more then that. you do sound intelligent but i think you overstep your ,boundaries and boast a little too much you aint that smart son, i would own you on any subject. pick one and a topic and if i own you, you will have to delete your account. a debateble topic, and i wont pick spelling as you would suffer a short defeat.
-
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You couldn't own me even in a parallel universe where stupidity is the currency in use! ;) No, it was me who called out your bullshit claims that somehow the frontal cortex had anything to do with perception. I owned you so badly that you evne stopped posting in the truce thread. You're so pathetic that you got owned by a layman at a field you're majoring in at academically! ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
in at academically, this is what im talking about, you in reality are a high functioning down syndrome patient. hahah me own you at neuroscience debate at hulkster thread.
-
since you claim to be educated i assume you have made a choice wether atheist, agnostic, or theistic in nature care to add anything to the "does god exist" argument. i think anyone who has studied philosophy(meta-physics and the like) will come to the conclusion that something outside of space-time and eternal would have to exist. any thoughts? i dont agree with anything you have said until your last post in this thread but i would like to hear your thoughts.
-
Since I'm confident that I'm highly intelligent, I don't need to even reply to you. You think that you're more intelligent than me because you happen to posses a little more of highly specialized knowledge for which you study 24/7? ::) And spelling is now an indication of intelligence? The last time I checked, this board has a spell-checker, so spelling correctly is as hard as pressing the spell-cchecking button and correcting your spelling mistakes. There are several areas that I know more of than you. Only someone arrogant and petty would assume otherwise. Even Einstein had his ass handed to him by Keynes, when he tried to debate economics with him.
As for this discussion, by definition, nothing can exist outside of reality, since reality contains all that is real. If you accept this tautology, then In this sense, reality is a process that is a process of definition. When you use expressions such as "outside", you are using perceptual Human functions to explain to identify the process of containment. Einstein already demonstrated matter create both time as well as space, so there's nothing but potential for organized systems in an a "void". In this case, the word "void" is not used to imply "lack of matter", per se, but rather lack of "logic". Because logic exists as a function of quantum interaction, which results from two processes: identification and perception.
Logic is nothing more than a "language" that reality uses to define the interaction between particles within a specific level of perception. Just like in mathematics, a given conjecture, theorem or proposition is only valid for a verty specific set of axioms you've established as truths into themselves. So, we perceive time/space because we're biased by our senses for it. In this sense, time is nothing more than a "language" of logic, of the law of cause-and-effect, and we only perceive it as such. If you create a parallel universe where there is no interaction or indentification between "potentials"(quantum flolws), then "time" wouldn't be required. This is fiendishly contrived, but there is a great TOE about it:
www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm (http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm)
The botom line is that there is a God, because reality is a process of perception, where potentials are turned into systems by indentification. Since perception of one by another causes global changes in all the systems involved - by definition, a single change in a small part causes a change in the whole -, then the reality is perceived globally by all it's parts. In other words, reality perceives itself. If you define perception as a form of consciousness, then reality is a conscience, and you could call that "God".
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Since I'm confident that I'm highly intelligent, I don't need to even reply to you. You think that you're more intelligent than me because you happen to posses a little more of highly specialized knowledge for which you study 24/7? ::) And spelling is now an indication of intelligence? The last time I checked, this board has a spell-checker, so spelling correctly is as hard as pressing the spell-cchecking button and correcting your spelling mistakes. There are several areas that I know more of than you. Only someone arrogant and petty would assume otherwise. Even Einstein had his ass handed to him by Keynes, when he tried to debate economics with him.
As for this discussion, by defitnition, nothing can exist outside of reality, since reality contains all that is real. If you accept this tautology, then In this sense, reality is a process that is a process of definition. When you use expressions such as "outside", you are using perceptual Human functions to explain to identify the process of containment. Einstein already demonstrated matter create both time as well as space, so there's nothing but potential for organized systems in an a "void". In this case, the word "void" is not used to imply "lack of matter", per se, but rather lack of "logic". Because logic exists as a function of quantum interaction, which results from two processes: identification and perception.
Logic is nothing more than a "language" that reality uses to define the interaction between particles within a specific level of perception. Just like in mathematics, a given conjecture, theorem or proposition is only valid for a verty specific set of axioms you've established as truths into themselves. So, we perceive time/space because we're biased by our senses for it. In this sense, time is nothing more than a "language" of logic, of the law of cause-and-effect, and we only perceive it as such. If you create a parallel universe where there is no interaction or indentification between "potentials"(quantum flolws), then "time" wouldn't be required. This is fiendishly contrived, but there is a great TOE about it:
www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm (http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
first great response, i take back what i said you talk like someone with intelligence as many who can discuss this topic use verbage which is foreign to most. i dont wish this to turn into a mudslinging contest, but rather a simple debate.
first i would like to say that something outside of space-time is does not violate your definition of reality, since it is part of that reality, time is in essence a product of our reality. also, for something to exist nothing could have never existed by definition, thus some non-thing created the universe. however, it is obvious to any that ex nihilo does or did exsist hence the creation of the universe, it in itself is not eternal, and since redshift was discovered it is not infinite since expansion is not possible in infinite. my whole argument for god boils down to a few ancient philosophical questions, such as why is there something insted of nothing, and better yet why was there change.
a void also could not exist just like nothing could not exist(i understand this is not your argument, but is related to buddhism, so i feel compelled to touch upon it). once you describe a void with characteristics, or nothing with char. you are describing something by nature thus it is not nothing, true nothing cannot create something(this universe or reality) thus something eternal and infinite exists, i beleive it to be god.
your response never answered my fundamental question(you sound monistic) what is your beleif, god or no god? i will refrain from bashing you in other threads and you have earned my respect, much appreciation for the answer to the question.
-
"the law of cause and effec has been refuted by logic". Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha! This has got to be the most retarded thing I've ever read here.
Then explain to me what the law of cause and effect is. As I understand it, the law states that everything that happens must have a cause. This description is self-defeating for several reasons that I already mentioned.
The law of cause and effect is logic, you incredible moron. Deductive logic is axiomatically tied to the notion that that there is a non-contradictory pattern of deductions that are made based on infered inductions.
the law of cause and effect may appear logical at first glance. However, it falls apart upon closer inspection. It's nothing more than labels we use to describe the relationship between observations which meet causality. There are plenty of examples of effects that weren't "caused" by something, per se, but rather are related to other variables.
-
in at academically, this is what im talking about, you in reality are a high functioning down syndrome patient.
I got a kick out of this comment. ;D
-
neo, a relationship like radio decay for example doesnt rule out cause and effect, it just means we dont understand how they effect each other but we make the assumption to make our calculations and deductions. your rain example, if you can remove variables that negatively effect each other such that they cannot occur without the other then a cause and effect relationship is assumed. saying that we do not know the relationship rules out cause and effect is plain ignorance, everday experience shows us(logic,reason)that effects are precluded by causes. however, you raised a good point about what caused god, to which i replied the uncaused cause, and you never accepted it.
let me try again. this universe is not finite nor eternal, hence it was "created" it would have to have been, plus the theory of singularity places this observation straight in our laps. ok so if this universe is not eternal and true "nothing" cannot create something then we are left with something eternal and infinite for this universe to occur. now, eternal by definition rules out the need for a cause, it is everlasting or always hence no need to cause it is the cause for everything. some non-thing outside of space-time would have to create space-time since it cannot function without matter as sucky showed. hence anything outside of space-time does not apply to time and with no time there is no beginning end or middle thus no need to be caused, god is the unmoved mover. time is a dimension we subscribe too, it does not have to exist outside of the universe, but if the universe is not infinite(which by science it isnt, redshift) then something has to exist outside of it, or do you beleive that a void exist outside it, or nothing, which has already been dealt with(this would imply a self-sustaining universe, which as you know is not possible).
-
another argument you might assume is that a vaccum, and matter-antimatter etc. however, a vaccum is something, plus matter popping in and out of exsistence doesnt rule out that it is nothing, the particles may be coming from another dimension, who knows. however, many have used your argument and it is not accepted even by atheists as the quotes i posted earlier. there are better arguments against me then you are providing ie monism but a vaccum is something thus is no vaccum was there matter-antimatter could not pop in and out of existence. see how it is not truly nothing, the vaccum provides the something for the matter-antimatter. all i wanted to get across was that something outside space-time would have to exist for this reality to exist. the final jump takes faith just as atheism does. atheism is a faith you must grapple with the same questions as me, you choose no god, but how were we created, why change etc etc.. if you cant answer these questions then it is a matter of faith, not fact. you believing in no god takes just as much faith as me beleiving in him/her/it.
i just think that the reality of the question, the complexity of the world, the purpose driven features, intelligence, consciousness of matter, humans drive for purpose, and the GENERAL intuition of everyone to pray in times of need as youth, and to beleive more are signs of god. when i was an athiest, and my grandmother died i prayed even though i thought i dont see god there is no god, why i dont know, it is instilled in us and intuition tells me when i reflect on life and the universe there has to more to it then us, and there has to be a purpose, faith it is but i think it is a justified faith.
-
because correlations dont allow us assume causality doesnt mean cause and effect are not operating, or the exegetes of the correlation, we simply dont know the relationship between variables, chaos theory will eventually show that everything is cause and effects or interconnected predetermined arrangements of events that correlate sequentially, or even exponentially in that they are additive from the first cause in history. far way away however.
-
Leibniz actually demonstrated that for every problem there's a solution that follows a pattern. This imples that all "potentials" in the Universe are already solved, or that the Universe is a closed system without inherit contradictions, because the contradictions are a fundamental part of the system. This would imply that paradoxes don't really exist, but are rather the result of faulty perception. This also goes against observalbe reality, because the system does not function properly. If you assume that the contradictions are a part of the system and that they're already solved, then why is there multiple options for the resolution of these paradoxes? I guess the solution is to assume that the "solutions" are always optima globally, and that we only perceive some solutions being better because there's a kind of meta-universe that allows fro multiple universes. So, asume that the system does not "choose" the better pattern to solve it's inherit contradictions. This would mean that the meta-universe allows the "faulty" universe to exist merelly as a "potential" which is only faulty from the inherit deductive properties of definition of the universe from where you observe it. Thus, there is no logical cointradiction in no system, because all systems(universes) are problems unto themselves that are already solved, and the contradictions arises only from trying to apply the axiomatic language of a system to another. Global coherence determines the prime axioms that define each system, and since all systems are coherent due to a deterministic assumption that it's properties create an arbitrary perception of each other that is an a priori language inbeded in the system, then meta-logic exists and it is, simply, the recogniction that infinite potentials is non-axiomatic, because axioms themselves are "tools" used to arbitrarily limit potentials. Since infinite potentials have no limited "solutions" or outcomes - because since there are no axioms, there is also no need for a language to describe the path that the axiom uses to to "close" itself in a system. Thus, meta-logic, unlike mere logic, is not a "language", but rather a "translator" between infinite different logics. In conclusion, the problem of the Universe is a problem of logic, which is a problem of potentials and meta-logic, which is essentially a problem of recognition, definition an dperception. Problem solved! ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
you still haven't proven me wrong. Nice try kid. ;)
-
Several of the coolest, kindest people I know are atheists.
They are much better to deal with than most of the Christians, Jews, or Muslims I've encountered.
-
Several of the coolest, kindest people I know are atheists.
They are much better to deal with than most of the Christians, Jews, or Muslims I've encountered.
This is true.
Most atheists are rational people that mind their own business.