Jump to content

Religious and Spiritual Beliefs


CommanderJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just to clear up any confusion:

Atheist = someone who denies the existence of God (with a captial G). Effectively this is an active role of constantly challenging the beliefs of others.

Agnostic = someone who believes that the existence of a higher being (God or otherwise) is both unknown and probably unknowable (the probably is important apparently), and therefore irrelevant. This can be an active expression of this viewpoint, which is slightly different from the atheist, or a simple passive lack of belief in anything.

I'm old enough, wise enough and British enough not to get into an argument about it.

Cheers,

Smiley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes you can break down the neuro impulses of the mind into biological terms, and see how it physically works. Thats terrific, explain conciousness. Explain sentience. You keep reaching into your tool bag to dismiss these issues when all you do is skirt them, when you are completely unwilling/unable to consider that maybe you don't have the right tools.

Your refutations deal only with the physical and nothing more, of course the brain works on impulses. You fail to address the essence of the soul.

If it's your contention that the soul doesn't exsist I would like to hear the reasoning why. Not the opinion, the reason. But if that is not your contention then ignore this paragraph.

Let me be clear, I'm not defending god, certainly not the Christian god which seems to be popping back into the conversation. I'm mearly open to all possibilitys, and the only way to gain any certainty about anything is to subject it to the utmost scrutiny, and if any cracks develop, well then we know what that means.

Perhaps there is not god in the sense of some all powerful master overlooking the universe and dictating our existance. Perhaps God is internal, the metaphysical "something" that continually tells us "there is more, there is always more. What you are is something more." Perhaps this God could be called "mind" or "awareness" but you surely agree that we are as of yet unable to subjugate the "mind" to scientific certainty. Not the brain mind you, which is purely physical, but the mind, our concieousness, our soul if you will.

[ 09-13-2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragon Lady>>

In regards to the dual slit experiment and the multiverse... I meant to propose that the dual slit experiment somehow allows us to "observe" more than one universe at a time. If we agree that most of our existence happens in one universe and we cannot observe ourselves in other universes (assuming the many world theory is correct) then I mention the dual slit experiment as an exception where we perhaps can observe several universes simultaneously. (( what this has to do with our topic here, I'm not sure ))

**

As far as proving or disproving God, would it not be necessary to define the terms first? In other words what does God mean? If I wish to prove that 2x = x + x, I must first define what "2", "x", "+" and "=" mean. Would I not also have to do the same if I wish to prove Does God exist? Perhaps to some, God is the unifying mathematical theorem that explains all. Then we would argue (and some have!) whether or not such an equation exists! In this regard, if science discovered an equation that worked for everything and one defined God as being the unifying equation, then science would have successfully provided a proof for God.

On the other hand, if I define God as existence, then science must prove that the whole idea of the existence of anything means something. Why is there an is? There could be endless nothing, undefinable and infinite, but there's not. There is SOMETHING. A universe, us, ticks, phones, trucks, Lego, etc... These things exist. Maybe what God IS, is that anything exists at all. How does science go about proving existence? How do we define existence? If we say something exists if and only if one can see, hear, touch, smell, taste or physically feel it, then that is to say that only the tangible exists and anything intangible is hogwash suspect to interpretation and belief. Lego exists but war does not.

I, too, am tired, but would like to be clear on one thing: If we are to discuss: Does God exist? We must define the three words, "Does", "God" and "exist" and we must all agree on these definitions, otherwise the whole argument itself is pointless, no? To say I believe in God is the same as saying I believe in free speech (grammatically, syntactically I mean). Now we could easily come to an agreement on what "free speech" means and then debate its existence and why we believe or don't believe in free speech and have it mean something.

We must also do the same for God. Perhaps all religion really is, is a suggested definition for God. Instead of saying, "What religion are you?" one might as well say "in which definition of God do you believe?"

And perhaps this is were much confusion starts, because one doesn't prove a definition. It would be like saying: Prove Terrorism.

[ 09-13-2002, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Blerm ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ep5, the mind is a soul. unique to everyone. the brain is a body part. everyone has a brain. and everyone's brain basically has all the same lobes...or areas in it which govern our emotional side...like this area of the brain here has activity when dreaming etc etc...we'll all have that area. So looking at the picture of a brain doesn't really fit to the mind.

It's like a glove. The glove is there, but needs a hand in it to move it.

goaliejerry, I am just a little surprised that by my one line statement(concerning the mind)...which was very vague; was able to convey to you what I really meant, or wanted to bring across.

I liked the post with all the "theories" in fact I saved it. Nothing that I haven't "heard of" before but I like to read it like how it was written there. The experiment with the cat can be related to how I feel with a Sports game...until I turn on the T.V my team hasn't yet lost or not lost. Or because it is witnessed by others you say that won't hold true...then bring in the feeling of how you feel your team is more likely to win if you watch...and will them too. Doesn't work out.....but its how you "feel"

As for someone saying that God was there for the creation...so it was witnessed so it became. But someone says who witnessed God....so he could Be?

No need to witness the Supreme. He is above all our little theories. Sort of like the constitution. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It cannot be changed except by an over 75 percent vote...or ammended. I studied this in law in detail....and right now really and truly I can't remember what it's called when you want to challenge the constitution. But it isn't easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by goaliejerry:

No my friend, I must also disagree with you that a godless existance means life without morality, a sort of survival of the stongest if you will. For does morality and justice not serve the greator good of mankind, and therefore benefit the individual, who thereby might benefit from the exhibition of justice himself? Why does a god need to come into play when living the moral life is seemingly better for all of mankind? (Granted a truly and completely moral life is non-existant on this earth, and the imposition of such a life would not bide well with the populace at large!)


So how can you say the holocaust was wrong? It was good for Hitler, it was betterment for the people of his country, he was doing it for the "betterment of mankind". So how was Hitler wrong? How were Stalin's purges wrong? Why is the murder of mentally retarded people wrong? Why is murdering 2 year olds wrong? You can justify all of those instances as "good for mankind" or "good for society", so why are they wrong? Without a God, morality is relative to the situation and the results of actions, not the intrinsic wrong involved in them. Without a God, a group gaining power and oppressing everyone else isn't wrong, and there's no reason it shouldn't happen, since it could possibly serve the betterment of society. Just look at slavery, how was it not "better for all of mankind?"

quote:

Ahh very good, while I would change the wording where you say "chance doesn't cut it," for by the nature of chance, it very well might. But you are correct, science will not be able to disprove the existance of god. However, it won't be able to prove the existance either. And I'm sure you'll agree, a lack of disproof does not constitute proof. No evidence exists to prove I killed the poor girl, so does that mean I absolutly didn't?

Well, the way I look at it is this way:

It'll never be possible to PROVE or DISPROVE the existance of a God with science, since we'll never know, or never be able to comprehend, the "first step ever". I then look at how great humanity is, and miracles, etc, as clues that God may exist. I may have come across incorrectly before, but I don't believe that it is PROOF, it just helps me overcome disbelief to have faith in God as opposed to faith in chance. Then I look at it on a very pragmatic level:

If there is no (Christian) God, and there is no morality made by Him, and it doesn't REALLY matter what we did in life after we die, and then when we die there is just nothingness or reincarnation, then believing in God and having faith in God is not going to hurt anything, and we'll all end up the same in the end no matter what we believe, and my following the Christian set of morality will probably lead me to living a happier more content (even if a totally constructed/fake/illusion) life.

But then on the other hand, if there IS a God, and I reject the possibility of faith, and I decide that what I do during life doesn't REALLY matter after death, and then I die, i'll be in for a huge shock, and according to the spiritual/religious beliefs that I have, i'd be in for an everlasting seperation from God and unimaginable pain and suffering (as opposed to everlasting happiness).

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that people who don't believe in God are going to be hurt in any way after death, since there is no way that anyone on this Earth can tell you for sure what will happen to you after death (and that's what disgusts me about religious zealots who think they know God better than anyone else...they are contradicting their own beliefs), I am simply saying that my personal moral compass dictates to me that if I do whatever I want during life, without thinking about a higher meaning and about life after death, then I will personally be in for a whole bunch of pain. So, to put it into real, real, real simple terms:

If i'm right about God and I follow His teachings:

I'm going to be in supreme happiness after I die.

If i'm wrong about God and I follow His teachings anyway:

I'm going to be a much nicer person than I otherwise would have been during life, and i'll end up the same as everyone else when I die.

Then when you factor in that if i'm right and then I ignore the teachings i'm going to be in supreme suffering forever, i'd rather follow the teachings and be wrong, than not follow em and feel utter suffering, just like if you have a choice between walking through a possible minefield and walking around it, most people would choose to take the long route without the risk of an infinitely bad consequence of stepping on a mine.

quote:

3. No. As far as miricles, I don't want to address this, for we've already mentioned that such occurances may be simply misunderstood natural occurences.

Yes, but there's no evidence why those "misunderstood natural occurences" seem to happen with surprising consistency on religious objects, statues, and areas. It seems illogical to have faith towards them being natural occurances when they are both totally unexplainable AND center on belief in God. I'd expect that to lean toward more a CLUE (not proof), that there is a higher power/God, as opposed to that "it's just a fluke".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So how can you say the holocaust was wrong? It was good for Hitler, it was betterment for the people of his country, he was doing it for the "betterment of mankind". So how was Hitler wrong? How were Stalin's purges wrong? Why is the murder of mentally retarded people wrong? Why is murdering 2 year olds wrong? You can justify all of those instances as "good for mankind" or "good for society", so why are they wrong? Without a God, morality is relative to the situation and the results of actions, not the intrinsic wrong involved in them. Without a God, a group gaining power and oppressing everyone else isn't wrong, and there's no reason it shouldn't happen, since it could possibly serve the betterment of society. Just look at slavery, how was it not "better for all of mankind?""

This doesn't make any sense. This had nothing to do with what I said. Just because someone makes a claim to be doing good does not mean that good was done. Even if they believe that they are doing good, if in practice they are doing injustice then thats all there is to it.

I would argue that one could not possibly justify these occurances as working for the betterment of mankind, and frankly I am confused as to why you even bring them up. You clearly ignored my words regarding the existace of morality regardless of god. Your claim that without a god that morality is realitive is an extremely tenuous position based on your desire to show that God does exist.

In every example you cite, the "betterment of all mankind" is not being served, because in each case a certain group of "man" is being deprived, and as a result not "all" of mankind are being bettered are they? Think about it. What you say makes no sense. You ask why all of those things are wrong? Because they are unjust. Does the existance of justice demonstrate the existance of god? Certainly not.

You say to "Just look at slavery, how was that not the betterment of mankind?" I think I'll just take a step back and let you rethink what your contending here.

See, this is a difficult debate to have with you because you have already made up your mind. If I present you with logic you can choose to ignore it and stick by your guns. Your quoted paragraph above is a non sequitur. It has absolutly nothing to do with anything I say, and I don't understand why you even brought it up.

[ 09-13-2002, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

To believe in god, you must have FAITH that he/she/it exists. Faith does not need proof in order to believe something, that is why it is called faith.

Thank you Jaguar, that is absolutely correct, IÔÇÖm surprised no one has brought this up before. I canÔÇÖt argue much with faith, but because there is no solidly logical reason to have faith in god (the so called evidence that god exists seems to become evidence only after one has faith) it also isnÔÇÖt an argument for belief.

quote:

Yes you can break down the neuro impulses of the mind into biological terms, and see how it physically works. Thats terrific, explain conciousness. Explain sentience. You keep reaching into your tool bag to dismiss these issues when all you do is skirt them, when you are completely unwilling/unable to consider that maybe you don't have the right tools.

YouÔÇÖre correct, we donÔÇÖt really have the right tools; like I said, neurochemistry hasnÔÇÖt gotten that far. However, I believe that which is reasonable to believe given the amount of evidence and the significance of the topic, and there isnÔÇÖt enough evidence to prove the existence of a soul to my satisfaction. As for consciousness, or sentience, those are nothing but artifacts of our mental processes.

quote:

Your refutations deal only with the physical and nothing more, of course the brain works on impulses. You fail to address the essence of the soul.

What is there besides the physical? Explain to me something that exists as neither energy nor matter, because the realm of the physical includes all energy and all matter. How does something that is neither energy nor matter (which, in truth, is simply energy in a different form) interact with energy and matter? It doesnÔÇÖt. If there is a such thing as a soul, and if it even vaguely resembles current mythology regarding it, then it is simply another physical phenomena that can be measured by science. But until conclusive proof is offered, I will remain skeptical of the soul.

quote:

Perhaps there is not god in the sense of some all powerful master overlooking the universe and dictating our existance. Perhaps God is internal, the metaphysical "something" that continually tells us "there is more, there is always more. What you are is something more." Perhaps this God could be called "mind" or "awareness" but you surely agree that we are as of yet unable to subjugate the "mind" to scientific certainty. Not the brain mind you, which is purely physical, but the mind, our concieousness, our soul if you will.

So what? I could name my left shoe god and conclusively prove that it exists, and everyone can go back to arguing politics, happy in the knowledge that god exists. Well, at least for a few more months before it gets thrown in the trash and lost track of.

Seriously though, I donÔÇÖt see a reason to affix the label of god on any of phenomena, they already have perfectly good names, and we are not arguing whether they exist. The mind and awareness are artifacts of our through processes, our neurology if you will. Even if there is indeed another level to our through processes (which, again, is unproven and extremely suspect) then they too will be given names at the appropriate time, but labeling them as god just confuses the issue.

quote:

In regards to the dual slit experiment and the multiverse... I meant to propose that the dual slit experiment somehow allows us to "observe" more than one universe at a time. If we agree that most of our existence happens in one universe and we cannot observe ourselves in other universes (assuming the many world theory is correct) then I mention the dual slit experiment as an exception where we perhaps can observe several universes simultaneously. (( what this has to do with our topic here, I'm not sure ))

Again, I donÔÇÖt understand how you come to the conclusion that the dual slit experiment allows us to observe other universes.

quote:

As far as proving or disproving God, would it not be necessary to define the terms first? In other words what does God mean? If I wish to prove that 2x = x + x, I must first define what "2", "x", "+" and "=" mean. Would I not also have to do the same if I wish to prove Does God exist? Perhaps to some, God is the unifying mathematical theorem that explains all. Then we would argue (and some have!) whether or not such an equation exists! In this regard, if science discovered an equation that worked for everything and one defined God as being the unifying equation, then science would have successfully provided a proof for God.

Like with goaliejerryÔÇÖs argument about god being consciousness or some such, by redefining god as something else (my left shoe for example) you simply confuse the issue. If you want to argue about the existence of a mathematical theorem that explains it all, do so, but by calling it god you add unnecessary confusion. The generally accepted definition of god against which I am arguing against (along with religion in general) is perfectly fine. An exact definition of god may or may not be useful, but saying that god could be anything at all doesnÔÇÖt help anything.

quote:

If we say something exists if and only if one can see, hear, touch, smell, taste or physically feel it, then that is to say that only the tangible exists and anything intangible is hogwash suspect to interpretation and belief. Lego exists but war does not.

I would say that something only exists if it exists as a physical phenomena, furthermore, before I belive something does in fact exist I would like to have some evidence that it does, whether this is seeing it with my eyes, or on a radar screen, or inferring its existence through various proven theories. Concepts are just as material as any other mental process, it exists as an electrochemical reaction in the brain, which is as real as anything else.

quote:

Ep5, the mind is a soul. unique to everyone. the brain is a body part. everyone has a brain. and everyone's brain basically has all the same lobes...or areas in it which govern our emotional side...like this area of the brain here has activity when dreaming etc etc...we'll all have that area. So looking at the picture of a brain doesn't really fit to the mind.

It's like a glove. The glove is there, but needs a hand in it to move it.

Unsupported claim. If you want to convince anyone provide some evidence, preferably solid empirical evidence.

quote:

As for someone saying that God was there for the creation...so it was witnessed so it became. But someone says who witnessed God....so he could Be?

No need to witness the Supreme. He is above all our little theories. Sort of like the constitution. The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Again, perhaps some people will be convinced if a lot of different people tell them the same thing, but thatÔÇÖs not the case for me. Evidence would be nice, though I could settle just fine for simply not believing you.

quote:

Without a God, morality is relative to the situation and the results of actions, not the intrinsic wrong involved in them.

ThatÔÇÖs the way the world works darling, everything is relative. Most people would say that killing is wrong, but does that mean they would object to a cop shooting a terrorist who was attempting to blow up a building or some such? Few people would. What is good and what is bad, while influenced by biology and culture, is ultimately a personal choice. Do you think that what Stalin or Hitler did was wrong? I would dare say that you would, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that everyone else would agree with you. My own form of morality is based on expediency and politeness. Basically, be polite to people except when itÔÇÖs in your best interest not too, act in a civilized manner unless there is a good reason not do, etcetera. We wouldnÔÇÖt agree on a lot of things when it comes to right and wrong, but thatÔÇÖs the way it goes.

quote:

If i'm right about God and I follow His teachings:

I'm going to be in supreme happiness after I die.

If i'm wrong about God and I follow His teachings anyway:

I'm going to be a much nicer person than I otherwise would have been during life, and i'll end up the same as everyone else when I die.

Very good darling, I used to believe the same myself, but I figured out that IÔÇÖm just fooling myself if I even pretend that there is anything more then the most infinitesimally small iota of a chance that god exists in a manner even remotely comparable with what popular mythology says about him. I donÔÇÖt value being a nice person except in a superficial manner, personal gain (and pleasure, we canÔÇÖt forget pleasure) for myself and those I care about is much more important for me, and I donÔÇÖt see the minute possibility that there may in fact be an unpleasant afterlife waiting for me as a sufficient deterrent. Thus I gave up on that logic a long time ago.

quote:

Yes, but there's no evidence why those "misunderstood natural occurences" seem to happen with surprising consistency on religious objects, statues, and areas. It seems illogical to have faith towards them being natural occurances when they are both totally unexplainable AND center on belief in God. I'd expect that to lean toward more a CLUE (not proof), that there is a higher power/God, as opposed to that "it's just a fluke".

No, there clues that we donÔÇÖt know everything, and with study they will be explained, perhaps unlocking new areaÔÇÖs for science to explore, perhaps not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Unsupported claim. If you want to convince anyone provide some evidence, preferably solid empirical evidence.


show me a mind. ever hear that everyone has a mind of their own? does that saying mean that everyone has a brain of their own? everyone has a brain. and all their brains are the same.

take away our intelligence inside of us and all we are left with is a husk.

quote:

Unsupported claim. If you want to convince anyone provide some evidence, preferably solid empirical evidence.


I really don't aim to convince. I could show someone all the evidence they needed...and if they don't want to believe....then there is no convincing them.

So leave evidence for the court. I am not trying to prove anything. It's a discussion, not a civil or criminal case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Ep5, the mind is a soul. unique to everyone. the brain is a body part. everyone has a brain. and everyone's brain basically has all the same lobes...or areas in it which govern our emotional side...like this area of the brain here has activity when dreaming etc etc...we'll all have that area. So looking at the picture of a brain doesn't really fit to the mind.

Yes it is unique. The brain, as opposed to a computer processor, does not come all preprogrammed. The brain learns from the different kinds of inputs during life, and that's what makes us unique.

An artist that makes wooden animals with his hand and a knife will create tigers, cats, dogs, giraffes that all look the same to each other. But in the end, each one is unique. Don't we all have 2 legs, 2 arms, 1 head and 2 eyes? But that doesn't mean we're not unique. It's the same about the brain. It looks all the same to everyone, but deep inside, we're much different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1: The more we disassemble something the less we understand it.

ex. Quantum tunneling:

A quantum particle can exist in two places at the SAME TIME.

If you fire an electron gun at a screen and register their time to impact as constant. If you place a lead wall between the gun and the screen most of the electrons will bounce off but some will hit the screen. They did not go through the wall they never existed in the wall and arrive at the screen faster than if the wall was not there.

We do not know why we just know that it does.

(This phenomenon is used to make the switches in transistors faster and smaller, it is not something I made up)

2: A quantum is the designation for any extremely small particle.

3. The Hinesburg Uncertainty Principle applies to all matter.

4: Romans kept precise records of their executions, a person named "Jesus" was crucified by the Roman Government.

5: Science is theory for nothing can be proven to absolute certainty.

6: Science does not disprove the existence of God but actually leaves room for God to exist (see previous post)

7: The odds 10^10^30 : 1 are against the possibility of the universe arriving at its present state of COMPLEXITY through random chance. Meaning all the proteins, planets, amino acids, and life itself at too complex to had been created by random luck.

8: Before you start attacking faith, defend your own standpoint. The brain is not just a "machine" that can be taken apart and understood. The more we look into the brain's construction the less we understand its existence. Many have said the most complex object is the human brain.

9: Encarta is even more layman than my posts for many do not wish to spend the time and energy to understand modern science. Read books like:

The Edge of Infinity

-Paul Davies

Relativity

-Albert Einstein

The Matter Myth

-Paul Davies

The Moment of Creation

-James Trefil

The Mind of God

-Paul Davies

Darwin's Black Box

-Michael Behe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What is there besides the physical?

Quantum Unreality, Infintiy, the undefined, etc.

It is not just the we do not have the tools to understand but we are not ABLE to understand. Quantum reality is the infinite comlexity to simple matter. The brain is so extordinary that we cannot UNDERSTAND it only guess and predict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3rd post, sorry

The number 10^10^30 could not be written it is so large!

The largest computer programed to write a million zeros a second and started at the beginning of time could not even DRAW the number. That is the probability, not the punny examples tossed about here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by goaliejerry:

"So how can you say the holocaust was wrong? It was good for Hitler, it was betterment for the people of his country, he was doing it for the "betterment of mankind". So how was Hitler wrong? How were Stalin's purges wrong? Why is the murder of mentally retarded people wrong? Why is murdering 2 year olds wrong? You can justify all of those instances as "good for mankind" or "good for society", so why are they wrong? Without a God, morality is relative to the situation and the results of actions, not the intrinsic wrong involved in them. Without a God, a group gaining power and oppressing everyone else isn't wrong, and there's no reason it shouldn't happen, since it could possibly serve the betterment of society. Just look at slavery, how was it not "better for all of mankind?""

This doesn't make any sense. This had nothing to do with what I said. Just because someone makes a claim to be doing good does not mean that good was done. Even if they believe that they are doing good, if in practice they are doing injustice then thats all there is to it.

I would argue that one could not possibly justify these occurances as working for the betterment of mankind, and frankly I am confused as to why you even bring them up. You clearly ignored my words regarding the existace of morality regardless of god. Your claim that without a god that morality is realitive is an extremely tenuous position based on your desire to show that God does exist.

In every example you cite, the "betterment of all mankind" is not being served, because in each case a certain group of "man" is being deprived, and as a result not "all" of mankind are being bettered are they? Think about it. What you say makes no sense. You ask why all of those things are wrong? Because they are unjust. Does the existance of justice demonstrate the existance of god? Certainly not.

You say to "Just look at slavery, how was that not the betterment of mankind?" I think I'll just take a step back and let you rethink what your contending here.

See, this is a difficult debate to have with you because you have already made up your mind. If I present you with logic you can choose to ignore it and stick by your guns. Your quoted paragraph above is a non sequitur. It has absolutly nothing to do with anything I say, and I don't understand why you even brought it up.

The "greater good of mankind" is totally arbitrary. You can define the "greater good" and "mankind" as whatever you want, and thus justify every atrocitiy ever committed.

Besides, that isn't even my main point. My main point is the risk calculus that if you have faith and are wrong is always going to be better than not having faith when you really should have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I really don't aim to convince. I could show someone all the evidence they needed...and if they don't want to believe....then there is no convincing them.

You say that you could show someone all the evidence they needed and if they didnÔÇÖt want to belive they wouldnÔÇÖt. This is true for many people, but not everyone, and it is also not a solid logical premis for not presenting evidence.

quote:

So leave evidence for the court. I am not trying to prove anything. It's a discussion, not a civil or criminal case.

Preposterous! How are you suppose to have an argument (or discussion, or whatever you wish to call it) without evidence. If we were to forego evidence then we would have no way of building a solid argument, and thus no way of having a logical discussion. We could still type are views again and again until we were blue in the face, but if thatÔÇÖs the plan then count me out.

quote:

Yes it is unique. The brain, as opposed to a computer processor, does not come all preprogrammed. The brain learns from the different kinds of inputs during life, and that's what makes us unique.

An artist that makes wooden animals with his hand and a knife will create tigers, cats, dogs, giraffes that all look the same to each other. But in the end, each one is unique. Don't we all have 2 legs, 2 arms, 1 head and 2 eyes? But that doesn't mean we're not unique. It's the same about the brain. It looks all the same to everyone, but deep inside, we're much different.

Again, dead in the black, and a nice analogy to boot.

quote:

1: The more we disassemble something the less we understand it.

ex. Quantum tunneling:

A quantum particle can exist in two places at the SAME TIME.

If you fire an electron gun at a screen and register their time to impact as constant. If you place a lead wall between the gun and the screen most of the electrons will bounce off but some will hit the screen. They did not go through the wall they never existed in the wall and arrive at the screen faster than if the wall was not there.

We do not know why we just know that it does.

(This phenomenon is used to make the switches in transistors faster and smaller, it is not something I made up)

And by finding this out do we gain or loose knowledge. Again, by examining a phenomena we gain knowledge, and we also come to a greater understanding of how much there is that we donÔÇÖt yet know. This is in no way the same as loosing knowledge.

quote:

2: A quantum is the designation for any extremely small particle.

Yes, but might I ask how one goes about resolving itself?

quote:

3. The Hinesburg Uncertainty Principle applies to all matter.

Of course it does, but on a macroscopic scale it makes virtually no difference.

quote:

4: Romans kept precise records of their executions, a person named "Jesus" was crucified by the Roman Government.

And archeologists have found ruins of a city that they believe to have been troy, but I donÔÇÖt hear anyone claiming how the Iliad and Odyssey are entirely true. I donÔÇÖt deny that the bible has some basis in fact, but that doesnÔÇÖt necicitate it being entirely fact. If I may point out an old trick when lying is to include bits of the truth to add credibility to your lie.

quote:

5: Science is theory for nothing can be proven to absolute certainty.

Yes, I have said that a few times havenÔÇÖt I.

quote:

6: Science does not disprove the existence of God but actually leaves room for God to exist (see previous post)

Yes, we know, but just because god canÔÇÖt be disproved doesnÔÇÖt mean that he exists. Just because I canÔÇÖt disprove the possibility of an invisible and insubstantial rabbit sitting on my bed doesnÔÇÖt mean there is one. In fact I think that were I to claim the existence of such a rabbit most people would consider me more then a little nuts.

quote:

7: The odds 10^10^30 : 1 are against the possibility of the universe arriving at its present state of COMPLEXITY through random chance. Meaning all the proteins, planets, amino acids, and life itself at too complex to had been created by random luck.

As far as I can tell thatÔÇÖs the probability of the universe arriving at this exact arrangement, with each and every subatomic particle in the exact position that it is. Not to disappoint you darling, but any other single arrangement of matter in the universe is equally improbable. However the shear improbability of any one exact arrangement doesnÔÇÖt negate the fact that the universe must exist in some arrangement, and this one is as likely as any other.

quote:

8: Before you start attacking faith, defend your own standpoint. The brain is not just a "machine" that can be taken apart and understood. The more we look into the brain's construction the less we understand its existence. Many have said the most complex object is the human brain.

And you have made nothing but a series of claims, no support. You claim that the brain is not just a machine that can be taken apart and understood, you claim that the more we look into the brainÔÇÖs construction the less we understand its existence, and you claim that many have said that the most complex object is the human brain. No evidence. None, nil, nada. Is this really suppose to convince anyone of anything?

quote:

9: Encarta is even more layman than my posts for many do not wish to spend the time and energy to understand modern science.

A good argumentative strategy darling, after all there is no way IÔÇÖm going to make time to read all of those books. Furthermore, no matter how well written a book is it isnÔÇÖt necessarily the truth. Now, IÔÇÖm not claiming that Encarta is the source of all wisdom, but they tend to be good at getting the gist of things in a reasonably understandable format.

quote:

Quantum Unreality, Infintiy, the undefined, etc.

Nice words. Infinity isnÔÇÖt matter, but a mathematical concept. What you mean by the undefined I do not know, but some explanation would be nice. As for Quantum Unreality, it sounds cool, but what does it mean? Can you provide a link to a respected yet understandable source so that we may understand what your saying?

quote:

It is not just the we do not have the tools to understand but we are not ABLE to understand. Quantum reality is the infinite comlexity to simple matter. The brain is so extordinary that we cannot UNDERSTAND it only guess and predict.

ThatÔÇÖs what computers are for darling. Look at the advances they are making in genetics, something so complex no one can understand the human genome, yet with computers they are making steady progress towards a greater understanding of the human genome. The brain is a similar phenomena. By studying it we will be able to understand it, and if it requires a computer to manipulate all of the data involved, then thatÔÇÖs no great surprise anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

4: Romans kept precise records of their executions, a person named "Jesus" was crucified by the Roman Government.


Just a quick note here about that.

If I go through the records of the US I bet that I can find somebody named Bill that we executed too.

which Jesus, what was he charged with? Where in the Roman territory was he crucified?

Do you have ANY idea how many people the Romans crucified? hundreds of thousands during their reign. It was one of their favorite methods of execution.

After winning a battle, the road coming into town for miles on either side would have men hanging on crosses dying and dead. FOR MILES!!!

you bet they crucified someone named Jesus, probably quite a few.

quote:

6: Science does not disprove the existence of God but actually leaves room for God to exist (see previous post)


Now who told you that? your minister maybe.

ANY scientist will tell you, "science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god"

If you can PROVE the existence of god scientifically, I know of a few people that will pay you millions of dollars.

To believe in god takes faith, faith is the belief in something without physical evidence, that is why it is not called fact.

Fact is for science, faith is for religion.

[ 09-14-2002, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

As far as I can tell that’s the probability of the universe arriving at this exact arrangement, with each and every subatomic particle in the exact position that it is. Not to disappoint you darling, but any other single arrangement of matter in the universe is equally improbable. However the shear improbability of any one exact arrangement doesn’t negate the fact that the universe must exist in some arrangement, and this one is as likely as any other.


You still do not understand. The COMPLEXITY of the universe, not its current arrangement. The universe could be arranged in any number of ways but the chances of it becoming as complex as it is are extremely low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Now who told you that? your minister maybe.

ANY scientist will tell you, "science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god"

If you can PROVE the existence of god scientifically, I know of a few people that will pay you millions of dollars.


I said science LEAVES ROOM FOR THE EXISTANCE OF God. As my first post stated:

-Relativity defines the universe began as an infinitely dense point surrounded by nothing, The Singularity

In short-the universe once existed in one extremely small point of nothing surrounded by nothing. Not a point surrounded by the vacuum of space, but surrounded by nothing at all. Eventually this point expanded at a rate many times the speed of light commonly known as the "Big Bang" in which the universe was formed.

-Observation is required for quantum particles to do anything therefore someone, something must have observed the singularity out of nothing. The could be God or something completely different, science leaves ROOM for God's existence. This is the point I am trying to make. Every word in my posts on this subject is necessary to understand the concepts and points, read carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The existing universe is 15 billion years old, last estimate, some believe that it is older.

The chances of the universe being as complex as it is, are 100%. Because it is.

We are going to dicover that we are just small spec in this universe, and this universe is just a spec in a multitude of other universes.

By the time we are done, we are gonna be so small comparably that some of you will have an inferiority complex.

The chances of the eye evolving, are 100%, because it did, the chances of us evolving into what we are today, are 100%, because we are here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Preposterous! How are you suppose to have an argument (or discussion, or whatever you wish to call it) without evidence. If we were to forego evidence then we would have no way of building a solid argument, and thus no way of having a logical discussion. We could still type are views again and again until we were blue in the face, but if thatÔÇÖs the plan then count me out.


discussing beliefs does not require evidence. Discuss it on the fly from what you can recall at the time.

Preposterous? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

-Observation is required for quantum particles to do anything therefore someone, something must have observed the singularity out of nothing. The could be God or something completely different, science leaves ROOM for God's existence. This is the point I am trying to make. Every word in my posts on this subject is necessary to understand the concepts and points, read carefully.

Again darling, I think youÔÇÖre misunderstanding this. Consider if you will, what observation is. For something to be observed it has to be detectable, so we can use whatever method there using these days to detect quanta. Now that we detect it, it registers on some type of display or readout, which either gives off light of its own or reflects light from another source, and this light strikes our eyes. This results in a series of electrochemical reactions in the brain, and thatÔÇÖs all.

Quanta need to be observed to be considered to exist in a given point in space, but this doesnÔÇÖt mean that observation gives them existence, simply that until observed we use a probability curve to determine where the quantum probably is. When observed, this curve collapses, and the particle now has a known location, or whatever other property were measuring.

If you can point us to another source that supports your claim, then do so, but I donÔÇÖt think your convincing anyone.

quote:

The chances of the universe being as complex as it is, are 100%. Because it is.

Exactly right, I didnÔÇÖt bring this up earlier because I donÔÇÖt think it will convince anyone, but itÔÇÖs worth a try.

quote:

We are going to dicover that we are just small spec in this universe, and this universe is just a spec in a multitude of other universes.

By the time we are done, we are gonna be so small comparably that some of you will have an inferiority complex.

Perhaps, it certainly seams possible, though I wouldnÔÇÖt fall to in love with the idea yet.

quote:

discussing beliefs does not require evidence. Discuss it on the fly from what you can recall at the time.

Preposterous? Really?

No, not preposterous, just typical.

And yes, you can have a discussion on the fly, but any good argument requires evidence, even one on the fly (which this most certainly is not).

quote:

I can't believe you agree with what I'm saying

Scary isnÔÇÖt it. Oh well, this is what makes changing topics so much fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh I see...typical. Typical that I would use that as an excuse for not presenting evidence.

My belief is based on faith...so even if there were no evidence, that would be alright with me, and it is still ok to have the discussion as to what fuels my faith is it not?

So typically I don't think I'll bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

We are going to dicover that we are just small spec in this universe, and this universe is just a spec in a multitude of other universes.

By the time we are done, we are gonna be so small comparably that some of you will have an inferiority complex.

On the contrary! Size does not matter, it's what we can do that matters. Stars just burn in the sky, fly around and stuff like that until consumed. We, on the contrary, think, and develop new ideas, new principle, we try to understand the universe. We don't just walk in the room of life blindly, we look around eyes wide open, and try to improve ourselves and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...