 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 60
|
|
16
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: The Necessity of God (?)
|
on: January 13, 2008, 07:12:45 AM
|
Then, since you have nothing more, we can move on. We will end it without a credible rebuttal and assume it holds for now.
Your statement is illogical. We do not cite an assumption as if it proves that something holds. We can move on indeed but we must end with your attempted proof having failed. At best you can walk away with an opinion. As you walk away, though remember that your opinion rests on a shaky foundation because atheism/materialism has no adequate explanation for the origin of this universe, no explanation for life from non-life, no explanation for thought, or morality, or logic, or free will. All of these things indicate the necessity for something beyond material. |
|
|
|
|
17
|
Social Discussions / Science and Technology / Re: Do rare events falsify the notion of a universal probability bound?
|
on: January 13, 2008, 06:36:14 AM
|
|
A recent review of the ev program (one of the examples you seem to consider valid) by Baylor Professor of Electrical Engineering Dr. Robert Marks (currently researching the capabilities of computing including EA systems) along with Dr. William Dembski demonstrated that the ev evolutionary algorithm imports so much information that the actual search need only to find 8 bits of information. In other words, pure blind search of the sample space, once confined by all the smuggled in information, could potentially find the solution in fewer than 256 iterations, hardly a "rare" occurrence.
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Morality Exists; In a world with no Creator God what is its source?
|
on: January 13, 2008, 06:18:09 AM
|
|
Callum, you and Barney continue to raise interesting side discussions that are not central to the topic at hand. I would be happy to discuss them in other threads. Here we were attempting to explain how human morality fits into an atheistic/materialistic framework. We can tie morality to thought and even posit that these particular thoughts are a product of the forces of natural selection but then there is a gap in the framework between natural selection / evolution and a source from pure matter. Have we reached the endpoint of this discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: What is a Beginning?
|
on: January 13, 2008, 06:09:08 AM
|
|
In the early part of this thread you intended to discredit the notion that the Universe had a beginning in the sense that we commonly understand beginnings. Furthermore you intended to discredit the idea that this beginning was external and fundamentally different from the content of this universe. You cited concepts you do not understand in your attempt to make your case.
In the end the facts and evidence take us back to the reality that our current best understanding is that this Universe had a beginning who's cause was fundamentally different than the content of this universe (space, time and matter) and that transcends this universe. Even the concepts you cite are in agreement with these points.
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: The Bible Fossil Record
|
on: January 13, 2008, 05:56:49 AM
|
However, for arguments sake, lets say you have your few lines of Matthew from about 66 CE. What do then do with that? Do you agree that Matthew was not written by Matthew, but anonymously. Or that those few lines don't prove that the later writings are accurate?
What hard evidence can you offer to suggest that I should accept your line of reasoning?
The physical evidence indicates that our current versions of the Bibles do not stray far from the earliest Manuscripts and all available evidence indicates these earliest Manuscripts have not undergone any significant revisions or redaction. This is my claim. While there are numerous examples where fringe sects dramatically altered scripture for there own use, these writings were not ever accepted by the Christian population as a whole. If you compare the scraps of early writings from the first and early second century with the nearly complete writings from 150-200 AD and then again with the Codex from 325 AD with modern texts the differences are very few. Early in this thread you implied otherwise. Do you agree that these writings show very little variation? |
|
|
|
|
21
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: The Golden Compass
|
on: January 13, 2008, 05:27:02 AM
|
|
After contemplating your response for some time , it seems to me you have made a category error. It is true that scientists use the Scientific Method to determine the cause of certain phenomenon and in many cases that cause is intentional acts we call design that most often happen to be human initiated but it is not correct to insist that only humans can conceive, plan and execute things.
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
Assistance and Feedback / The Inferno / Re: How DO we 'account for' things?
|
on: January 11, 2008, 10:16:12 AM
|
There is no "going there" abraxas. The fact of the matter is that barney constitution spits his vile attacks at anyone who has belief system different than his and when called on it and shown just how stupid his logic is, he claims its ad hom. There is no reason for this line of reasoning to persist......"attacking" or being critical of ones positions, beliefs or opinions are part and parcel to a political debate forum...the key here is being critical of the position, belief or opinion. When it is taken to the level of repeatedly (say 15 or more times in less than 24hrs) "attacking" or being critical of the person demonstrated by calling someone, by name..... stupid, dense, an idiot, clueless, a bigot, comparing one to Hitler, etc......and these type comments really being the only point made in the post....then this is a clear demonstration of the uncivility we strive to avoid in this corner of the forum. Your analysis is incorrect. The substance of an exchange is distinguishable from whether it is expressed in a civil manner. Insulting messages integrated into derogation of and misrepresentation of RF’s positions is no more civil than Baldar’s responses. That Baldar has approximately matched Barney’s posting frequency lately does not transform into something different in character from the norm you permit. Zuki, I agree. You seem to be spot on. I, more than most people here, disagree with Barney on most issues....however....we have never needed to resort to schoolground bullying, taunting or namecalling......a clear demonstration that extreme disagreement can be handled in a civil and mature fashion. I hope I am not the first to suggest to you that your special relationship with Barney may arise from the fact that you have the ability to sanction him. That he responds very differently to RF should be instructive for you, a clear demonstration. Again, quite correct. barney treated me quite differently while I was moderating. Opposing opinions may be made to Forum Administrators...those up the chain from me....if they concur with you that I am in error, then so be it.
Sadly, your admins appear no more interested or competent. Do us both the courtesy of not requesting that I communicate with you via PM, or observe your advice on posting, and then having me banned for doing either, as you did previously. Sigh, once again I agree. |
|
|
|
|
23
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Morality Exists; In a world with no Creator God what is its source?
|
on: January 11, 2008, 10:04:45 AM
|
I see "Moral" to mean: it is no threat to me and my progeny, whereas "immoral" means it threatens me and my offspring. We can use floral language to describe it and explain WHY, but there seems to be no more to morals other than these basic emotions that are hard-wired through evolution and supported by culture, etc.
With no way to tie it back to the material processes and matter that materialism and evolution presupposes, it is a pseudo explanation that hangs in midair and actually explains nothing. Perhaps this is why one inevitably finds atheists/materialists stealing foundational components of morality, free will, logic and a host of other concepts from theism. Can anyone plant the morality or evolution firmly in materialism? Same ol' drum to bang, eh? I've not had time to get back to barney about his attempts - worthy, though they are - to define what morality is all about. But am interested to see that those who have no answers are quick to attack his attempts. Morality is NOT an exclusive component of theism - just as logic is not. If your view is so limited and restricted to the practices and activities and dogmas of your own community, then so be it. There is however a large world of belifes and ideas out there that can only laugh at such parochialism. Indeed, it is overriding moral failures that condemn the narrow unfounded doctines of the theistic religions and it is logic that shows their paucity of grounding. As for free will - a nice concept to allow your afherents to perform any act they chose, with no regard to civilised constraints, but not one that can be shown in any way to exist (except, of course, as 'self-evident' - LOL). Can ANY theist (RF, Untouchables, Baldar, Biker...) explain morality in terms other than unknowns and unknowables? BTW, I described a situation for you some weeks back - I missed the response. Could you do so now: what if you heard a clear, distinct voice in your head - from god, apparently - telling you to go slaughter year 5 in the local primary school. Would you? No, it is inconsistent with the Character of God, given the circumstances to ask me to do such a thing. I would conclude this clear voice was attempting to decieve me. |
|
|
|
|
24
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: What is a Beginning?
|
on: January 11, 2008, 09:12:31 AM
|
|
Barney, how do you reconcile your adamant stand for the necessity of logic (that logic is both irrefutable and absolute (independent of anything including in this case a wave function)) and at the same time advocate for a model of Quantum Mechanics that requires logic to be dependent on the wave state?
How also do you reconcile your earlier belief that Hawking's wave theory and state model is internal to this universe when it in fact describes the state of all of his many universes or worlds and therefore by definition transcends this universe?
Is it that you don't understand Hawking's model and you are just now beginning to realize the contradictions?
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: What is a Beginning?
|
on: January 10, 2008, 06:27:19 PM
|
I think you are stretching the idea of transcending cause. The Wave Function of the universe, is just that - OF THE UNIVERSE. It is a product of the known laws of physics and the best understanding of singularities.
You would do well to review whatever information you have on Hawking's proposed state equations and wave function. Perhaps if you do, you may find that it attempts to describe the origin of all states of all of the parallel universes or many worlds of his quantum model and therefore by definition transcends this and all universes. It fascinates me that you find this to be the best understanding of our universe when this model allows for (and in fact requires) worlds where things like logic does not operate the way it does in our universe when in another thread you adamantly insist that logic is irrefutable and universally (taking in everything) true to the point that it can be no other way anywhere at all (presumable anywhere would have to include these other worlds). You don't seem to recognize how you shoot your own arguments out of the water with such contradictions. You cut off your nose to spite your face and further damage what little credibility you seem to have here at IAP. |
|
|
|
|
26
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Morality Exists; In a world with no Creator God what is its source?
|
on: January 10, 2008, 05:40:05 PM
|
I see "Moral" to mean: it is no threat to me and my progeny, whereas "immoral" means it threatens me and my offspring. We can use floral language to describe it and explain WHY, but there seems to be no more to morals other than these basic emotions that are hard-wired through evolution and supported by culture, etc.
With no way to tie it back to the material processes and matter that materialism and evolution presupposes, it is a pseudo explanation that hangs in midair and actually explains nothing. Perhaps this is why one inevitably finds atheists/materialists stealing foundational components of morality, free will, logic and a host of other concepts from theism. Can anyone plant the morality or evolution firmly in materialism? |
|
|
|
|
27
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Misquoting Jesus
|
on: January 10, 2008, 05:24:32 PM
|
|
Thank you for reminding me that you don't ask questions to gain understanding, that you have a prior commitment that everything I might say is utterly ridiculous to you and that it is all you can do not to laugh. Thank you for not letting me waste time with your questions. I pity you. Good day.
If anyone else has any further comments, chime in.
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: What is a Beginning?
|
on: January 09, 2008, 08:59:49 PM
|
|
Barney, on the previous page you agreed that Hawking's wave equations describing the state function does transcend this universe. Now you seem to be reversing yourself when you claim it must be ruled out if one suggests a transcending cause. Also you are hopelessly underqualified for me to credibly accept your opinion that it is the "best" explanation so far". It presupposes so many completely conterintuitive situations and so grossly inflates ontology that the best word I can find for it is "interesting".
In any case I am happy that you halfwitingly concur with a transcending cause.
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: Misquoting Jesus
|
on: January 09, 2008, 08:42:13 PM
|
How do you know when God would exersize his providence of life and death, and when it is not God? Biblical doctrine. God revealed to us how he acts and under what circumstances. I submit that the Tsunami, Andrea Yates or the 9-11 asswipes could fit into the Bible seamlessly. Can you tell me what the difference is, besides the claim? I still have yet to have a good explanation. Doctrine covers all three of these cases. The time for the need to demonstrate authority from God is over, therefore we should not find anyone who is granted authority to act for God. Weather events and other so called "acts of God" are also well explained in the Bible as the natural concequence of the degredation and disordering of this world. Surely, its not so easy just to say "Anything Good = God" since from an independent observer, I see no "Good" that came from the Flood, Moses or Samson, except through the claim of the story.
How can you judge whether God is acting or not, if by all accounts, killing helpless women and children seems, by all measures, Bad?
I see no way that you can reconcile this. Indeed prior commitements have a way of preventing understanding. It seems futile for me to attempt to explain it to you. If anyone else has a desire to discuss this, please chime in. Especially since all you have is the Bible. What about events that happen outside the Bible? Are they open to interpretation? Any true and correct worldview must comport with all our observations. 9-11 was because God wanted to kill gays, lesbians and liberals? Or was it an evil event?
How do you help us figure out which?
How do you "Account for it"?
People have free will and are able to choose to do evil. Those who do not enjoy a degree of direct protection from God are subject to the concequences the effects of this world or the actions of of those who wish to do evil. |
|
|
|
|
30
|
Social Discussions / Philosophy and Religion / Re: What is a Beginning?
|
on: January 09, 2008, 07:32:08 PM
|
You hold this belief as an article of faith or you have justification for this belief in others that may not have causes?
I did say may, it is up to you to prove the positive statement that all things with beginnings need causes. Understood, but I am wasting time if you already agree with me and are just being argumentative. But I think it is self-evident that if time began with the BB there could be no before, so there could be no cause.
You seem to be making a good argument for a transcending cause. Withing the boundaries of this universe there could be no before so the cause would not be contained by this universe and must transcend the boundaries of this universe. Beyond the universe this time constraint and the limitations of the singularity does not apply. |
|
|
|
|
