Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? Why does there have to be a source of reality? Your opinion only. The rest of your post is a mere repetition of your speculations.
You are joking, right? Reality is "sourceless?" Unbelievable. That is not even worth addressing seriously. At least other atheists acknowledge "Nature" (whatever it is) as the source.
I'm fairly certain you've used the word worship, or similar to it, when referring to atheists and our reverence for nature.
Since I don't believe that God requires worship . . . you must have misinterpreted it. We require worship . . . NOT God.
Quote:
Or the distinct lack of it.
There is that vaguarity again. "Properties." You've never officially defined that and instead skirted around it and insulted my "lack of understanding of science." Define what you mean by properties.
There is that disingenuousness again. You empiricists are the originators of "properties" . . . those things you "measure" about what you have termed "matter and energy." Stop being a coy a$$hole and engage in serious discussion instead of childish "What is that, Daddy?" horsesh*t questions.
Quote:
Purpose is human invention. A rock is a rock until a human uses it to bash in the skull of his enemy. It seems you insist that the world has purpose and design when I, and many like me, see none.
When your "matter" or "energy" is compelled to react or interact only in very specific ways . . . that is purposeful . . . not chaotic. Just because you can see no possible reason for it to do so does not mean there isn't one.
Quote:
The "desire to survive" isn't an absolute law either. Genetic material replicates on its own. We've merely continued this tradition. We're the work of biochemistry in action.
NOTHING does ANYTHING "on its own." That is your fiction and your "faith" that is "taken for granted" not scientifically established. You have provided no scientifically discernible source for the impetus "to act on its own."
Quote:
We see complex things come about all the time from non complex things. Life originated from non life. Why is it absurd to apply that to "these characteristics" you speak of.
What is absurd is to assme away ANY explanation for life to arise from non-life or order to arise from chaos or . . . any of the other "taken for granted" aspects of reality you exploit to learn about it . . . and claim there is no need for the very things you have assumed away to explain what is observed.
Quote:
Considering at the absolute very most your god could have been responsible for would be the (lack of) "fine tuning" of the physical laws of the universe. Considering this is pretty much dealing with how energy works and going into some crazy theoretical quantum physics I have no knowledge of, I won't bother.
God didn't create humans, planets, elements, physical motion, intelligence, consciousness or any of that jazz any more than than I could claim that I created my great grand child because I have birth to my son which had a daughter who had kid. These all have naturalexplanations which don't require an anthropomorphized higher-power, nor some overarching pantheistic belief to form.
You cannot use the term "natural" as if it was explanatory. IT isn't . . . it is a name you apply to our ignorance of the source of our reality that has no more explanatory power than God. (That would be panENtheistic belief)
Quote:
Did you ever define your god in the first place?
Did you ever look up panENtheism? That is the underlying reality that enables my ability to explain Christ and my Christian beliefs using scientific and spiritual rationales.
There is that disingenuousness again. You empiricists are the originators of "properties" . . . those things you "measure" about what you have termed "matter and energy."Moderator cut: inappropriate language
What. Properties. You keep claiming that these "properties" are somehow purposeful or created, yet you keep dancing around what "properties" of which you're speaking. I'm not being coy, you're being deliberately obtuse.
We can talk about the "properties" if you want, but I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Particle-Wave theory? Mass? What?
Quote:
When your "matter" or "energy" is compelled to react or interact only in very specific ways . . . that is purposeful . . . not chaotic.
How?
Quote:
Just because you can see no possible reason for it to do so does not mean there isn't one.
Enlighten me on how something that appears to have no apparent purpose actually has purpose. Be specific, I want to hear about these "properties" you keep speaking of.
Quote:
NOTHING does ANYTHING "on its own." That is your fiction and your "faith" that is "taken for granted" not scientifically established.
Causal relationship, right? A cause is a movement, and if everything requires a cause, then the universe has always been in motion. Supported by Planck Time and Planck Temperature.
Quote:
You have provided no scientifically discernible source for the impetus "to act on its own." What is absurd is to assume away ANY explanation for life to arise from non-life or order to arise from chaos or . . . any of the other "taken for granted" aspects of reality you exploit to learn about it . . . and claim there is no need for the very things you have assumed away to explain what is observed.
Are you bringing up those "properties" again? One brick is just a brick. Keep stacking them in different formations and you can build a house, a barbeque, a wall, a bridge, a well, and many different things. Complex things come from simple things all the time. I have no doubt you disagree with this.
If we start with one very basic rule, or a series of basic rules, as to how the universe works, you'll end up with the entire work of Shakespeare eventually. You seem to insert God as the "rule-giver," but that answer is meaningless. It contributes nothing to understanding the rules and the belief or disbelief in which yields nothing but pithy arguments on internet forums, and the occasional suicide bombing. Belief in a "rule-giver" is meaningless because it doesn't do anything.
Quote:
You cannot use the term "natural" as if it was explanatory. IT isn't . . . it is a name you apply to our ignorance of the source of our reality that has no more explanatory power than God.
Except that we understand nature and natural processes. Things that behave according to physical laws and are predictable, modeled, and more importantly part of the "unfeeling unthinking" world. God is none of these, and yet you still haven't given evidence or reason as to "intelligence" in the universe aside from insisting on some kind of "natural (to you unknown)" entity that created these laws. I don't recall your answer as to what created this "natural" entity.
Quote:
(That would be panENtheistic belief)Did you ever look up panENtheism? That is the underlying reality that enables my ability to explain Christ and my Christian beliefs using scientific and spiritual rationales.
I did. www.panentheism.com
It was an attempt at railroading science, religion, and rationalism into one unified philosophy based around God.
Quote:
Consciousness, being, is composed of the same ‘substance and essence as God’
You do not dissolve into nothingness upon death
‘Living your religion rather than leaving your religion’
Two moral absolutes:
Protect the right and ability of the individual to travel life unimpeded
Travel life unimpeded
I had a problem with each of these points except for three. 1 "Substance and essence" isn't defined. 2 is entirely unsupported (and evidence is against this speculation), and 4 requires moral absolutes that don't exist.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 03-14-2010 at 06:05 AM..
If atheist can't prove that god doesn't exist, then how do monotheist prove that their is only one god?
Imagine taking a hamster and throwing it up into the air. Physical forces (gravity and wind resistance) are acting on the hamster. All of these forces can be quantified and figured out with mathematics and equations. We humans can understand such things. But, could the hamster ever understand such concepts? No. So, the hamster is affected by these forces, but will never understand them. This is my analogy for humans and God's will. The criteria that need to be examined in order to prove or disprove such things either does not exist or it is incomprehensible to us. This makes it not worth pondering and pontificating on.
If God exists in the incarnation as is claimed by monotheistic religions and He has instituted an Absolute Truth for us to follow, we humans have not been granted the intellect needed to understand nor the strength needed to consistently enact said will. This makes the pursuit of spiritual things useless and pointless. Could the hamster ever do a physics problem? Could the hamster ever even understand what physics is? No.
We are lost and have no way of finding out what the truth is if it is based upon the spiritual realm. This makes all religion irrelevant.
Imagine taking a hamster and throwing it up into the air. Physical forces (gravity and wind resistance) are acting on the hamster. All of these forces can be quantified and figured out with mathematics and equations. We humans can understand such things. But, could the hamster ever understand such concepts? No. So, the hamster is affected by these forces, but will never understand them. This is my analogy for humans and God's will. The criteria that need to be examined in order to prove or disprove such things either does not exist or it is incomprehensible to us. This makes it not worth pondering and pontificating on.
If God exists in the incarnation as is claimed by monotheistic religions and He has instituted an Absolute Truth for us to follow, we humans have not been granted the intellect needed to understand nor the strength needed to consistently enact said will. This makes the pursuit of spiritual things useless and pointless. Could the hamster ever do a physics problem? Could the hamster ever even understand what physics is? No.
We are lost and have no way of finding out what the truth is if it is based upon the spiritual realm. This makes all religion irrelevant.
The hamster may not be able to quantify gravity, but it certainly understand what it is. Just as a flying squirrel understands wind resistance, a hamster not walking over a cliff understands gravity.
Humans are able to quantify it. Animals don't really have that need.
The hamster may not be able to quantify gravity, but it certainly understand what it is. Just as a flying squirrel understands wind resistance, a hamster not walking over a cliff understands gravity.
But, consider the core questions that we humans have been asking since our existence. Does the Creator exist? Is He a loving and omnipotent personality that has instituted an order to our reality and undeniable truths for us to follow? If He has, then what are they and how should we best follow them? Which path, set of instructions, or spiritual belief system is the most accurate and in-line with His will? Even if we had the acumen to understand this stuff, would we have the needed fortitude and commitment to consistently follow it with our instinctual drives and wordly desires? These are the important spiritual questions of our existence and they have not been answered. I demand these answers - and the Creator has not left us enough proof to know one way or the other.
What. Properties. You keep claiming that these "properties" are somehow purposeful or created, yet you keep dancing around what "properties" of which you're speaking. I'm not being coy, you're being deliberately obtuse.
We can talk about the "properties" if you want, but I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Particle-Wave theory? Mass? What?
ALL of them. They cannot exist without "something" establishing them . . . whether or not we can determine who (or what) that is. "It just is" is sufficient for you . . . I get it . . . but it is philosophically bankrupt as an explanation of reality . . . and as the basis for our science which systematically reveals more and more of the "direction, design, structure and purpose" of the non-chaotic processes . . . let alone as the basis for dismissing the existence of the "something" you wish to ignore if it is named God but accept without question if it is named "Nature."
Quote:
How?
Enlighten me on how something that appears to have no apparent purpose actually has purpose. Be specific, I want to hear about these "properties" you keep speaking of.
Only purposeless or chaotic reactions have nothing to constrain them. Once they are constrained in any way . . . that is evidence that there is a purpose/design to their reactions whether or not we can discern, guess, or imagine what that might conceivably be.
Quote:
Causal relationship, right? A cause is a movement, and if everything requires a cause, then the universe has always been in motion. Supported by Planck Time and Planck Temperature.
Are you bringing up those "properties" again? One brick is just a brick. Keep stacking them in different formations and you can build a house, a barbeque, a wall, a bridge, a well, and many different things. Complex things come from simple things all the time. I have no doubt you disagree with this.
If we start with one very basic rule, or a series of basic rules, as to how the universe works, you'll end up with the entire work of Shakespeare eventually. You seem to insert God as the "rule-giver," but that answer is meaningless. It contributes nothing to understanding the rules and the belief or disbelief in which yields nothing but pithy arguments on internet forums, and the occasional suicide bombing. Belief in a "rule-giver" is meaningless because it doesn't do anything.
Is this an argument from practicality or utility . . . because it isn't a philosophical answer to what reality consists of. Do you really believe that nonsense about an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters producing Shakespeare????
Quote:
Except that we understand nature and natural processes. Things that behave according to physical laws and are predictable, modeled, and more importantly part of the "unfeeling unthinking" world.
::Sigh:: ONLY by preference. "Except that we understand God and God's processes. Things that behave according to God's laws and are predictable, modeled, and more importantly part of the "feeling thinking" world" . . . we "feeling thinking" humans inhabit. Does that make your preference (not science) any clearer?
Quote:
God is none of these, and yet you still haven't given evidence or reason as to "intelligence" in the universe aside from insisting on some kind of "natural (to you unknown)" entity that created these laws. I don't recall your answer as to what created this "natural" entity.
An intelligible universe (one we can understand through rational processes and science) is an INTELLIGENT one!!! You seem content with an always existing universe . . so am I. The difference is that I posit a reason for the universal field (consciousness) that establishes the very characteristics of it that make it intelligible and capable of being investigated rationally.
Quote:
I did. www.panentheism.com
It was an attempt at railroading science, religion, and rationalism into one unified philosophy based around God. [/list]I had a problem with each of these points except for three. 1 "Substance and essence" isn't defined. 2 is entirely unsupported (and evidence is against this speculation), and 4 requires moral absolutes that don't exist.[/list]
Have you checked out the website I posted in the other thread?
But, consider the core questions that we humans have been asking since our existence.
The question is "why are we here?" It's the wrong question. Purpose is a human construct. You can only give yourself purpose, but people channel it through supernatural entities in order to justify their reasoning. If God is the authority, and God has a purpose (for me), I don't have to justify that purpose, just accept it.
Purpose could be viewed as a survival mechanism. A person with purpose is likely to work harder to survive, as their non-existence is somehow detrimental to the tribe. That purpose may not be known (or even exist) for that person, but feeling they have a purpose is more than sufficient.
Quote:
Does the Creator exist? Is He a loving and omnipotent personality that has instituted an order to our reality and undeniable truths for us to follow?
No.
Quote:
If He has, then what are they and how should we best follow them? Which path, set of instructions, or spiritual belief system is the most accurate and in-line with His will? Even if we had the acumen to understand this stuff, would we have the needed fortitude and commitment to consistently follow it with our instinctual drives and wordly desires? These are the important spiritual questions of our existence and they have not been answered. I demand these answers - and the Creator has not left us enough proof to know one way or the other.
You make a range of assumptions. Aside from existence of this entity itself, you're assuming it cares about the infinitesimally small speck of life on this minuscule rock hurtling through the expanse of our gargantuan universe. You're assuming this entity has a will, that it cares about belief, that it thinks humans need to behave a certain way, etc. The evidence is more than obvious that a creator, if one exists, does not give a **** about life on Earth.
Don't stress out about "the big questions" of purpose. Make it up as you go along. Everyone else is.
ALL of them. They cannot exist without "something" establishing them . . . whether or not we can determine who (or what) that is. "It just is" is sufficient for you . . . I get it . . . but it is philosophically bankrupt as an explanation of reality . . . and as the basis for our science which systematically reveals more and more of the "direction, design, structure and purpose" of the non-chaotic processes . . . let alone as the basis for dismissing the existence of the "something" you wish to ignore if it is named God but accept without question if it is named "Nature."
Philosophically bankrupt? My roommate comically said it best when he returned from his philosophy class. "Jesus Christ, Korey--This class is pointless. Philosophy doesn't solve anything."
I had to agree. We're both scientists so we both tend to focus on the world that can be shown with evidence. We don't freely speculate in the philosophical world because we don't find that it solves anything.
But I want to point out that "it just is" is supported by Planck temperature and time and my logical proof showing that motion always was. There was never "non-motion."
Quote:
Only purposeless or chaotic reactions have nothing to constrain them. Once they are constrained in any way . . . that is evidence that there is a purpose/design to their reactions whether or not we can discern, guess, or imagine what that might conceivably be.
As I said--purpose is a human construct. You're anthropomorphizing the natural world, a world that doesn't care if you live or die. A world that operates by series of unthinking, unfeeling rules. There isn't any higher-order intelligence that dictates this stuff because there is no evidence to suggest that. The "properties" that you are afraid to define don't have any "rule giver" aside from the one religions have invented. The rules don't have purpose, and the rules themselves are just observations we've made. Purpose is a human construct.
Quote:
Is this an argument from practicality or utility . . . because it isn't a philosophical answer to what reality consists of. Do you really believe that nonsense about an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters producing Shakespeare????
I was wondering why you bother arguing about your invisible friend if the belief or disbelief in which is absolutely meaningless. It doesn't help us understand the world so it serves no useful purpose to human advancement. Why bother arguing about it.
And the Shakespeare bit was humor. I didn't think you would get it.
Quote:
::Sigh:: ONLY by preference. "Except that we understand God and God's processes. Things that behave according to God's laws and are predictable, modeled, and more importantly part of the "feeling thinking" world" . . . we "feeling thinking" humans inhabit. Does that make your preference (not science) any clearer?
Clearly not, but it does point out that we humans are the thinking feeling ones, not the universe. As I've pointed out, nature isn't a thinking feeling entity. Your God is. Since one requires intelligence which you have been unable to justify (aside from throwing around the word "properties" without defining what you're talking about) and the other doesn't require intelligence--having trouble following your reasoning as to why atheists don't exist.
Quote:
An intelligible universe (one we can understand through rational processes and science) is an INTELLIGENT one!!!
How?
Quote:
You seem content with an always existing universe . . so am I. The difference is that I posit a reason for the universal field (consciousness)
Consciousness is an abstraction of thought, memories, and various behaviors of the brain. How is that at all related to a "universal field."
Quote:
that establishes the very characteristics of it that make it intelligible and capable of being investigated rationally.Have you checked out the website I posted in the other thread?
I was in the middle of reading it when I decided to go to bed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
