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.
nature.....small 'n'.....is not a god of any kind.
Nature...big 'N'....as Mystic puts it, could be considered one but us 'godless' people do not capitalize it, so no, you did not answer the question in any reasonable or acceptable way.
nature.....small 'n'.....is not a god of any kind.
Nature...big 'N'....as Mystic puts it, could be considered one but us 'godless' people do not capitalize it, so no, you did not answer the question in any reasonable or acceptable way.
"Us godless people"...well then...that explains it. Your preconceived viewpoint has made your mind up for you. This is NOT an insult...just an observation. I took it ALLLLLLL in with a completely open mind, and no pretext...then went where logic, reason, science, and sensibility led me.
What Mystic puts forth is solid and sound...in a way nothing else I have ever read or heard is...and with my very best determination, I have concluded that it is TRUTH. If you don't see it that way, there isn't much I can say. Though, I would encourage (Note: I have no negative feeling toward you if you prefer not to, and understand "truth" is different for EVERYONE) you to check it out a little more.
"Us godless people"...well then...that explains it. Your preconceived viewpoint has made your mind up for you. This is NOT an insult...just an observation. I took it ALLLLLLL in with a completely open mind, and no pretext...then went where logic, reason, science, and sensibility led me.
What Mystic puts forth is solid and sound...in a way nothing else I have ever read or heard is...and with my very best determination, I have concluded that it is TRUTH. If you don't see it that way, there isn't much I can say. Though, I would encourage (Note: I have no negative feeling toward you if you prefer not to, and understand "truth" is different for EVERYONE) you to check it out a little more.
A common accusation is that 'we' started out with pre-conceived notions and have done no 'searching for the truth'.
Logic, reason, science, and sensibility (and you can even throw in
a handful of emotion and a dash of instinct) led me to an entirely diferent conclusion
"Science" proves "God Exists"...by proving the attributes of creation, control, maintenance, and sustenance, of what many assign the pseudonym "Nature"...but is, by definition, GOD.
So basically you're singing the same nursery rhyme song that MysticPhD does. Gotcha. It's no less of a silly idea coming from you than from him. I'd respect all of you a lot more if you just copped to the fact that there is absolutely no proof for any gods, and simply said "this is what I feel but I have no evidence".
A common accusation is that 'we' started out with pre-conceived notions and have done no 'searching for the truth'.
Logic, reason, science, and sensibility (and you can even throw in
a handful of emotion and a dash of instinct) led me to an entirely diferent conclusion
Which is cool. We ALL have "a different conclusion"...to a greater or lesser degree...however we came to it.
So basically you're singing the same nursery rhyme song that MysticPhD does. Gotcha. It's no less of a silly idea coming from you than from him. I'd respect all of you a lot more if you just copped to the fact that there is absolutely no proof for any gods, and simply said "this is what I feel but I have no evidence".
To say, "I have no evidence", would be lying on my part...since I have determined that I do. Just as you have determined that you don't.
We all have a "truth" that is unique to us...no two people think exactly alike on this issue. I wouldn't ever say Atheism, an Agnostic position, or ANY sincerely believed viewpoint was a "silly idea" or a "nursery rhyme"...that's just rude and does nothing to further the disscussion...I respect ANYONE (even myself) a lot more when they refrain from the vituperatory.
A basic question might remain: Even if we do succeed in developing good biological and neurobiological theories about the origins and nature of human morality, would this satisfy our craving for a truly "objective" basis for moral reasoning?
Are you for real?
Science has nothing to do with morality. It's 100% logic and reason.
I don't murder people because it's illogical. There's no benefit to me or society, not to mention it's costly and counter-productive.
I mean if we all are running around hacking people to bits in a blood feud who's minding the cattle and working out in the fields?
No one, because they're all dead or hacked up, or running around trying to hack people up or protecting people from being hacked up.
Why does the UCMJ ban adultery? Not because some god thing plagiarized the Egyptian Book of the Dead and re-branded it as the 10 Commandments (starring Charleston Heston, Yul Brynner, Anne Baxter Edward G Robinson and Debra Paget), but because it is ordinary common sense. Military units operate on morale, discipline, loyalty and trust, and you can't have the platoon sergeant banging the corporal's wife, because that would create enmity and undermine the unit and may result in deaths and injuries and the inability to accomplish the mission.
Who would be so pathetic as to need a god-thing or a scientist to tell them it's wrong to steal?
You can dispute/disagree with the attributes of... "intellect/sentience/awareness/planned purpose".
But you cannot dispute the SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN attributes of creation, control, maintenance, and sustenance...which are definitive of GOD. And "God" by any other name, is STILL "God".
I was asked to show "scientific proof of the existence of any God"...so I did.
Neither science nor logic proves (or even supports) the notion of a creator God in the sense that you seem to be thinking. Nature is not necessarily dependent upon "control" or a "creator." What you seem to be missing is the concept of self-organization. All you need, "in the beginning" is chaos (the mathematical notion of a chaotic system) - you do NOT need an intelligent creator/designer to create complex patterns; such patterns can arise spontaneously, given chaotic conditions (which is to say, a system composed of asymmetrically interconnected qualitative elements). This does not mean that there is no God, but this does mean that science does not logically require a concept of "creator" in order to explain "creation."
You could argue for a highly unconvention notion of God by equating God with the initial chaos, but such a god would not be an intelligent being who created the universe, and shuch a being would not pursue a goal, or have a purpose; rather, such a god would be a natural PROCESS by which complex patterns of activity - including intelligent activity - could emerge.
There could still be meaning or "higher purpose" of some sort, but this would be something that emerges with the patterns. There would be no plan or purpose prior to the emergent patterns.
Science has nothing to do with morality. It's 100% logic and reason.
I don't murder people because it's illogical. There's no benefit to me or society, not to mention it's costly and counter-productive.
This notion of science as pure logic and reason is seriously misguided. Logic itself depends on pre-rational values (i.e., values that are simply taken as given). Logic cannot prove its own value. To do logic in the first place, you must, at the very least, value logic. Logic without foundaitonal values (such as assuming the value of logic itself) is like a car without gas; it can't go anywhere. Logic is not self-propelling; it relies on emotions/values to motivate "doing what is logical." You think murder is illogical, but it is only illogical if you VALUE life, and you refrain from murder only if you VALUE logical thinking to such an extent that you can see the logical argument: "Murder ends life. I value life. Therefore, I don't commit murder."
Notice, also, that you shoot yourself in the foot by by juxtaposing the notion that "science has nothing to do with morality" with the notion that "I don't murder because it is illogical." You say that science is logic, then you use logic to reach the conclusion that you should not commit murder. The "should" in the "should not commit murder" depends on empirical evidence relating to the effects of murder, and logic connecting effect B with cause A, combined with EVALUATING the effects. Clearly all of this is something that can be studied scienficically. We can study the causal and logical relations, AND we can study (at least to a large extent) the biological origins of our values (if you click on the links in the original post, you will see what I mean by this). Would you say that this has nothing to do with morality? What is "morality" if it is not an understanding of what we SHOULD do based on what we know, and what we value?
There are limits to logic, and these imply limits to science, but these limits do not completely prevent a scientific study to morality. Given the limits to logic, we will never have absolute certainty concerning what values are ultimately best, but we can still develop reasonable confidence in a set of values based on a logical/scientific analysis of the biological roots of our desires, along with our understanding of cause and effect.
In other words, given "this is how we are" and "this is how the world is" we may come up with scientifically plausible theories of "this is how we ought to behave."
Neither science nor logic proves (or even supports) the notion of a creator God in the sense that you seem to be thinking. Nature is not necessarily dependent upon "control" or a "creator." What you seem to be missing is the concept of self-organization. All you need, "in the beginning" is chaos (the mathematical notion of a chaotic system) - you do NOT need an intelligent creator/designer to create complex patterns; such patterns can arise spontaneously, given chaotic conditions (which is to say, a system composed of asymmetrically interconnected qualitative elements). This does not mean that there is no God, but this does mean that science does not logically require a concept of "creator" in order to explain "creation."
Another one who imputes reality to our artificial mathematical rubric. It was created and exists entirely in our minds with the attendant "rules" and their limitations and inappropriateness for certain aspects of our reality (see Godel). It is a wonderful tool . . . but it is not reality.
Quote:
You could argue for a highly unconvention notion of God by equating God with the initial chaos, but such a god would not be an intelligent being who created the universe, and shuch a being would not pursue a goal, or have a purpose; rather, such a god would be a natural PROCESS by which complex patterns of activity - including intelligent activity - could emerge.
There could still be meaning or "higher purpose" of some sort, but this would be something that emerges with the patterns. There would be no plan or purpose prior to the emergent patterns.
You reveal the shallowness of your philosophical perspective by the use of such terms as "natural process" AS IF it had some intrinsic and fully explained reality to it . . . unlike a "godly process." The use of "Nature" and "natural" are identical to the use of "God" and "Godly" given the lack of a scientifically valid basis for distinguishing them. There is nothing in either your mathematical fictions or our science that can explain the existence of life and intelligence out of non-life and unintelligence.
The extant euphemisms substituting for our ignorance as if they reflect knowledge and understanding . . . like emergent properties, random, "natural" selection, "laws" of physics and chemistry, survival drive, etc. . . . do not advance our understanding. Your penchant for using emergent reveals the paucity of your philosophical depth. Emergent tells us nothing, explains nothing . . . it simply is an observation pretending to be an explanation.
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.
