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.
we can stop at infinite regression by just saying we are not going to step back 3 or even 5 or 100 times. We are only starting with we started and there is something before that. Stop.
you are right about nothing. Thats why its a real buzz kill. . You are trying to think through the "nothing". we can't really do that yet. Like you, nothing freaks me out more than nothing so I lean towards "something". Also, most scientist lean towards something also because we have no science for "from nothing"
but the two valid start points are "from nothing" and "from something"
either way. How in the heck does us being here HAVE TO MEAN something so much more complex that it must be all powerful and have free will started us?
Not exactly. Careful not to step back too far or you'll go off that cliff...
I have no problem looking close up or from far back like you want to suggest. I just don't think it wise to build a foundation on ground that is not solid. Am I trying to think through nothing, or is that you? How are we doing by comparison either way? I've got no real issue with "nothing." You're the one who admits being "freaked out" by nothing and there too I think the freak is adversely affecting your logic. What explains how everything came about is simply something we can't do, and I suspect one of the great mysteries man will always wonder and marvel about. We're so far from understanding the likes in fact, speculating as to "something" vs "nothing" as you do is a bit like asking you to make sense of infinity. Have you got an either/or scenario for us to consider about that too? Or should you bother given your/our similar limitations at this point?
The "buzz kill" more to my way of thinking is conjecture beyond facts, reason and logic, but if you have better to offer, I'm curious. This about how "most scientists lean towards something" for example. Have you got anything that helps prove that claim as well? Not sure I've ever seen a poll of scientists about "nothing" vs "something." What have you got along those lines?
the question is why not answer? About this stuff anyway.
And this where trans and I separated from how we present atheism. I answer everything according to the best information we have. He answers to how will it affect the war on religion.
We get to choose. I just ask one don't pretend that my way is the less valid way. If you are choosing to accept not eating meat when you want and the its does help you any way, that's fine, so long as we are crystal clear and honest about it.
Not sure anyone is "pretending" here, and yes of course we all get to choose, but why do we bother to "compare notes" if not to decide what is more or less valid given the "best information we have?" Problem tends to be that we all have different information and assimilate that information in different ways, for all variety of different reasons. Leaving all of us with little choice but to decide for ourselves what makes the most sense all considered. What to believe and what not to believe...
In a manner of speaking, that's just about all I do in this forum!
Fine if I choose to eat meat. Of course. Also to a point however. Step back and look at the bigger picture as you're always saying we should, and whether or not to eat meat begins to take on broader implications that warrant still more judgement call on all our parts, again related to merit...
"Food, Inc." - Documentary; what I'm talking about.
Correct. Pursuit of knowledge is a noble mission. However there is no actual finally determined truth, as we are in a continuous process of learning and refinement that will last until we are extinct. Complete knowledge is unattainable. Confidence levels ARE attainable and should be proportioned to the available evidence. The goal is to compile the most knowledge possible using reason, logic, and the scientific method. And act in consonance with the findings. More and more knowledge leads to better informed actions, higher moral standards, and the highest possible degree of human flourishing.
Irrationality and mysticism lead to the opposite.
I want to hold as many true beliefs as possible, and I want to share the planet with other rational people who have the same goal: to learn, integrate, and maximally prosper by being consonant and harmonious with reality. I think great progress is being made. We see most of the civilized world living in a secular fashion, even while professing a belief in deities. Actions speak louder than words. I also see those under 30 overwhelmingly moving away from mysticism and toward secularism and science. I am optimistic that the world I'm leaving is more like the world I'm making.
You mean?
"TWO: Human beings cannot know all that exists in the universe. The universe is forever in flux, full of mystery that will forever be marveled and explored by Man as long as he survives."
The specific reason is there is no evidence that it’s a true belief. And holding false beliefs is destructive to human flourishing. Beliefs inform action. Untrue beliefs lead to irrational actions. Since I have to share my planet with other people, I want everyone to hold as many true beliefs as possible. This maximizes rational actions, rational actors, and a better world.
You mean?
"EIGHT: Science fosters the peace of a universal patience and acceptance of our common condition and experience as humans. Faith forbids followers to question thus retarding Man's progress. Science encourages inquiry thus expanding Man's awareness and enlightenment. Faith typically deems any question about God's existence as evil in nature, not to be tolerated. Science has no such restrictions or judgement. Accordingly, there is no manner in which to reconcile these two competing approaches toward revealing Man's universal truth.
NINE: Faith can and does promote goodwill between some people. Creation of beautiful places of worship, help for those in need, community and comfort through difficult times. Even a code of conduct necessary for some to be moral. Yes of course, but with the good there is no need for the bad or falsehoods. Truth is best realized and peace most successfully promoted as more people patiently accept and embrace Man's common reality as revealed, defined and/or revised by science. The movement toward this patience and acceptance very slowly growing from one century to the next is the maturing of Man. His best chance for lasting peace and true understanding of all that exists in the universe, proven or yet to be proven."
* What term best describes your worldview?
To answer this fully would require a book. But as I have said repeatedly, the hallmark of modern science has been the recognition that everything that occurs does so based on natural laws which can be understood, and potentially even manipulated. While it certainly remains true that not everything that occurs is currently understood, the possibility of understanding the natural processes at work is undiminished.
* What term best describes your political leanings?
I am an unabashed liberal. In my experience atheists tend to be of the liberal persuasion. But there is no hard and fast rule on this, and I know atheists who are very conservative.
* Do you believe in macro-evolution (common ancestor/descent)?
First, let me say that holding hard and fast beliefs is a useless endeavor. Because our knowledge is constantly evolving. Knowledge necessarily must be based on a constantly changing scale of highest to lowest probability, based on that which can be observed to be true.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In science, evolution, the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over time, is one of the most important modern concepts for understanding the process of biology. Evolution is a theory in exactly the same way that nuclear theory is a theory. Both evolution and nuclear theory continue to be studied and refined. This does not indicate that evolution and nuclear theory represent wild guesses. Nuclear fission is a well established reality. It's hardly a wild guess.
* Do you believe in abiogesis? (biological evolution from inorganic materials; life from non-life)
It is observed that life is composed of non loving inorganic material. Protons, neutrons and electrons are not alive, and neither are they individually organic. However, they are interchangeable. The same protons, neutrons and electrons that once made up a rock, now help to make up you. It's all in the way things are assembled. What causes things to be assembled in different ways? Quantum mechanics (positive and negative attraction/repulsion) is an unrelenting process that is responsible for all change. Many people may not find this emotionally satisfying. But the nature of the way things are is under no obligation to satisfy anyone's emotional needs.
* Do you believe the entire universe (time, space and matter) originated from nothing, by chance?
Again, there is that word "believe." Everything that occurs does so for a very precise set of reasons, based on the process of quantum mechanics.
* Does free-will exist?
Within the limitations of the circumstances of one's birth, yes.
* Does objective truth exist?
"Truth" is to be found in the exact process of any physical event. Anything else is an opinion.
* Does objective morality exist?
No. Morality is an opinion. Widely shared opinions are still opinions. Holding opinions is not necessarily a bad thing. But opinions are subject to modification. Slavery is an example.
* Do you believe in life after death?
All experience and observation indicates that death is final.
* Do you believe in anything paranormal or supernatural?
We've come full circle. The hallmark of modern science has been the recognition that everything that occurs does so based on natural laws which can be understood, and potentially even manipulated. Conclusions that result in the assumption of the occurrence of supernatural or paranormal intervention are the product of ignorance.
As I too considered the time and effort involved to answer each question point by point, I thought maybe best to see if someone else might, and though I am still reluctant to consider the effort worthwhile all considered, I'm glad I can simply add "ditto." All pretty much as I too understand and well put. Only one question I might have answered differently is "Do you believe in life after death."
Not sure anyone is "pretending" here, and yes of course we all get to choose, but why do we bother to "compare notes" if not to decide what is more or less valid given the "best information we have?" Problem tends to be that we all have different information and assimilate that information in different ways, for all variety of different reasons. Leaving all of us with little choice but to decide for ourselves what makes the most sense all considered. What to believe and what not to believe...
In a manner of speaking, that's just about all I do in this forum!
Fine if I choose to eat meat. Of course. Also to a point however. Step back and look at the bigger picture as you're always saying we should, and whether or not to eat meat begins to take on broader implications that warrant still more judgement call on all our parts, again related to merit...
"Food, Inc." - Documentary; what I'm talking about.
Very true ...
I see a bigger problem of agenda's determining how we evaluate the evidence. People may not be pretending but then that suggest that their agenda's are blindly guiding them.
* What term best describes your worldview?
To answer this fully would require a book. But as I have said repeatedly, the hallmark of modern science has been the recognition that everything that occurs does so based on natural laws which can be understood, and potentially even manipulated. While it certainly remains true that not everything that occurs is currently understood, the possibility of understanding the natural processes at work is undiminished.
* What term best describes your political leanings?
I am an unabashed liberal. In my experience atheists tend to be of the liberal persuasion. But there is no hard and fast rule on this, and I know atheists who are very conservative.
* Do you believe in macro-evolution (common ancestor/descent)?
First, let me say that holding hard and fast beliefs is a useless endeavor. Because our knowledge is constantly evolving. Knowledge necessarily must be based on a constantly changing scale of highest to lowest probability, based on that which can be observed to be true.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In science, evolution, the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over time, is one of the most important modern concepts for understanding the process of biology. Evolution is a theory in exactly the same way that nuclear theory is a theory. Both evolution and nuclear theory continue to be studied and refined. This does not indicate that evolution and nuclear theory represent wild guesses. Nuclear fission is a well established reality. It's hardly a wild guess.
* Do you believe in abiogesis? (biological evolution from inorganic materials; life from non-life)
It is observed that life is composed of non loving inorganic material. Protons, neutrons and electrons are not alive, and neither are they individually organic. However, they are interchangeable. The same protons, neutrons and electrons that once made up a rock, now help to make up you. It's all in the way things are assembled. What causes things to be assembled in different ways? Quantum mechanics (positive and negative attraction/repulsion) is an unrelenting process that is responsible for all change. Many people may not find this emotionally satisfying. But the nature of the way things are is under no obligation to satisfy anyone's emotional needs.
* Do you believe the entire universe (time, space and matter) originated from nothing, by chance?
Again, there is that word "believe." Everything that occurs does so for a very precise set of reasons, based on the process of quantum mechanics.
* Does free-will exist?
Within the limitations of the circumstances of one's birth, yes.
* Does objective truth exist?
"Truth" is to be found in the exact process of any physical event. Anything else is an opinion.
* Does objective morality exist?
No. Morality is an opinion. Widely shared opinions are still opinions. Holding opinions is not necessarily a bad thing. But opinions are subject to modification. Slavery is an example.
* Do you believe in life after death?
All experience and observation indicates that death is final.
* Do you believe in anything paranormal or supernatural?
We've come full circle. The hallmark of modern science has been the recognition that everything that occurs does so based on natural laws which can be understood, and potentially even manipulated. Conclusions that result in the assumption of the occurrence of supernatural or paranormal intervention are the product of ignorance.
Not bad. I would modify them a bit but yours is good enough.
More like simple to imagine if you have the creativity to do so, and that I think you do...
Not sure matter and energy "exchange information," but that too is rather creative and a bit of a departure from the more common and mundane understanding that matter and energy are transferred from one form to another. Matter includes all living and non-living things. Energy is power from physical or chemical resources.
Easier for me to understand anyway. Easier than understanding the other notions including God for example, but no doubt the other versions are very creative. No denying that fact!
Its all about information exchange and conservation of energy. Its not a departure t all. In fact, its basic. I wish I could say it differently. But it does show some of the problem we face. People basing the certainty of woo claims on things they don't even know.
Its all about information exchange and conservation of energy. Its not a departure t all. In fact, its basic. I wish I could say it differently. But it does show some of the problem we face. People basing the certainty of woo claims on things they don't even know.
You are correct. LearnMe does NOT seem to know the truth about what energy/mass equivalence means, Arach. Energy, mass, momentum, are manifestations of the same underlying field, NOT separate things.
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.
