Knowledge vs Faith - SciForums.com

EvilPoet

05-09-03, 10:30 AM

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Source: The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In the Dark by Carl Sagan

Xevious

05-09-03, 10:46 PM

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those claiming something exists, not the other way around.

There is still a burdon of proof placed upon those making a negative claim. You are falling back on the argument that if you don't see it for yourself, it can't be real. The Egyptian philosopher Aesop wrote a very good fable on this. I will try to recall it as best as I can.

There was a boy in a small village, who went out one day to watch the crows along the Nile. One day while he was looking, he thought he saw one crow that was white, instead of black. Filled with excitement, he ran back to his parents and exclaimed to them "Mommy! Daddy! I saw a white crow by the river!" His parents both frowned at him and shook their heads. "Son, there is no such thing as a white crow. All crows are black." The child wouldn't budge. "But mom, I SAW a white crow with my own eyes!" Angry at their childs defiance, they punished him and sent him away. The next day, the boy went back to the Nile again, and this time I managed to see the Crow up close, and he spoke to it. "Are you a crow?" he asked, unsure of what he was seeing. "Yes, I am a crow," the bird answered. The boy, now torn between what he sees with his own eyes and what his parents taught him, spoke again. "I thought all crows were black," he said. "I know, " the crow replied, "but I am white. I am the only one like me that I have ever seen." The boy at once ran home, and exclaimed to his parents "Mommy! Daddy! I saw the white Crow again!" His parents, angry that their child did not accept their word, punished him far more severely.

I can offer you no proof God exists accept that God is real to me. You cannot in turn, offer any evidence that God DOES NOT exist, accept that you cannot find any. In science, a lack of evidence has NEVER foreclosed the possiblity of the existance of something. It only states that a conclusion cannot be drawn. By stating that a lack of evidence leads to a conclusion, you aren't following science very well. This is the point I am making when I say that you bear a burdon of proof, and I can indeed turn all the arguments you are useing on me against your own claim.

Seccularist: "God does not exist."
Theist: "Really, why do you think that?"
Seccularist: "Because it is true."

Who bears the burdon of proof here?

Thantos

05-09-03, 11:21 PM

Would not the burden of proof fall on both parties?

Since, someone who is trying to prove something doesn't exist is trying to prove that the possibility that something does not exist, exists.

Since, someone who is trying to prove something exists, have the burden of proof placed on them, no matter what using, substitution(this is true when you reference this paragraph to the last).

Does this seem reasonable and logical?(or is what I think logical, truly illogical? if so why?)

Xevious

05-10-03, 07:55 AM

Thantos, that is exactly what I am saying. Scientifically, all the non-believer can say is "I cannot confirm your belief." In turn, the theologian can only say to the non-believer, "I cannot confirm your belief." But, when the seccularist makes the claim that God does not exist, he must show proof that he does not exist. In turn, for the theoligan to state that God exists, he likewise bears a burdon of proof.

Since God is currently defined as a spiritual and not a physical phenomenon, there is no way to validly test the existance of God with science UNLESS one can somehow give examples of natural phenomenon and place them in a context which would show an intelligence at work. For over 2,000 years, since well before the times of Plato and Archemetes, this has been the crux of this very old and very drawn-out argument and it is not an argument which will dissappear any time soon.

5th Element

05-10-03, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Xevious
There is still a burdon of proof placed upon those making a negative claim. You are falling back on the argument that if you don't see it for yourself, it can't be real. The Egyptian philosopher Aesop wrote a very good fable on this. I will try to recall it as best as I can.

There was a boy in a small village, who went out one day to watch the crows along the Nile. One day while he was looking, he thought he saw one crow that was white, instead of black. Filled with excitement, he ran back to his parents and exclaimed to them "Mommy! Daddy! I saw a white crow by the river!" His parents both frowned at him and shook their heads. "Son, there is no such thing as a white crow. All crows are black." The child wouldn't budge. "But mom, I SAW a white crow with my own eyes!" Angry at their childs defiance, they punished him and sent him away. The next day, the boy went back to the Nile again, and this time I managed to see the Crow up close, and he spoke to it. "Are you a crow?" he asked, unsure of what he was seeing. "Yes, I am a crow," the bird answered. The boy, now torn between what he sees with his own eyes and what his parents taught him, spoke again. "I thought all crows were black," he said. "I know, " the crow replied, "but I am white. I am the only one like me that I have ever seen." The boy at once ran home, and exclaimed to his parents "Mommy! Daddy! I saw the white Crow again!" His parents, angry that their child did not accept their word, punished him far more severely.

I can offer you no proof God exists accept that God is real to me. You cannot in turn, offer any evidence that God DOES NOT exist, accept that you cannot find any. In science, a lack of evidence has NEVER foreclosed the possiblity of the existance of something. It only states that a conclusion cannot be drawn. By stating that a lack of evidence leads to a conclusion, you aren't following science very well. This is the point I am making when I say that you bear a burdon of proof, and I can indeed turn all the arguments you are useing on me against your own claim.

Seccularist: "God does not exist."
Theist: "Really, why do you think that?"
Seccularist: "Because it is true."

Who bears the burdon of proof here?

I will not attempt to further argue on this burden of proof matter. In case you don't know, you make a claim. you bare burden of proof. This is not in my interest to debate, it is the back bone in which logic and reason is govern by. To not understand this concept and attempt to twist it upside down demonstrates lack of sufficient rationality. In which case, I will withdraw from further debate, as you and I do not speak the same language. Reason will only work with people who speak the language of reason. And in the language of reason, burden of proof is carried by the claimer. For "negative claims" as you so put it, does not exist. It should also be understood that a "negative claim" (I can't help but laugh) is no difference than no claim. Therefore, no claim means no burden of proof. To use such notions as "negative claim" in this language of reason, is clear indication that the culprit is not speaking the language of reason, but rather the language of religion.

P.S. please don't interpret "language of reason" in a literal sense. (Damn I even have to say this.) It is a metaphor.

wesmorris

05-10-03, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Xevious

Seccularist: "God does not exist."
Theist: "Really, why do you think that?"
Seccularist: "Because it is true."

Who bears the burdon of proof here?

The theist does because the statement "god exists" must have preceded the secularist's claim. Further, you have improperly stated the argument. Generally, a secularist would assert "there is no evidence to support your claim" rather than "god does not exist". Twisting the argument to support your ignorance is inneffective to those whose ignorance is less than yours.

Xevious

05-10-03, 11:02 PM

To use such notions as "negative claim" in this language of reason, is clear indication that the culprit is not speaking the language of reason, but rather the language of religion.

Reason will only work with people who speak the language of reason. And in the language of reason, burden of proof is carried by the claimer.

You are rather arrogant to profess your own thinking as the "language or reason" while ignoring the irrationality and emotionalism of your own arguments. The crux of my argument is not that I am not making a claim, but that by stating God does not exist, you are too. You conveniently ignored also how I pointed out that ALL you can say based on the evidence is "I cannot confirm your claim."

Incidently, this is EXACTLY what I said, Wesmoris, in a previous post you obviously didn't read. I don't think I'm the one twisting arguments to support my ignorance.

wesmorris

05-11-03, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Xevious
Incidently, this is EXACTLY what I said, Wesmoris, in a previous post you obviously didn't read. I don't think I'm the one twisting arguments to support my ignorance.

First of all, I DID read your posts and then read them AGAIN to see what you think I've missed and I still think you're wrong about part of it.

You say that you claim "god is real to me". Well, that's an assumption. It is perfectly unreasonable to assume that someone else should assume that since it's real to you, you've provided some kind of objective evidence to support your claim, or that your "grasp of reality" is sufficient to proclaim such an astounding truth with no actual evidence (acceptable by the party questioning your claim).

Your argument is based around the premise "god is real to me". While that may be a true statement, why should I believe you? If that is your claim I assure you, I can believe you in the same sense that I believe that schizophrenics believe that gay people have a network of spies watching their every move and plotting the destruction of all non-gays. Sure it's real to you, but you're fucking crazy so uh... jeez good luck with all that. I have a hard time thinking that you didn't already know all that, so I'll have to wonder why you would persist unless you're merely trying to say:

I would contend that (logically) either argument "god exists" or "god doesn't exist" is equally irrational (- though the burdon of proof would fall on the first before falling on the second) (in which case, you should have just said that instead of confusing me you bastard :D )

I do think that one might be able to logically prove though, that the belief "god exists", is unreasonable.

Xevious

05-11-03, 09:22 AM

I am left wondering how much you really know about how mental disorders work, but that is okay. ADHD is probably a very good example. It is not something imbedded in the concious / subconcious mind of the person... it is not something "created" in their own mind. The psycological problems you see are the result of the major organ in which the concious mind inhabits not functioning properly. It is far more akin to a heart murmur or a liver disorder, while lots of conditions such as insanity or sociopathy are caused by a single traumatic event in ones life totally damaging ones concious or subconcious functions with unresolved emotions.

I do not think belief in God fits in to either of these categories, and it is very extreme to liken Religious people, which account for close to 90% of the people on Earth, to psychopaths. Maybe it has occured to you that since you are in the far minority, that it is your beliefs which are far more extreme?

wesmorris

05-11-03, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Xevious
I am left wondering how much you really know about how mental disorders work, but that is okay. ADHD is probably a very good example. It is not something imbedded in the concious / subconcious mind of the person... it is not something "created" in their own mind. The psycological problems you see are the result of the major organ in which the concious mind inhabits not functioning properly. It is far more akin to a heart murmur or a liver disorder, while lots of conditions such as insanity or sociopathy are caused by a single traumatic event in ones life totally damaging ones concious or subconcious functions with unresolved emotions.

I appreciate the "lesson", but you should know that I have a healthy understanding of what you've said which predates this conversation by many years. I even understand how drugs are assigned to conditions. Yay me. :rolleyes: You got it right though, so good for you.

My question might be though, what makes you think that "belief in god" would be excluded from that which you describe as a "mental disorder" (especially in context that I put it in)? It makes me doubt your reading comprehension or worse, it makes me wonder if your curiousity regarding the topic is just a ruse constructed by the defense mechanism charged with protecting your unreasonable belief. Since you're so hep to the ways of "mental disorders", can you hypothesize a condition under which such a defense mechanism might be an integral part of consciousness? I can - and will be glad to enlighten you if you are interested.

Originally posted by Xevious

I do not think belief in God fits in to either of these categories, and it is very extreme to liken Religious people, which account for close to 90% of the people on Earth, to psychopaths. Maybe it has occured to you that since you are in the far minority, that it is your beliefs which are far more extreme?

That was very convoluted IMO.

The term psychopath isn't necessarily applicable to people with "emotional stuntedness" or rather "people who are not emotionally healthy", though far too often the condition of "poor emotional health" leads to debilitating conditions in a person's life and sometimes they end up with some psychosis, the process is interesting to me. It's basically sinks and wells. An emotional problem, if left to "fester" will become a huge sink - through which one's input/subconscious/consciousness are filtered. The personality of the individual reflects this condition. The person's actions and demeanor become affected by the condition. It's a self-perpetuationg cycle that is like all other self-perpetuating conscious mental processes, difficult to break. In many cases though, what is the motivation for the person to CHANGE this condition? Unresolved emotional issues have a tendency to want to hide. There is good reason for that, though it takes a while to explain and I'll save it for some other time.

I will say that the cycle of emotional need relating to the need for an answer to the question "is there a god" can easily result in an irrational answer with a defending mechanism given what follows from the reasoning above. *shrug*

This is all quite superfluous though, since you really just misunderstood my analogy to begin with. I was comparing irrational behaviors, not saying that you're friggin mental if you believe in god. Since I've broached the topic, I would say that the belief in god can only result from an irrational emotional need for satisfaction of an issue to which there is no "logically acceptable" answer. The proper conclusion is "oh, there's no answer"... but you seem to wildly defend your position, regardless of the logic you're faced with. Generally, that's representative of a weak mind or emotional need that outweighs the need for logical validity in the mental schema of the individual faced with the issue in the first place.

But maybe it's me.

(oh, and your "maybe your extreme perspective is just extreme" assertion (or whatever) is simply assenine. It's obvious that I'm highly intelligent (I'm not saying you aren't). My ability to anylize data and derive logical conclusions is FAR SUPERIOR to the average person. I'm not saying that makes me all cool or whatever, I'm saying that I'm simply better and reaching logical conclusions that 99 percent of everyone... so why should I doubt my conslusions based on the sheer volume of people to think otherwise? I don't think that would be wise.. do you?)

5th Element

05-14-03, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Xevious
You are rather arrogant to profess your own thinking as the "language or reason" while ignoring the irrationality and emotionalism of your own arguments. The crux of my argument is not that I am not making a claim, but that by stating God does not exist, you are too. You conveniently ignored also how I pointed out that ALL you can say based on the evidence is "I cannot confirm your claim."

Incidently, this is EXACTLY what I said, Wesmoris, in a previous post you obviously didn't read. I don't think I'm the one twisting arguments to support my ignorance.

Don't you see? How you are missing something? Let's back track just a little. So I am making a claim am I? what is that claim oh great one? I never made any claims whatsoever. Please show me where I made a claim. I only stated that the burden of proof lies with you since you are claiming something exist. It's pretty simple.

By the way, this is not about my own thinking being what is reasonable. Apparently you don't know; the simple rule regarding burden of proof isn't something that I myself magically made up. It's a vital part of the foundation of reason. JUST LIKE, cause and effect is one of the foundations for logic. AGAIN, no I am not magically making these things up. These laws of logic and reason are used by scholars from philosophy, science and history alike. If you still can't grasp this simple concept I really have nothing else to say. Those who speak in your manner simply cannot have a healthy debate on any subject. Your goal isn't to logically reach conclusions but rather to loop forever trying to defend your cause regardless how much more sense the opposition makes.

edgar

05-14-03, 09:26 PM

wow wesmoris...why do you say that ? what makes you think that you can reach logical conclusions better than the 99% of people? thats a very illogical statment because you dont even know a fraction of a percent of the people on earth. you sound like a guy at my school. he thinks he's all smart and crap. he think's he is "superior" to everyone. bah, he will learn his lesson by meeting some one smarter and some one bigger.......

wesmorris

05-14-03, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by edgar
wow wesmoris...why do you say that ? what makes you think that you can reach logical conclusions better than the 99% of people?

experience (and testing)

Originally posted by edgar

thats a very illogical statment because you dont even know a fraction of a percent of the people on earth.

no, IMO edgar, if you're a man, you know where you stand. 99% of people is not that much. oh and edgar.. apparently logic isn't your forte'. get educated and you'll maybe get smartificated.

Originally posted by edgar

you sound like a guy at my school. he thinks he's all smart and crap.

edgar, i'm not THE smartest, but I'm definately all smart and crap.

Originally posted by edgar

he think's he is "superior" to everyone.

doesn't mean I'm superior edgar, just generally smarter.

Originally posted by edgar

bah, he will learn his lesson by meeting some one smarter and some one bigger.......

edgar, I'm 33, I have a family, I'm a man. you're a kid. no insult, but when you're a man you might understand. a smart man knows his strengths and weaknesses. One of my strengths is my intellect. *shrug* what you don't seem to understand is that I'm absolutely not bragging. I'm stating facts.

Xevious

05-15-03, 03:17 PM

If you still don't grasp that by stating definitively that something does not exist that you are making a claim, you obviously know enough about logic to suit your own beliefs and no more.

How do you know love exists? You can't prove love exists. You can logically state that a man who takes a girl on a date wants something from her - her company and attention at the least, at the most he might be trying to sleep with her. But, how do you know that he is in love with her? You cannot rationally prove conclusively that he does, because if he is a good actor he can make her think what he wants to, for whatever reason he wants to. Love only becomes real to the couple if he and she both experience it, and give it value.

By your own way of thinking, no one can prove that any emotion is real unless you yourself experience it. That is certanly the crux of what you are saying - it isn't real at all unless I can somehow see, touch, taste, hear, or feel it. Unless it has physical reality, it is beyond your ability to understand and. Such black and white ways of thinking are a symptom of a psycological disorder - it is called depression.

These laws of logic and reason are used by scholars from philosophy, science and history alike.

You know, Plato, Archemetes, and Aristotle would have lots of fun debating this one with you, particularly when it comes to philosophy - the real crux of this discussion. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end, nor is it the ONLY tennent of wisdom, which again seems beyond your comprehention. I'm not worried though. Some day you will grow up and realize it for yourself.

5th Element

05-15-03, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Xevious
If you still don't grasp that by stating definitively that something does not exist that you are making a claim, you obviously know enough about logic to suit your own beliefs and no more.

How do you know love exists? You can't prove love exists. You can logically state that a man who takes a girl on a date wants something from her - her company and attention at the least, at the most he might be trying to sleep with her. But, how do you know that he is in love with her? You cannot rationally prove conclusively that he does, because if he is a good actor he can make her think what he wants to, for whatever reason he wants to. Love only becomes real to the couple if he and she both experience it, and give it value.

By your own way of thinking, no one can prove that any emotion is real unless you yourself experience it. That is certanly the crux of what you are saying - it isn't real at all unless I can somehow see, touch, taste, hear, or feel it. Unless it has physical reality, it is beyond your ability to understand and. Such black and white ways of thinking are a symptom of a psycological disorder - it is called depression.

You know, Plato, Archemetes, and Aristotle would have lots of fun debating this one with you, particularly when it comes to philosophy - the real crux of this discussion. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end, nor is it the ONLY tennent of wisdom, which again seems beyond your comprehention. I'm not worried though. Some day you will grow up and realize it for yourself.

Ok, if you still insist that I made a "claim" . What claim did I ever made?????????????????????? read through my posts and show me this "claim" that I made. Where is this claim that you speak of?
And stop trying to sound intelligent or educated by making lousy statements like "logic is the beginning of wisdom" which has nothing to do with this arguement.

You said god exist, I simply said, prove it. WHERE'S MY CLAIM?

Dr Lou Natic

05-15-03, 07:46 PM

I used to skate when I was younger and skaters know that rain sucks.
I had a friend that would say "its not going to rain tommorrow" in a serious tone as though he heard it on the weather channel or something. Even if it had been raining all week he would say that on friday hoping we could skate happily on saturday. What he hoped turned into a fact in his mind because he really really hoped it was true.
This is faith. Its hoping something is real even though you have absolutely no reason to think it is real. The word faith is funny. Especially when used seriously as though it has any merrit whatsoever. Its hope. That is all. And in the case of faith in god its even more ridiculous. People adamantly believe in god because they really hope there is an afterlife. They simply can't deal with the possibility that an afterlife doesn't exist. So they live their whole life restricted to apease something they have been told might exist.
Knowledge is the opposite. If knowledge contradicts what you have faith in, it is beyond stupid to keep having that faith. Thats like skating in the rain and telling yourself its not raining.
Knowledge VS Faith? Knowledge wins by way of knockout.

wesmorris

05-15-03, 08:29 PM

the doctor's in the HOUSE!

hehe... that was cool Lou.. you da man. :D

5th Element

05-15-03, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I used to skate when I was younger and skaters know that rain sucks.
I had a friend that would say "its not going to rain tommorrow" in a serious tone as though he heard it on the weather channel or something. Even if it had been raining all week he would say that on friday hoping we could skate happily on saturday. What he hoped turned into a fact in his mind because he really really hoped it was true.
This is faith. Its hoping something is real even though you have absolutely no reason to think it is real. The word faith is funny. Especially when used seriously as though it has any merrit whatsoever. Its hope. That is all. And in the case of faith in god its even more ridiculous. People adamantly believe in god because they really hope there is an afterlife. They simply can't deal with the possibility that an afterlife doesn't exist. So they live their whole life restricted to apease something they have been told might exist.
Knowledge is the opposite. If knowledge contradicts what you have faith in, it is beyond stupid to keep having that faith. Thats like skating in the rain and telling yourself its not raining.
Knowledge VS Faith? Knowledge wins by way of knockout.

I agree 100% Wish we would put more effort into science. Then at least we'll be able to extend this life :)

DefSkeptic

05-15-03, 10:46 PM

Dr Lou, very good job on making the point clear

Dougermouse

05-18-03, 03:58 PM

Back in the old days before DNA testing, the birth of a baby was a Faith vs Knowledge proving grounds.
The mom has knowledge it was her's, and the dad has faith it was his :)

moementum7

05-18-03, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Xevious
As I said earlier: PROVE God does not exist. If you cannot do that, then you cannot make a case that purely naturalistic forces are all that are at work in the universe. It boils down to the psycological decision of what is more comfortable for you to believe. prove that pink elephants dont exist

Chiasma

05-19-03, 05:55 PM

These arguments are just plain ridiculous because there is no answer to it. religion is a philosophy. No right or wrong answer. Just a beleif.

Most people believe in a god. Can they prove it. Hell no. That is why it is a belief, not a fact. People that beleive in a god say that they just know. How? I don't know how they do, they just do and thats fine with me.

Other believe that there is no god. Can they prove it. Hell no. That is why it is a belief, not a fact. People that don't believe is usually because there is no proof. No proof does not mean no existence.

The rest of society throws their hands up in the air and say. "hell, I don't know" We call them agnostic. They will say there is no proof for or against. There could be, and there could not be. No one will ever know.

The last catagory of people are probably the most opean minded of all of the bunch. In my opinion of course.

Fortuna

05-19-03, 06:59 PM

If we try to reduce the god created the universe argument to it's simplist terms, there are 2 primary concepts which emerge, those being the ideas of "existence" and that of "consciousness".

Now, we may ask, which of these has primacy (which comes first). In the universe we know and can measure, we must accept (bte, that Descartes was wrong) and that existence must take precedence over consciousness. If we try to reverse these (i.e. that Consciousness has primacy over existence), then we must ask, "Consciouss of what ?", and there is no logical answer.

Further, to "exist" can only be defined within space-time, our universe, cosmos (whatever you want to call it).

Thus, the only logical answer is that existence takes precedence over consciousness. Thus you must first exist in order to have consciousness.

The early philosophers and religionists apparently inherently recognized this, because they relegate the "god" to a special case, that of the "super-natural", which they define as existing outside/above/beyond our known universe.

To me, this special case simply creates more conundrums than it solves. It is now valid to ask, is there a super-super-natural, etc ? Is this yet another dimension, are ther more, etc.

And even in the realm of the super-natural, we must ask, it is conscious of what (assuming that it had not yet created a universe and humans to amuse itself) ?

Personally, I relegate all of this to the realm of mythology and metaphor. Is it merely the ancients trying to express that which they could not understand ?

IT seems that many humans need to believe that something greater than themselves created them. So be it.

Go out tonight and look at the night sky, and ask yourself if that alone is not greater then ourselves. Do you see order in the disorder ? Or, is what we call "order", only the tendency of nature itself ? And who defined "order" anyway (we did !)

Remember when applying the 3rd law that it is only the Total Entropy that must always be positive. Or, as Herman Hess might say, A small backwash in the river is easily cancelled out by the fact that the entire river flows downstream.

Abdiel

05-21-03, 04:20 PM

When I first read these messages on this thread I was most certainly distraught. I have for the longest time believed absolutely that there was a God, yet just as some of you here now are saying I would think of how this could be. Of course blind faith is not the best way to go around proclaiming God, I wish to show some others and maybe you might too. Yet before I do this I must recommend G. K. Chesterton as a source of reason to this, all those who agree that there is indeed a God should look into his book Orthodoxy.

Firstly, I have heard a theory indicating the existance of God. Basically all it is, is that just because we argue for or against a God means there must be one. Since the beginning fo time man has yearned to see Gods, yearned for some higher being, some purpose to his life. Indeed other creatures do not do this, so is it just mans nature to fool himself? Or perhaps a divine notion among humans granted to us to seek out the true light?

Furthermore, knowledge and faith DO NOT go against or fight each other. It is perfectly possible to argue the credibility of God with knowledge as Thomas Aquinas did so elequantly. Here are some quotations by the first man I have mentioned before;

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

"The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man." -

"Theology is only thought applied to religion."

"One of the chief uses of religion is that it makes us remember our coming from darkness, the simple fact that we are created."

If you wish to discuss any of these quotes you may, they are not mine and shouldn't be labeled as so (G. K. Chesterton)
Now this debate has gone on for longer than any of us here have been alive and we will only come to agree to disagree. Personally though I do believe that science and religious views are interconnected and do not in the least contradict each other. Seven days could have been any lenght of time for God. I mean take the Big Bang for example something just doesn't appear and then explode, we need a starting point something that made this happen, even if we shall only come to the resolution of agree to not agree the discussion is vastly interesting and I shall like to hear other viewpoints upon it.

DefSkeptic

05-21-03, 08:40 PM

Firstly, I have heard a theory indicating the existance of God. Basically all it is, is that just because we argue for or against a God means there must be one.

Thats an absolutely horrible theory.

Xevious

05-22-03, 12:08 AM

One must then ask, how did the idea of a divine creator come to be? How can one come up with the concept in the first place? You might say it is purely imagination, but even the imagination roots it's creativity in reality. What Abdiel says has some truth to it. Something made the idea of God come to be and it wasn't as detached from reality as you may think.

wesmorris

05-22-03, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Xevious
One must then ask, how did the idea of a divine creator come to be? How can one come up with the concept in the first place?

One can never know for sure, but it is easy to theorize. You have to put yourself in the mind of a caveman.... then fast forward time for a very long time.. a singular deity is the natural progression of ideas that starts with the answer "I don't know" which translates to "must have been magic" or "must have been god" more and more the farther back in time you look. It's about context.

Originally posted by Xevious

You might say it is purely imagination, but even the imagination roots it's creativity in reality.

No, I'd say it's the creative evolution of an idea over a long time. Actually, the idea was likely around for a long time before people accepted it. Can you imagine why?

Originally posted by Xevious

What Abdiel says has some truth to it.

Except for the stuff about god, maybe.

Originally posted by Xevious

Something made the idea of God come to be and it wasn't as detached from reality as you may think.

You're right about that for SURE. It was exactly reality that made the idea mainstream... obviously. It was necessity that gods were created. Your tribe is hungry, you have no food, your children are sick, your friend died, you're in a cave with no light with no clue as to what the hell is happening around you really besides the need for food, water... comfort.... survival. How could that be? Surely someone must will badness upon you? That person must be very powerful too.. consdiering that they took away all my food and make the sun go away every day. No wait.. maybe there is another guy who makes the sun go away? You are the natural leader in the crowd.. you think. Your comprehension about your evironment is superior to those around you due to the luck of gifted intellect.. as such.. your people look to you for answers..

what do you tell them? you tell them what you know. apparently a guy.. let's call him fundaddy. He takes the sun everyday. He was mad at soldana, the guy who took our food from us (the one who made the animals you hunt leave the area). They conspired to make it cold and made my daughters sick. Why? We must have angered them. What can we do to appease such powerful beings?

Do you see how it's psychology? Do you see how it's personified? It's in how you relate to a problem. Do you see my meaning?

There's this thing I call cultural lag. It's basically that ideas are passed from parents to kids.. ideas about how life works. Obviously this is how most religions are propagated over time. Until recently... there hasn't been sufficient context to answer most of the fundamental questions people were faced with.. (though they've surely changed over time.. but the fundamentals are always the same I'd guess).

Where am I?
Why am I here?
What is my purpose?
Who created me?

Blah blah blah.

Until recently... sensible answers to those questions could only be imagined. Now howver.. it basically stands as:

You're on a planet, the planet is.... blah blah.. so you get the first one all the way there.

You are here to live your life in the pursuit of happiness. But that one's really too deep for people to accept.. they want simplicity. "god" still works well especially considering that people are predisposed to it through cultural lag.

Your purpose is whatever you make it. But again.. it's a little lame so people look to someone else for answers and grasp onto whatever 'fits' for their particular set of experiences. (which is obvious tripe considering that there is only one correct answer to a question of objectivity such as 'is there a god or god(s)')

You were created by your parents who apparently are because of their parents and so on and so forth. We think there is just something that makes stuff want to be alive.. but we're not sure why. Lame answer, so people look to ... well.. I guess I don't know. I mean.. someone must have done it.. blah blah blah?

Do you see how it's personified because that is how we relate to the problem of our existence?

Abdiel

05-22-03, 06:59 AM

I have always felt there was an art to this world and if there is art there must be an artist.

ProCop

05-22-03, 07:09 AM

I have always felt there was an art to this world and if there is art there must be an artist.

Scientists believe that a random generator would recreate in one random string the collected works of Shakespeare - (given enough time (infinity))

Xevious

05-22-03, 10:09 AM

Abdiel - this is exactly where the idea of God comes from, and it is a philosophical idea that many people simply cannot accept. If something has all the organization of careful thought, then it must have been created by someone. We comprehend that our enviornment functions in a collective system, and life around us works interdependently.

Scientists believe that a random generator would recreate in one random string the collected works of Shakespeare

This would have taken too much time. It took only 3-4 million years for life to show up. It would take around 12 million years to get the correct sequences. Life on Earth simply did not have enough time to occur at random. Indeed, some scientists have begun to speculate that life might be a natural and normal process which will always occur given the right conditions - essentially that their is no randomness to it.

In either event, wether you believe in God or not, at the very least I feel that their is no way that a system like this is created entirely by chance.

You are here to live your life in the pursuit of happiness.

This is an opinion, and as such is subjective. If this is the entire crux of what you believe, then your arguments have far more to do with how you interprit what you see rather than what is "true" or "untrue".

ProCop

05-22-03, 10:25 AM

This would have taken too much time.

No, it wouldn't. An improbable series of 200 times six in dice game would take milions of years of throwing the dice to achieve that with some certainty. BUT, theoretically it can be achieved in the very frist 200 throws...

Abdiel

05-22-03, 03:34 PM

Another thought that some has raised is that since most people deal with the world and try to imagine a world without a God what about imagining a world with a God. Is it any different from this world? Does the sun shine less does it rain more, are the skies darker at night or the sea less warm in the summer? Would the world come together as it does now, interconnected?
Was my first statement as ridiculous as some have stated? Is the natural yearning for man to find a God not proof enough that there is one?
Again imagine a world without a God, what then would be the use of virtue or of vice? The rituals and stereotypical symbols of virtue, such as temperance, would remain but any meaning that it once held would have vanished. The virtuous of this world would just be going out of their way to accomplish a feat just for it's own sake, without reward. The point that I am trying to achieve is that nothing would be worth doing, nothing worth achieving. In the end we would die off, nothing upon nothing and nothing would be of meaning at any time.
That to which I have just mentioned is a sad state of the world. The Christian ideal allows for both monk and warrior to repent and to hold meaning in this world, I think that if I had the choice of knowing if there was or wasn't a God I would choose not to know. For if I found that there was indeed nothing but sky above what could possibly motivate anything anymore? What meaning would the world hold to anyone then?

shutupandshave

05-22-03, 09:20 PM

rayzinnz

05-23-03, 04:44 AM

I have no faith in God. In fact I don't think if he does exist that he created us or knows we exist.

I do have faith that the speed of light travels at 186,000 km/s or whatever apeed it is. I have never tested it myself, yet I profusley believe it to be so. Because I have alot of faith in the people that have spent lifetimes testing it and using it to find out other things. I also have unwavering faith that these people actually exist, although I've never met them.

The only things a person can say they "know" is what they test and prove to themselves. But you've gotta start from somewhere and you've gotta have faith in something.

wesmorris

05-23-03, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Xevious
This is an opinion, and as such is subjective. If this is the entire crux of what you believe, then your arguments have far more to do with how you interprit what you see rather than what is "true" or "untrue".

Bro.. I was merely giving examples of the best of "common knowledge" of today... and the fact that questions like "What is my purpose?" only have SUBJECTIVE answers.. but for some SAD REASON, people tend to look outside themselves for answers only they can provide.

Xevious

05-23-03, 11:29 AM

Looking outside ourselves is very nessasary, Wesmoris. We humans are capable of deciving ourselves to an incredible degree. We also, on our own, will act entirely in our own interests. These are the two universal definitions of "evil". While most socieites and religions have differnt fine points, the essential belief carried by societies for thousands of years is that self interest taken to it's furthest extreme is what creates evil.

Religion is designed to create a context in which one is able to have empathy for his fellow humans and act outside of his own self-interests, particularly when one's own self-interests harm others. These are the qualities our societies have always called "good"... the ability to care for someone else purely because they are human, and to give up extra resources, essentially power, to help those who are not as fortunet as yourself.

Putting aside the issue of wether or not God exists, I believe that this is the undelying conflict between Science's view of the world and that of religious people. The ideas of Charles Darwin essentially champion the idea that self-interest and lack of empathy for others is exactly what gets you to the top. While this is a true construct, when you apply it to civilization you create oppressive systems and instability since civilization is based on the principal of sharing and division of labor to augment each others survivability. Adolph Hitler in fact, did much of what he did in the name of Charles Darwin.

The human race is struggling to grow up. We are caught between the philosophy which allowed our civilizations to grow and prosper, and the philosophy of nature itself including primal human nature and we realize truly just how difficult this is.

wesmorris

05-23-03, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Xevious
Looking outside ourselves is very nessasary, Wesmoris.

But why do you take my statement out of context? You refuse to accept it? You deny it? Ultimately.. regardless of what either of us thinks, your "purpose" comes from within you. You have to look outside yourself to find clues and to what you should do, but you have to look INSIDE to find your purpose.

Originally posted by Xevious

We humans are capable of deciving ourselves to an incredible degree.

You call this evil? This is simply nature. It's natural, not evil. If you want to discuss the "evil" regarding this, I'd say it's EVIL never to question how you justify your bullshit to yourself. I'd say it's EVIL never stop asking yourself the hard questions.. I'd say it's EVIL to LIE to yourself and let you get away with it. I'd say it's GOOD to expose your thoughts to others such that you might find feedback regarding the validity of your crap, but ultimately you have to learn to trust yourself not to lie to you.

Originally posted by Xevious

We also, on our own, will act entirely in our own interests.

You call this evil? I call you short sighted. I'm happy that you've considered the issue, but unhappy with your conclusion. If you cannot envision a perspective from which being very very selfish is a good thing for other people.. then you haven't thought about it enough.

Originally posted by Xevious
Religion is designed to create a context in which one is able to have empathy for his fellow humans and act outside of his own self-interests, particularly when one's own self-interests harm others.

You think so do you? Seems to me it was "designed" (which already implies that it's not divine in nature) to make people paranoid enough not to perform actions outside of those condoned by that religion. It's as close to perfect as you can get for a security policy. Make the offenders police themselves. Beautiful.

rayzinnz

05-23-03, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Xevious
Religion is designed to create a context in which one is able to have empathy for his fellow humans and act outside of his own self-interests, particularly when one's own self-interests harm others.

Name me a war that wasn't fundamentally based on religion. Give me a time that a priest did not bless the soldiers in the name of God before they went of to die or to kill.
And the funny thing is.... both sides are doing it! Go figure.

Abdiel

05-23-03, 05:40 PM

Shutupandshave; You have said that others find "truth" in science, music and some in poetry. I will not deny that this is the case yet when one only immerses themselves into these things they shall find themselves not whole in the end. I say that for the reason that science has proved to be very fickle. With each passing year something is proven anew or disproven altogether, whatever truth there is in science seems fleeting.
Furthermore, why immerse yourself in music or poetry when that to is fleeting, fleeting to the point that when we die, and die we shall friend, there will be no more music or poetry, these things prove themselves not to be eternal.
However, the promise and the religious praising God have the notion that God is enternal, the master of music, the creator of science, and the speaker of true poetry so to praise these topics and to devote one's sould to them is, at least to me anyway, pointless, I do not say that devoting time and energy is a waste, not at all but what I do mean is that if one wishes to praise anything praise the creator of all things. For every discussion, every discussion that has ever been made always seems to come back, in some way towards the discussion of God, for He is not just lord of the earth but everything with mass and every ideal held by His people and that indeed is my point.

Nasor

05-24-03, 06:43 PM

Hume said (and I agree) that it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty; all belief is based on faith to some degree. It's all just a matter of carefully evaluating the evidence and determining what to have faith in.

Halcyon

06-14-03, 02:31 PM

Off to the side: I know you're not discussing this, but, according to newtonian physics, since time can have no beginning or end, it could not have been created, and cannot be destroyed. One step of many on the path to the conclusion that something had to exist before god. If one considers that there had to be an environment, or some "state of existance" for god to exist in, how did this state come into being? It is believed that the idea of god was created to explain the creation of all existance, but this belief in a creator is flawed, because this creator had to in turn be created. Paradox.

something can only be considered to exist due it's relation to it's environment, right or wrong?

It also might be considered, that because time has no beginning or end, time could the creating force behind existance. Or time could be god. (I'm winging this) But, there had to be other forces for time to act upon to create the universe, so one could assume that if god were likened to time, then there would also exist other "gods" or forces that combined to create the universe. I'm jumping from point to point here through assumptions that are probably due a little more explanation than I'm giving them. I'm just spouting conjecture, writing down these ideas as soon as my mind creates them. For the sole purpose of discussion.

5th Element

06-14-03, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Xevious
One must then ask, how did the idea of a divine creator come to be? How can one come up with the concept in the first place? You might say it is purely imagination, but even the imagination roots it's creativity in reality. What Abdiel says has some truth to it. Something made the idea of God come to be and it wasn't as detached from reality as you may think.

Excuse me Mr. Xevious but you have yet to answer my previous simple question. "where or what was that claim you accused me of making?"


If you can't give me an answer I will assume I've caught you with your pants half way down. Just like how science always catch religion in the same awkward manner.

Xevious

06-14-03, 11:15 PM

Name me a war that wasn't fundamentally based on religion. Give me a time that a priest did not bless the soldiers in the name of God before they went of to die or to kill.
And the funny thing is.... both sides are doing it! Go figure.

Eugenics and "Social Darwinism" are responsible for much strife in modern times. The term Eugenics in fact was coined by a cousin of Charles Darwin, one Francis Galton, who defined it as "perfecting the human race" by getting rid of its "undesirables" while multiplying its "desirables" It was Darwin's ideas of Natural Selection improving a species which made Galton wonder, "Could not the race of men be similarly improved?"

It was these idea which lead first to eugenics laws in the early 1900's in the US, which legally allowed sterilization of the "unfit", and by the 1940's, had cultimated into the founding ideologies of the Nazi movements in Germany. Germany thought of itself as the master race of the planet. While Hitler and his regime used Christianity in some of it's propaganda, the writings of Hitler in his autobiography as well as the actions and other documents surviving the regime paint a far differnt picture. One need not be reminded of how many millions of the Jews, Pols, and other ethnicities which died during Hitler's attempts at racial purificaiton. Nor does one need to be reminded of Hitler's attempts to breed the "master race" by cross-breeding teenagers from across Germany who had the traits he considered the most pallatable human traits.

Millions dead in combat... youths abducted from their homes to be used in genetic cross-breeding experiments, human races herded into camps to be executed based on their genetic make-up... and all in the name of Charles Darwin.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html
http://www.hitler.org

Xevious

06-14-03, 11:37 PM

Excuse me Mr. Xevious but you have yet to answer my previous simple question. "where or what was that claim you accused me of making?"

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those claiming something exists, not the other way around.

Brian, don't let anyone convince you otherwise. You're faith is unmatched, and god will lift you from this earth and bring you to him in heaven.

idiot.......

Well, let's see, was it this response to BrainwithaGun which did it? I think so... their was the post by LucidDreamer:

Why do theists always demand that atheists explain an uncaused first cause but blissfully accept that their god has always existed?

I’ll take scientific rationalism over biblical fairy tales any day.

Your posted response to BrainWithaGun reveals your beliefs. You basically called a theologic believer an idiot because he believed in religion. THUS, you stated religion was false, and THUS God did not exist. You implied the claim that God does not exist.

So you want me to prove to you in a empirical nature God exists... this depends only upon what kind of evidence you will be willing to look at. The proof is out their, but when one is unwilling to look, one will never see. This was a problem I for a long time had with Darwinism. I was so unwilling to even LOOK at the evidence for it that I never understood... until I cleared my head and thought about it. Even today I don't entirely embrace Evolution, but at least look at it and say as Abraham Lincoln did, "I can see how one can look at the ground and say that all was the work of nature. But, I cannot see how one can look at the sky and say their is no God."

The reason I cannot come to any more meaningful debate with those here is many of those present are so zealous against religion that their is simply no reasoning to be found.

5th Element

06-16-03, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Xevious
Well, let's see, was it this response to BrainwithaGun which did it? I think so... their was the post by LucidDreamer:

Your posted response to BrainWithaGun reveals your beliefs. You basically called a theologic believer an idiot because he believed in religion. THUS, you stated religion was false, and THUS God did not exist. You implied the claim that God does not exist.

So you want me to prove to you in a empirical nature God exists... this depends only upon what kind of evidence you will be willing to look at. The proof is out their, but when one is unwilling to look, one will never see. This was a problem I for a long time had with Darwinism. I was so unwilling to even LOOK at the evidence for it that I never understood... until I cleared my head and thought about it. Even today I don't entirely embrace Evolution, but at least look at it and say as Abraham Lincoln did, "I can see how one can look at the ground and say that all was the work of nature. But, I cannot see how one can look at the sky and say their is no God."

The reason I cannot come to any more meaningful debate with those here is many of those present are so zealous against religion that their is simply no reasoning to be found.

Sometimes it's just a table. sometimes it's just chair, sometimes it's simply nothing.

The biggest difference between science and religion isn't simply their answers, but rather the process in which something is considered fact. Even if something makes logical sense to you, (in your case "god") it is still just "your logic", it is not yet fact. What seperates something from your theory and fact is one key element; Evidence, either in support of or not.


You're right, there is no reasoning to be found. As your reasoning alone is not sufficient "evidence" to support your Monotheistic theory.

I never said god doesn't exist. But in order for you to convince me or anyone with a brain that "god" exist, it may take more than biblical stories and "reasoning".

Do you think I have not studied the bible before? I attended catholic highschool. Of course I got kicked out for having "too many questions" but that besides the point. You know the part in the bible where god said let there be light and in sudden flash, there was light? Well I could easily call that the big bang. Make that connection and all of the sudden the bible seems to make even scientific sense. But see, I don't do that, because that's not enough. Do you think I don't entertain the idea of a god? I certainly do, and unlike some, we scientists are able to entertain thoughts without having to believe. therefore allowing objectivity.
It's because of this objectivity that has allowed me to conclude this: In order for something to be considered fact, it must exist. existence needs to be proven and supported. otherwise it shall be considered, non-existence. However, that need not to be said. as non-existence is the default, not existence.


Science is based on understanding. Those who seek this path become scientists. It is the path that I've chosen, perhaps you can just believe me when i say this if not understand.

Christianity is based on faith. "The christian faith" as they call it is simply just that, faith. So I repeat, Sometimes it's just a table. sometimes it's just chair, sometimes it's simply nothing.

Perhaps you may consider me false in my logic, always demanding proof of a claim, not being able to see what's beyond nothing when the eye meets nothing. However, rather I do that, then create something out of nothing in my own mind and consider it fact. There's a thin line between sanity and insanity. A true mark of insanity is a mind which alters reality to fit it's perception of the ideal. Not being able to accept reality as reality in this mind have been altered to the point of no return. No medicine. No hope.

rayzinnz

06-22-03, 03:31 AM

religon states there is purpose to existence and therefore everything that happens is in line with this purpose and is under more control of the future than the present or past.
Future events are known

science on the other hand explains the mechanisms of how an unexisting future is made and how they act on the present (which is made from the past).
Future events can only be predicted and calculated but not known

I think the philosiphy behind this will be more clear but can't remember how its worded.

if you have religon you really don't need science as far as I can see.

Nasor

06-23-03, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by rayzinnz
religon states there is purpose to existence and therefore everything that happens is in line with this purpose and is under more control of the future than the present or past.
Future events are known

science on the other hand explains the mechanisms of how an unexisting future is made and how they act on the present (which is made from the past).
Future events can only be predicted and calculated but not known

I think the philosiphy behind this will be more clear but can't remember how its worded.

if you have religon you really don't need science as far as I can see. It all depends on how concerned you are that your predictions about future events be correct.

Xevious

06-23-03, 03:13 PM

I want to give a big applause both to 5th Element and rayzinnz for good responses. I want to offer one point though to 5th Element.

Suppose I said that I can verify much of the Bible with archaeology. This is not a false statement, as many things the Bible describes are found in archaeology just as they described and often with remarkable accuracy. Then, if I propose that what is in the bible that CAN be tested is proven to be true, then what is the probability that the parts that cannot be tested are true?

This is where I no doubt ask for the "leap of faith" but then again, such leaps are taken in science all the time - We predict

A, B, C, and D... we find so far, A, C, and D, so their is a very good chance that B is present, but not directly obserable so far. Would this form or reasoning seem rational to you?

Nasor

06-23-03, 05:54 PM

This seems akin to saying that we should believe everything we see on television because a great deal of what we see on television is verifiably true.

If I see something mundane and ordinary on television – like a dog – then it's likely that the dog actually exists. On the other hand, if I were to see a dragon on television I would be far more skeptical. The Bible is very similar. If it presents some piece of information – like the location of an ancient city – then it's reasonable to believe that the Bible might be correct about it. This does not, of course, mean that the Bible is also correct about the more fantastical things.

wesmorris

06-23-03, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Abdiel
I have always felt there was an art to this world and if there is art there must be an artist.

I'd say the artist is YOU. You lend beauty to an object or condition. The object or condition simply IS, as it is only an object or condition.

Xevious

06-24-03, 02:32 AM

That might be so, but you must conceed Science functions this way as well to an extent. Basically - what you can see and verify means that what you think happened or is happening is true.

Darwinism works this way. Darwin asks you to believe on FAITH that all species evolve into another - you cannot direclty observe the transmutation of a species, but it says you CAN see the effects of this transmutation - essentialy, you didn't see it happen but you can see what was left afterwards. If A, B, C, and D happened and you can find A, C, and D, then B is very likely to be correct.

wesmorris

06-24-03, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Xevious
That might be so, but you must conceed Science functions this way as well to an extent.

All knowledge is that way man. All of it. (except for like knowledge like "I'm hungry" or "I'm horny" and the likes)

Originally posted by Xevious

Basically - what you can see and verify means that what you think happened or is happening is true.

I would say that it means that what I thought was happening seems to be a good approximation of objective reality... with the full knowledge that it's impossible to ever perfectly describe objective reality.

Originally posted by Xevious
Darwinism works this way. Darwin asks you to believe on FAITH that all species evolve into another - you cannot direclty observe the transmutation of a species, but it says you CAN see the effects of this transmutation - essentialy, you didn't see it happen but you can see what was left afterwards.

The only "faith" required to believe darwinism is in "reason". If you believe that reason leads to valid knowledge then no faith is required to believe darwinism. It makes sense and is supported by objective evidence.

Originally posted by Xevious

If A, B, C, and D happened and you can find A, C, and D, then B is very likely to be correct.

That's called reasoning. Is that deduction or inference? I suppose it depends on the details.

Halcyon

06-26-03, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by rayzinnz
if you have religon you really don't need science as far as I can see.

Because religion sufficiently demonstrates and explains the laws of physics, right? Sorry if I seem snide, I may have just misinterpreted your statement(And if I have, please correct me), but it seems that even though a person has faith, they still need to understand the basic elements of acceleration and decelleration, as well as thousands of other fundamental elements present in our daily lives that we attribute our understanding of to science and it's discoveries.

Xevious

06-26-03, 03:13 PM

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein had a very good point with reguards to Religion and Science. While he rejected the biblical idea of God, he did state that Science has no reason to exist and no moral guidance without some kind of religion supplementing the beliefs of the observer. Without religion, their is no frame of reference to place what science finds in any form of philosophical or moral context. This is why Intelligent Design is still very hotly debated, and why many scientists including Stephen Hawking, believe in God.

wesmorris

06-26-03, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Xevious
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

A sign of the times for sure. It's funny how while defending it he assisted to condemn it.

Originally posted by Xevious

Without religion, their is no frame of reference to place what science finds in any form of philosophical or moral context.

That's simply bullshit.

Originally posted by Xevious

This is why Intelligent Design is still very hotly debated

Intelligent design is retarded. I've yet to hear a reasonable argument defending it. It is hotly debated generally by those who can't get over the "first cause" problem. IMO, that's merely a sign of ignorance. "first cause" makes no sense without time. Time started about 15 Billion years ago. How could something have 'caused' that? Ah sweet paradox. The best argument to date is: The universe exists because it can. Apparently there is "that which is possible" and the universe is, and it did.

Originally posted by Xevious

and why many scientists including Stephen Hawking, believe in God.

I ponder if many scientists do so from pure reason, or from the same emotional need that most theists indulge. Maybe it's politics.

Xevious

06-26-03, 03:46 PM

I don't think you ever read "A Brief History of Time". Stephen Hawking believes in God because he believes that some kind of deity intelligently designed the physical laws of our universe. This is the entire crux of Intelligent Design, and it is simply something you choose to ignore. It is not a point of science at all, but neither is the belief that the universe came because it can. One person sees a universe based on physical laws that exist simply because it can. One person sees a universe based on an intelligently designed system. Neither of these arguments are in the end, PROVEABLE.

How could something have 'caused' that? Ah sweet paradox. The best argument to date is: The universe exists because it can. Apparently there is "that which is possible" and the universe is, and it did.

This is a strange argument to make, considered that science demands that a mechanism is required for everything to happen. "Because it can" is purely a subjective belief, based not on any kind of logical scientic reasoning, but a decision of personal philosophy. This is where your beliefs show to have the same form of "faith" that a religious person bears. You can talk all you want of how "logical" your unproven and unconfirmable opinion is, but in the end you are trapped in the same paradox I am.

wesmorris

06-26-03, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Xevious
I don't think you ever read "A Brief History of Time". Stephen Hawking believes in God because he believes that some kind of deity intelligently designed the physical laws of our universe.

Yes I did, and I only remember something to that effect in the preface.. not the meat of the book. It has been a long long time though since I read it.

Regardless, arguing that you have an advantage because you think other smart people believe the same thing you do is kind of uhm.. unreasonable. I'll address a specific example if you'd like.

Originally posted by Xevious

This is the entire crux of Intelligent Design, and it is simply something you choose to ignore.

I ignore it because I think it's a stupid argument. You simply don't understand where I'm coming from. I went over this in some thread in pretty good detail. I didn't see anyone able to refute it. If I can find it I'll post a link.

Originally posted by Xevious

It is not a point of science at all, but neither is the belief that the universe came because it can.

You're incorrect. Statistics is a mathematical discipline (as such is scientific). My hypothesis is based in the fundies of statistics.

Originally posted by Xevious

One person sees a universe based on physical laws that exist simply because it can.

I believe the laws of the universe happened as a resultant of the process of the big bang. I've read much to support this but can't think of a particular to point you to.

Originally posted by Xevious

Neither of these arguments are in the end, PROVEABLE.

Certainly, but to me the tendencies of humans to personify (as they MUST) everything, or relate it to their own comprehension and experience.. leaves me with a poor impression of all arguments regarding "intelligent design". Seems to me that everythign is "emergant properties" and the stastistical hypothesis I mentioned is the best possible answer given a limited comprehension of stuff that can't possibly make sense to a human (like existance of anything outside of time).

Originally posted by Xevious

This is a strange argument to make, considered that science demands that a mechanism is required for everything to happen. "Because it can" is purely a subjective belief, based not on any kind of logical scientic reasoning, but a decision of personal philosophy.

It's not a belief, it's a hypothesis. It's IS based on scientific reasoning as I mentioned above.

Originally posted by Xevious

This is where your beliefs show to have the same form of "faith" that a religious person bears.

I have absolute faith in reason.

Originally posted by Xevious
You can talk all you want of how "logical" your unproven and unconfirmable opinion is, but in the end you are trapped in the same paradox I am.

You mean that there is no answer? Yes. I only think there is a "current reasonable perspective" and I've expressed it.

Ares

07-26-03, 01:08 PM

"god has created the universe, because something had to create the universe."

There are some problems with the first cause argument. Here are some outlined from the Freethought zone site:

"First Cause and Cosmological Arguments

The first cause argument states "Everything has a cause and every cause is the result of a previous cause. There must have been something to start off this chain of events, and that something is God." This argument is self-contradictory. The premise is that everything has a cause; the conclusion is that something exists, namely God, which does not have a cause. If we are going to allow something to exist which is uncaused, it is much more sensible to say that the universe itself is uncaused than to postulate the existence of God and say that God is uncaused. After all, we know that the universe exists.

A recently popularized variant of the First Cause Argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which states that every thing that begins to exist must be caused, and since the universe began to exist, it must have been caused and that cause was God. This argument is a slight improvement on the traditional First Cause Argument since its conclusion does not contradict its premises, but it still fails because, as shown below, there is no reason to think that the universe has not existed, in some form, forever. Another serious problem with the argument is that the very notion of the universe beginning to exist is incoherent. If something begins to exhibit some property, there is a time in which the property is partially exhibited. But it makes no sense to say that the universe ever partially existed. Perhaps what theists mean when they say that the universe began to exist is that there was some time when the universe did not exist and then some later time when it did exist. But, according to classical general relativity, this is not what actually happened and there is no indication that quantum gravity will change this conclusion. In the classical big bang picture of cosmology there was never a time in which the universe did not exist, so there is no coherent notion of "before the big bang". This is because in general relativity time is a part of space-time and the big bang is a space-time singularity, not a singularity in space that occurred at some instant in time.

Both the First Cause Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument attempt to show that there was an external cause to the big bang, and they both fail. But even if there was a sound argument showing that the big bang had an external cause, this would in no way point to the existence of a supernatural, conscious being. This is because there would be no reason to believe that there could be no natural explanations for such an external cause, and natural explanations will always be superior to "God did it", which has no explanatory power.

It is quite possible that the universe has existed, in some form, forever. Our current understanding of cosmology is based on classical general relativity, which breaks down for times earlier than the Planck time of 10-43 seconds. Until we have a fully worked out theory of quantum gravity, we can only speculate on what happened before the Planck time. One possibility is that our universe is a quantum fluctuation in some "meta-universe" that has existed for all time. Lets compare this hypothesis with the hypothesis that God created the universe. Both scenarios postulate the existence of something outside of what we normally think of as our universe. One scenario postulates the existence of an extremely complex conscious entity, while the other only postulates some space in which quantum fluctuations can occur. Even if the two scenarios had equal explanatory power, we would have to say that the natural hypothesis is much more likely to be correct than the supernatural hypothesis, since the natural hypothesis is much simpler. Moreover, as we have already noted, "God did it" is not really an explanation at all, since it doesn't describe anything in terms of something that we already understand. The quantum fluctuation scenario, while speculative, can potentially provide an explanation, since we do have an understanding of quantum fluctuations. Since the natural scenario has more explanatory power and is much simpler than the "God did it" scenario, we should apply Ockham's Razor and reject "God did it" as non-parsimonious. "

In my view the first cause argument sounds like a plea from ignorance; because theoretical physics hasn't yet explained the origin of the universe, we need to invoke God like some cosmic magician to get things going.

Ares

07-26-03, 01:33 PM

"This would have taken too much time. It took only 3-4 million years for life to show up. It would take around 12 million years to get the correct sequences. Life on Earth simply did not have enough time to occur at random. Indeed, some scientists have begun to speculate that life might be a natural and normal process which will always occur given the right conditions - essentially that their is no randomness to it.

In either event, wether you believe in God or not, at the very least I feel that their is no way that a system like this is created entirely by chance."

Neither of these arguments wash since the Earth is old enough for life to have evolved to its present complexity (it is known to be about 4.5 GY old) and evolution is not a process governed purely by chance. A good run-down is given at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html The fossil record (despite its gaps) is documented well enough to known the origins of most multicelluar organisms (plants and animals) and it is known that bacteria and algae have been here for 2-3 billion years (as Stromatolites and other evidence attest). The evolution of Homo Sapiens from hominid ancestors is also well-established, at least back to about 4 million years or so.

Even if evolution did involve pure chance, (which it doesn't) that doesn't mean chance alone could not have produced the universe. From a philosophical viewpoint, conciously directed purposes only need to be invoked if it can be demonstrated that there is no other possible explanation for the effect, and in my view, there are alternative explanations to God when it comes to the structure and 'design' (to use a rather anthropomorphic term) of the universe.

Ares

07-26-03, 02:09 PM

"It was these idea which lead first to eugenics laws in the early 1900's in the US, which legally allowed sterilization of the "unfit", and by the 1940's, had cultimated into the founding ideologies of the Nazi movements in Germany. Germany thought of itself as the master race of the planet. While Hitler and his regime used Christianity in some of it's propaganda, the writings of Hitler in his autobiography as well as the actions and other documents surviving the regime paint a far differnt picture. One need not be reminded of how many millions of the Jews, Pols, and other ethnicities which died during Hitler's attempts at racial purificaiton. Nor does one need to be reminded of Hitler's attempts to breed the "master race" by cross-breeding teenagers from across Germany who had the traits he considered the most pallatable human traits."

I disagree strongly with your reading of history here. Whilst it is correct that ideas of 'eugenics' did have some foundation from extrapolations of evolution (or more properly the idea of evolution) to the human sphere, the horrors of the 20th century eugenics movement had more to do with the politics and culture at the time than with anything Darwin argued himself (Darwin was by all accounts a deeply virtuous man and worried deeply about the social ramifications of the idea of evolution). The idea that evolution might apply to not just animals but in a teleological fashion to people and nations was developed by the English thinker Herbert Spencer. Marx also was aware of it, though most of his ideas were derived from sources other than Darwin. What needs to be considered though is that long before Darwin, within European culture there was a long history of xenophobia, hatred, paranoia and brutality towards people of other cultures and races, inspired with the enthusiasm of both the Catholic Church and the founders and followers of Protestantism. There are many examples, but I will name a few to jog your memory:

1) The expulsion of Jews from Spain

2) The 'Witch Craze'

3) The Crusades against Islam and Jerusalem

4) The slaughter and exploitation of natives in colonised countries (S.America, Australia, etc)

5) The Catholic and Protestant 'Wars of Religion' (which included the notorious St Bartholomew's Massacre)

6) The acceptance of slavery

7) Institutionalised anti-semitisim, resulting in numerous bloody pogroms against Jews

Number 7) has an especially long history within Christianity, and has been positively encouraged on some occasions.

Many millions of lives were either ended or blighted by these and other atrocities, which over time would probably add up to more than the World Wars took between them. It shouldn't also be forgotten that theologians in both wars were often enthusiastic about it, and regarded it as a matter of pride to get involved (on both sides).

"Millions dead in combat... youths abducted from their homes to be used in genetic cross-breeding experiments, human races herded into camps to be executed based on their genetic make-up... and all in the name of Charles Darwin."

This is complete and utter nonsense. Hitler's ideas were drawn from a number of sources, but his biggest influences were probably German nationalist extremism, political utopianism and the vicious Austrian and German anti-Semitism circulating in Vienna at the time when Hitler was going from flophouse to flophouse and his views were crystallising. By this time Darwin's ideas, applied to the social sphere, had been considerably warped and distorted into a form he (and most sensible scientists at that time) would find repulsive, namely, being used as a tool for political idealogues and fanatics. A standard biography (i.e. Bullock) will show this, as will a reading of Mein Kampf. Hitler's ideas on race and evolution belong to the category of pseudoscience, and a very pernicious one at that. His fictions about 'blood' and 'race' and 'Aryan superiority' had no basis whatsoever in fact (or even extrapolations of fact), nor did his theories of politics, economics, history or culture, and biographers of Hitler are well aware of this.

Hitler's ideas have virtually no correspondence to modern evolutionary biology, and at best, belong in the same realm as Velikovskian astrophysics or Lysenko's genetics. What is more, to errenously blame such a monsterous event as the Holocaust and the Second World War purely and solely on Darwin, when careful historical scholarship over several decades has shown Darwin's ideas had little, if any, relation to these tragedies-is the epitome of ignorance.

Ebedalmo

08-27-03, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Ares
"god has created the universe, because something had to create the universe."

There are some problems with the first cause argument. Here are some outlined from the Freethought zone site:

"First Cause and Cosmological Arguments

The first cause argument states "Everything has a cause and every cause is the result of a previous cause. There must have been something to start off this chain of events, and that something is God." This argument is self-contradictory. The premise is that everything has a cause; the conclusion is that something exists, namely God, which does not have a cause. If we are going to allow something to exist which is uncaused, it is much more sensible to say that the universe itself is uncaused than to postulate the existence of God and say that God is uncaused. After all, we know that the universe exists.

The problem with your argument against the "first cause" theory is that you are equating the universe with G-d, namely you are saying that since we are postulating a non-contingent being, which we cannot observe, we might as well postulate a non-contingent universe, which we can observe. But of course we know that that the universe is contingent and bound by natural laws, and certainly could not have created itself! Therefore, I think it is logical to say that a non-contingent, infinite being (or force, if you like) created the big bang, created time, and created the natural laws of our universe, and this being/force is what people call G-d.

curioucity

08-28-03, 05:05 AM

Well...... the same ol' battle between religion and science.
I don't know how to comment on this actually.... especially since I'm now an atheist ( I was not, according to everybody around me) who still think about divinity (confused? no i hope, that's easy to get)
Whacking this topic alone is as frustrating as deciding whether or not eternity exists.....

Hercules Rockefeller

08-28-03, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Xevious
Before you can say it is all an illusion, you must bear a burdon of proof. You are making the statement God DOES NOT exist. You must follow through with the burdon of proof, or give up the argument.

That's a logical fallacy. You cannot disprove a negative. In other words, you cannot disprove something for which no evidence exists in the first place. It is the creationists that have the burden of proof, not science. It is they that must provide positive evidence that God does exist. They must provide some sort of objective, measurable, physical and quantifiable test that measures “God”. Until that time, the notion of “God” and anything to do with "God" <BIG>is not science</BIG>.

and2000x

09-21-03, 07:12 PM

This is helpful:

www.fuckchrist.com

Halcyon

10-01-03, 11:36 AM

Fathoms

10-05-03, 05:37 PM

How many people here know that a part of the temporal lobe produces intense feelings of spiritual transcendance, combined with a sense of mystical presence when stimulated? Even unreligious people, having had this area stimulated, were able to experience things like being visited by God, or seeing Jesus in a strobe light.

There has been alot said about that aspect of neuroscience in recent years, most of which would lead one to conclude that whether you like it or not, the brain plays an important role in the experience of the transcendent. You can make of that any number of things but the core of my personal philosophy is 'wait and see'. I feel as though the treatment of consciousness and mystical experience as something "purely" physical to be rather niave. Equally so in treating it as something that is vitally seperate from the physical.

Now, is the slow wave seizure over the temporal lobe the cause...or the effect of such an experience? The experiments by Michael Persinger of Laurentian University shows without a doubt that the religious feeling, and related experiments, are simply a by-product of stimulation of part of the temporal lobe by electricity.

I feel that cause and effect of the experience is not as important as the experience itself in so far as to claim to have the whole matter solved. You can reduce the taste of coca cola to chemicals, nerve receptors and electrical signals but in doing so you cant be so arrogant as to say you've quantified the experience. Even in a literary sense the words of 'crisp' or 'refreshing' do little to convey the experience because they are just as arbitrary.

Semantics aside, I think anyone calling religious feeling a by product of a stimulatated portion of the temperal lobe is missing the point entirely.

Of course, if there is a god, wouldn't he give his creation a means by which to perceive him? No, because if this part of the brain was intended to be used to percieve him, it would be to perceive him when he presents himself; His presence was produced artificially by electrical stimulation. What other arguments can be brought for and against the meaning of this discovery?

Such a conclusion strikes me as very facile. Life itself is artificial; no effect occurs without a cause and any effect can have a number of possible causes. Our brains have the capacity to feel many things without external stimulation. We can feel pain without having a hot spear jabbed into our skin but it just so happens the brain doesn't consider such an proposition to be constructive.

Unlike most theistic or atheistic minds, I have a very different pretense about the nature of God (if he happens to exist) and it is this: He is under no obligation-much like the universe, to make any logical sense at all. If he does, that great, if he doesn't than oh well. In this case, I DO think he makes perfect sense. He's left his fingerprint in each and every one of his creations that allows them to connect in some manner to a higher state of being. Even if its artifically produced, it is still there. Even if its only an illusion, much like anything we experience, it is also still there. So I'm really not ready to give up on metaphysics just yet.

Gatzzu

10-09-03, 08:00 PM

Faith is ALL in our puny brains. We are only tricking ourselves when we believe that we are special and have spirits. I'm all for knowledge, its factual and doesnt trick me.

Kumar

10-17-03, 05:41 AM

Hello all,

My impression is that whatever is existing (faith, logic, sprituals or science) since long should be true. There can be some language change in them like Latin>>English etc.:)

blackholesun

10-17-03, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Hello all,

My impression is that whatever is existing (faith, logic, sprituals or science) since long should be true. There can be some language change in them like Latin>>English etc.:)

What does that even mean? For someone searching for the truth, you certainly have made up your mide already about what should be and why. Faith and science don't have any reason to be in the same sentence. And what's up with you and Latin vs. English and what does that have to do with anything?

Kumar

10-17-03, 09:22 PM

It is just an example. The terms those mentioned in faith(sprituals) may not be accepeted now in the their language but may be existing/accepted in other name/our language. Pls study and try to understand the topic posted by me' The Basic Science of Elements' in ' General Science & Technology' forum.

Best wishes.

blackholesun

10-20-03, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
It is just an example. The terms those mentioned in faith(sprituals) may not be accepeted now in the their language but may be existing/accepted in other name/our language. Pls study and try to understand the topic posted by me' The Basic Science of Elements' in ' General Science & Technology' forum.

Best wishes.

I did. And trust me, you know NOTHING about them. I, on the other hand had classes on nuclear physics. But what's the point in helping you if you already have your mind made up and you're not willing to learn? You were applying philosophy to basic nuclear structure in order to further dulusion yourself with your own homeopathy ideas. I give up on your because you definately don't have the mind of a scientist....more like a monk. And those are two very different things. Faith and science don't apply to each other.

Kumar

10-20-03, 03:08 AM

Hello blackholesun,

Sorry, I made you bit annoyed. Whatever mentioned by me in other topic is based on which other known persons mentioned there. Should we just reject all those things which our ancesstor have given to us. They were not fools. The current science is nothing but just a name change of old science. Compare qualities of old sprituals with current atomic theory, everything will be just matched like I matched., ONENESS OF 'HIM' in my that topic. There is nothing which is wrong in the sprituals but we looks them at 'MACRO LEVEL' whereas they are actually at 'MICRO LEVELS'. Eg; Human body in place of Human cells. I myself is taking homeopathic medicines since last 3 years and getting 100% desired results, then how can I disagree with them. My ten year old diabetes is getting cured(and found some major problem in current system which is well under consideration) than how can I disbelive it. We have been hypnotised do not means we should ignore other aspects. We should keep our eyes open till anything is still unclear.

OK, as I said that homeopathic medicines do effects. Tell me the logic & science by your available means. If you say that you can't prove than it, may be your weakness that you can not test & prove the already proven therapy on millions.

I am trying to prove a faith with knowledge which is also not encouraged. So who has made up in his mind as final. If I just have to follow CS principal than I/we can not prove any thing. The principals of CS can also be wrong who can know the future?/

Sorry to bother you.

Quasi

10-20-03, 07:47 PM

I had to quote this here in particular:
"Good and evil have no reality except in terms of each other. One can be measured or defined only in terms of the other."
Can anyone say circular argument! Hee hee. In other words the two do not exist and have no real value. We already know that whoever transfers the most of their genetic material in their lifetimes is the most successful, and drives evolution. Period. So in strict natural terms, rape, murder, and any other behavior is perfectly acceptable under "Universal law" as the author states it. Most of this religious dogma is so vague I can't even follow it.
"4. Because the human mind can exult emotionally in what is good, while appraising objectively what is evil for the purpose of future avoidance strategies, living, for good people with enough wisdom to control the mind, is frequently more than merely endurable."
Apparently the author has never been to Africa, or seen war.

Kumar

10-20-03, 10:41 PM

Good and evil have no reality except in terms of each other. One can be measured or defined only in terms of the other."

Both are balancing factors to nature. Like sweat & bitter. When evil is in excess it can be balanced by goods & vice versa. These are two things in one weighing balance & so can be measured or defined only in terms of each other. It is mentioned in Hindu ancient books that both were created by GOD from his body to balance the nature.

blackholesun

10-20-03, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Hello blackholesun,

Sorry, I made you bit annoyed. Whatever mentioned by me in other topic is based on which other known persons mentioned there. Should we just reject all those things which our ancesstor have given to us. They were not fools. The current science is nothing but just a name change of old science. Compare qualities of old sprituals with current atomic theory, everything will be just matched like I matched., ONENESS OF 'HIM' in my that topic. There is nothing which is wrong in the sprituals but we looks them at 'MACRO LEVEL' whereas they are actually at 'MICRO LEVELS'. Eg; Human body in place of Human cells. I myself is taking homeopathic medicines since last 3 years and getting 100% desired results, then how can I disagree with them. My ten year old diabetes is getting cured(and found some major problem in current system which is well under consideration) than how can I disbelive it. We have been hypnotised do not means we should ignore other aspects. We should keep our eyes open till anything is still unclear.

OK, as I said that homeopathic medicines do effects. Tell me the logic & science by your available means. If you say that you can't prove than it, may be your weakness that you can not test & prove the already proven therapy on millions.

I am trying to prove a faith with knowledge which is also not encouraged. So who has made up in his mind as final. If I just have to follow CS principal than I/we can not prove any thing. The principals of CS can also be wrong who can know the future?/

Sorry to bother you.

There is something called the "Placebo effect". I'm sure you've heard of it. If people think something is really working, the body can have a strong immunal reaction. It's been well documented and the mechanics are pretty well understood (some of the neural system isn't as understood though). But I fail to see how you pull religion into science. Once again, who cares of past sciences and their religious undertones. If a theory holds, so be it. But little has held up past 150 years. Nuclear and atomic sciences as well as quantum mechanics do a good job in modeling what is around us. If it didn't you wouldn't be using that computer right now. The technology based of these theories shows the continuing fruitation of those theories. If today's technology, where atomic diameters are measured out to the 9th decimal point, can't detect the results of some sort of homeophathic effect, I fail to see how you can show how it works. I base what I see off of modern theory because it's gotten us to where we are today, and not in some Middle Ages God-fearing hellhole that's attitude almost killed science altogether.

Kumar

10-20-03, 11:25 PM

If today's technology, where atomic diameters are measured out to the 9th decimal point, can't detect the results of some sort of homeophathic effect, I fail to see how you can show how it works. I base what I see off of modern theory because it's gotten us to where we are today, and not in some Middle Ages God-fearing hellhole that's attitude almost killed science altogether.

Even if there is what you say is "Placebo effect", then also effect is there which even serves the real purpose i.e.healing. But I don't feel fake effects can survive so long.

I,therefore, trying to find some contaminatig silica molecule's effect, and/or PE effects due to molecular rearrangements, possible chemical reactions or otherwise. I do not find any other possibility. Modren theories have only made us to think like this otherwise it was going on. All that which the MS have given/told us can be wrong also which is evident in some cases. We don't know whether we are gaining or loosing in actual sense from it.

However, I am finding that much work is not done on PE in comparisn to KE as not getting sufficient detais on internet.

Thanks & good wishes.

Canute

10-23-03, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Halcyon
How many people here know that a part of the temporal lobe produces intense feelings of spiritual transcendance, combined with a sense of mystical presence when stimulated? Even unreligious people, having had this area stimulated, were able to experience things like being visited by God, or seeing Jesus in a strobe light. ...snip.

Now, is the slow wave seizure over the temporal lobe the cause...or the effect of such an experience? The experiments by Michael Persinger of Laurentian University shows without a doubt that the religious feeling, and related experiments, are simply a by-product of stimulation of part of the temporal lobe by electricity.
Well yes. For the same reason when you press your hands over your eyes and then release them you see stars. This does not prove that astronomy is a load of rubbish.

Almost every sensation you can imagine having can be artificailly created by stimulating the brain appropriately. What does this prove beyond the fact that idealism might be true?

The point is that people sometimes have transcendental experiences in the mercifully complete absence of neuroscientists. It is those that need explaining, not the laboratory reproductions.

Faith and knowledge are not related in a simplistic way. Analysis shows that knowledge is impossible without faith. I posted a over-long essay on the religion forum a while ago in an attempt to defuse some of the dogmaticism about faith and knowledge that appears there (and here). It sank without trace but it's probably still there if you're interested. I think it was headed 'Faith'.

Faith and knowledge are not opposites, they are pretty much the same thing.

(I don't know how to link it properly but this might get there
http://www.sciforums.com/editpost.php?s=&action=editpost&postid=450484

Kumar

10-24-03, 03:51 AM

Well yes. For the same reason when you press your hands over your eyes and then release them you see stars. This does not prove that astronomy is a load of rubbish.

canuate,

You post something good. I found doctors who respects sprituals also along with science are considered as best doctors. Btw, can you bit expand that how we see star on keeping hands on eyes?
Almost every sensation you can imagine having can be artificailly created by stimulating the brain appropriately. What does this prove beyond the fact that idealism might be true?

Faith and knowledge are not related in a simplistic way. Analysis shows that knowledge is impossible without faith. ..It sank without trace but it's probably still there if you're interested. I think it was headed 'Faith'.

Faith and knowledge are not opposites, they are pretty much the same thing.

Faith and knowledge are very much related to each other in sense that faith creates knowledge & knowledge creates faith. Both are pursuer to each other like hen & egg. It is also seen that: good things usually sank without traces in current times, do not mean that those were not good, but just time behave accordingly!!

Kumar

10-30-03, 12:04 AM

This subject looks bit silly to discuss in this SCIENCE FORUM. Is it not more suitable to discuss in 'Phylosophy' OR 'Subcultures' Forums. Where are modretors, are they only for some menbers?? :confused:

Halcyon

10-31-03, 06:53 PM

I was only attempting to instigate discussion. I doubt I ever will post my personal beliefs on any of these matters, because as anyone can see from similar threads that it is pointless act. However; You feel an emotion, it registers somewhere in the limbic system. Stimulating this area brings recurrence of the emotion. This is what neuroscience tells us. It is also well known that every emotion is a survival mechanism, indeed, every base function of the brain is so. So...what makes this particular experience an evolutionary necessity? When all the rediculous human memes and ideas are taken out of the picture, before intelligent analyses of experience, what was the use of this particular aspect of our neurological make-up?

Canute

11-01-03, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Halcyon
However; You feel an emotion, it registers somewhere in the limbic system. Stimulating this area brings recurrence of the emotion. This is what neuroscience tells us.
Who feels an emotion?

It is also well known that every emotion is a survival mechanism, indeed, every base function of the brain is so.
Well known by whom?

So...what makes this particular experience an evolutionary necessity? [/B]
Experience is definitely not considered an evolutionary necessity. In fact the evolutionary function of experience remains a complete scientific mystery. Surprising at it may seem in neo-Darwinism experience is not considered to have ANY evolutionary function.

Halcyon

11-04-03, 10:47 AM

Jesus Christ, man, bone up on your neurophysiology.

EVERYTHING you experience, everything that makes it into your conscious realm does so by functions in your brain. You have specific areas that filter out out huge amounts of of data so that you only get what filters deem necessary for you to function properly. By function properly I mean solve problems, think ahead, perpetuate the species, survive, ad nauseum. Experience is VERY much a survival necessity, and as everyone(By everyone, I mean the educated, since you asked.) knows, survival of the fittest is the basic function of evolution. This stuff hasn't been a mystery for many, MANY years, I don't know where you pulled that from, but it isn't even close to true. If you want specific examples for what particular feeling/emotion/experience serves what purpose, read. There are textbooks, independant books by researchers in the fields, theses, and hundreds of scientific abstracts in journals like Science and Nature. For the lay person, I'd suggest reading Mapping The Mind by Rita Carter. Read something, just get a better idea of what is actually known about this particular area of scientific inquiry.

Who feels an emotion?

hahahaha. Very funny.

Canute

11-04-03, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Halcyon
[B]Jesus Christ, man, bone up on your neurophysiology.

Ah, such confidence. I think maybe you want to consider doing the same. You'll find that try as you might you cannot back up your wild claims with any research findings. Don't you realise that if you could prove what you said above you'd become famous overnight? It's pure conjecture of the kind that neuroscientists rather unrigorously like to indulge in, but which they cannot yet prove to be true.

Great minds are currently working on these questions. They are doing this because as yet we do not have the answers. The neuroscientific literature can be misleadingly confident, full of complex theories based on dodgy and not very well hidden assumptions. Try reading some journals of mind and consciousness studies for a more honest view of the current state of our knowledge.

wesmorris

11-04-03, 03:32 PM

I understand the evolutionary significance of experience. I've posted tons of crap about it.

Basically experience as in "the ability to remember events in one's environment over time" allows "the ability to contextualize" which the brain is pretty good at.

The ability to contextualize and reflect upon one's experience allows the prediction of future events, which allows one to plan, which greatly improves one's chances of survival.

Somewhat oversimplified but..

Maybe I've missed something? Irrelevant?

Halcyon

11-04-03, 05:50 PM

Canute,
There is not one single thing in the entire history of the universe that can be proven to be true. Science cannot empirically prove anything. But look what all we have to show for it. We have ideas and technology that work. We are able to learn more about the world around and within us with each step we take because we use these things that work. None of it can be ever proven to be ultimately true, but it does work. Now, I don't need reading suggestions, Consciousness has been the focal point of my research(Yes, research) for years now. Sure, our understanding is still evolving and changing with each step, and perhaps the ideas I posted may get corrected somewhere down the line, but for now, that is what we KNOW about experience, and it works.

Wes, that is exactly what I was talking about. :)

Canute

11-05-03, 09:23 AM

Halcyon

I take your point about ultimate truth. However let's assume the current scientific model is true. Even in this case it has nothing fundamental to say about the relationship between brain and consciousness. Science does not claim to understand consciousness. This is not a criticism of science, it is just the case. We have no scientific proof that it exists, and no proof that it doesn't. Neither has freewill yet been disproved. Your opinion is a very marginal one even within science, based on belief rather than observation. Even Dan Dennett, most prominent among those who take your view, can’t make a convincing case.

You say that consciousness is the focus of your research. I suspect you assume that consciousness is epiphenomenal and non-causal and start researching accordingly.

Wes

Haven’t you mis-defined experience above and substituted thinking instead? Thinking is considered causal, ‘experiencing’ is not.

Canute

11-05-03, 09:24 AM

wesmorris

11-05-03, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Canute
Wes

Haven’t you mis-defined experience above and substituted thinking instead? Thinking is considered causal by science, ‘experiencing’ is not.

I don't think so, no. Experience is different that experiencing. Experience implies that you have abstracted input into your conceptual inter-relationship. That conceptual inter-relationship is in effect, your mind.

'experiencing' is part of the act of abstraction. it could be considered the whole of abstraction. Once you're done experiencing, you have an experience. Experience is as I said above.

Canute

11-05-03, 09:35 AM

Sorry, I don't get that.

wesmorris

11-05-03, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Canute
Sorry, I don't get that.

I'm sure you can be more specific.

Canute

11-06-03, 06:17 AM

Ok. It's probably just the words.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Experience implies that you have abstracted input into your conceptual inter-relationship. That conceptual inter-relationship is in effect, your mind.
'Conceptual inter-relationship'?

'experiencing' is part of the act of abstraction. it could be considered the whole of abstraction.
'Abstraction'?

Once you're done experiencing, you have an experience. [/B]
That seems to be self-contradictory.

wesmorris

11-06-03, 08:41 AM

/Conceptual inter-relationship'?

Yes. The relationships of the concepts you've constructed (via your experience) to themselves. How they are oriented with one another. How they interact when you think. It's all a form of geometry IMO. Further as I previously stated, I believe that this relationship basically comprises the essence of mind.

/'Abstraction'?

There is a dictionary definition that fits my meaning perfectly. I basically mean "taking input and making it into concepts" or "taking our common medium and changing into my thoughts.

/That seems to be self-contradictory.

It's just tense. I experienced something so I can now refer to my experience? Dig? If I'm now experiencing something, later I can refer to the experience I had before. I might even be having an experience right now that I could later refer to as an experience. Just showing what I meant with the orginal statement.

Canute

11-06-03, 12:46 PM

Wes

Thanks. I go along with all that. But I don't think you're describing what experience is.

wesmorris

11-06-03, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Canute
Wes

Thanks. I go along with all that. But I don't think you're describing what experience is.

Well, I stated it before: "the ability to remember events in one's environment over time". What more are you looking for? I mean, it's technically merely the structural arrangement of a bunch of nuerons (how they relate to one another) in a particular brain. That arrangement manifests itself in a number of ways, the most significant of which is the arrangement of your mind (the conceptual inter-relationships).

Canute

11-06-03, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by wesmorris
[B]Well, I stated it before: "the ability to remember events in one's environment over time". What more are you looking for?
I assume that here an 'event' is an experience (otherwise there's nothing to remember). In this case the memory of the experience is something different to the experience itself.

I don't disagree with what you say about mind, but you seem to be overlooking the actual experience.

wesmorris

11-06-03, 03:23 PM

/I assume that here an 'event' is an experience (otherwise there's nothing to remember).

Well, I'd say an event is an event. It isn't an experience until it is abstracted don't you think?

/In this case the memory of the experience is something different to the experience itself.

We were discussing the evolutionary purpose of experience. To me, this context dictates that you're talking about "someone's experience" as in "something they experienced".

/I don't disagree with what you say about mind, but you seem to be overlooking the actual experience.

I don't think so. It seems to me that you're simply confusing what that experience actually is. Observation of events generate an experience subjectively by definition. Until it is experienced, it is not and experience.

Canute

11-06-03, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by wesmorris
[B]I understand the evolutionary significance of experience. I've posted tons of crap about it.
Maybe. But according to current theory experience has no effect on evolution whatsoever. I agree with you that it does, but we're in a very non-scientific minority.

Basically experience as in "the ability to remember events in one's environment over time" allows "the ability to contextualize" which the brain is pretty good at.
I'm going to keep disagreeing with you on this one. It's not experience by any dictionary definition, it is the remembering of past experiences. Experiences are things that you have, not just things you look back on.

wesmorris

11-06-03, 06:07 PM

/Maybe. But according to current theory experience has no effect on evolution whatsoever. I agree with you that it does, but we're in a very non-scientific minority.

I'd say that long-term memory and abstract thinking (that which comes with experience) are directly contributable to the dominance/success of the humans, but it'd probably difficult test it. Seems obvious but yeah, the obvious isn't necessarily eh? Hehe.

/I'm going to keep disagreeing with you on this one. It's not experience by any dictionary definition, it is the remembering of past experiences. Experiences are things that you have, not just things you look back on.

Certainly you can have an experience. Technically though, I don't see how it can be considered experience until it is had. You can say "i'm looking forward to this experience" but that really translates into that you're looking forward to remembering, or the actual act of the abstraction itself (e.g. rollercoasters, sex, whatever). You can keep disgreeing if you'd like though! ;) I'm just calling it how I see it. Doesn't mean much in the long run I suppose.

Watcher

11-06-03, 09:43 PM

scientific rationalism
or
biblical fairy tales

We toss these phrases around like concrete blocks... so cleanly and clearly defined, and so distinctly different! The defender of each choice seems so cozily confident in his arguments...

But remember as we go forward that even scientific rationalism (which I rely on every day as an engineer) is based on our PERCEPTION of the universe around us; and recognize that our communications are based on murky cerebral constructs called "words"...

When you look at it more closely, even scientific rationalism is not particularly reliable. The scientific method requires MEASUREMENT of the world around us, through perception; and perception takes place through the transducers that we call our senses; and that information is interpreted through the data acquisition unit of our brain. We take all this for granted, since we ONLY have this pathetically crude set of anthropoid sensors with which to comprehend the universe.

Which brings me to my point. Aren't we more than a bit arrogant to think that we as humans have any clue regarding the origins of our existence, to even begin to grasp the true nature of being or conciousness? Simply because we can cobble together a digital computer, pump out a few second-order differential equations, or engineer a crude space-vehicle?

Halcyon

11-18-03, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Canute
Halcyon

I take your point about ultimate truth. However let's assume the current scientific model is true. Even in this case it has nothing fundamental to say about the relationship between brain and consciousness. Science does not claim to understand consciousness. This is not a criticism of science, it is just the case. We have no scientific proof that it exists, and no proof that it doesn't. Neither has freewill yet been disproved. Your opinion is a very marginal one even within science, based on belief rather than observation. Even Dan Dennett, most prominent among those who take your view, can’t make a convincing case.

You say that consciousness is the focus of your research. I suspect you assume that consciousness is epiphenomenal and non-causal and start researching accordingly.

I may have been a bit too hasty to post, I seem to have a bad habit of playing devils advocate. I personally don't have any idea on the nature of consciousness, and I would never be so bold to say that anyone knows the nature of such. I do think, however, think that Dennet made a decent argument for it's epiphenomenal nature, granted, I haven't heard very many arguments to the contrary. I understand your point about burden of proof and testability. I was under the impression that epiphenomena, as opposed to cartesian duality, was the majority among scientific thinkers. I suppose, like everything, it's all relative to where you stand.

Canute

11-18-03, 05:36 PM

Halcyon

You're probably right about this bit. Dennett never makes an obviously weak case, and epiphenomenalism of some variety or other is probably the most popular view in scientific circles.

However the case for it has not been proved. It is a scientifically undisturbing hypothesis, but philosophers, less quick to jump to convenient conclusions, are less sure, and many argue that the hypothesis is illogical and incapable of being true.

You may have read all there is to read about all this, I can't tell, but in case not then it's worth looking into. The issues aren't all that complicated when you get down to basics, (something Dennett is less good at doing), yet it's a fundamental scientific problem, one that has the potential, in principle, to make us rethink the whole structure of science. It's actually possible to take the experts on on this issue without being one. Nobody can figure it, and some argue that it's not a scientific topic at all.

Every argument is available is on this site somewhere. (Chalmers' 'The Problem of Consciousness' is brilliant (seminal some would call it. It outlines all the key problems). http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html

Bon voyage
Canute

Canute

11-18-03, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by wesmorris
I'd say that long-term memory and abstract thinking (that which comes with experience) are directly contributable to the dominance/success of the humans, but it'd probably difficult test it. Seems obvious but yeah, the obvious isn't necessarily eh? Hehe.
I agree about memory and experience. But experience, which depends on consciousness, is not an evolutionary factor in neo-Darwinism, however insane that seems. In current evolutionary theory human beings are technically zombies. This is so weird that when I say it I find that people don't always believe it, but try asking a biologist.

Certainly you can have an experience. Technically though, I don't see how it can be considered experience until it is had.
But surely the experience is the having of the experience. You can't have an experience before or after the experience, you've got to have it at the time.

You can say "i'm looking forward to this experience" but that really translates into that you're looking forward to remembering, or the actual act of the abstraction itself (e.g. rollercoasters, sex, whatever). You can keep disgreeing if you'd like though! ;) I'm just calling it how I see it. Doesn't mean much in the long run I suppose. [/B]
You may be right that you can't think about an experience at the precise moment that you're having it, (I can't figure that one at the moment) but I don't see how the the experience and the memory of the experience can be the same thing, there'd be nothing to have a memory of.

I agree that we abstract experiences into our 'conceptual geometry' (nice phrase) as a result of having them, perhaps even as part of having them. But when you stick a pin in your foot you feel the pain before you remember it.

Canute

wesmorris

11-18-03, 07:23 PM

/I agree about memory and experience. But experience, which depends on consciousness, is not an evolutionary factor in neo-Darwinism, however insane that seems. In current evolutionary theory human beings are technically zombies. This is so weird that when I say it I find that people don't always believe it, but try asking a biologist.

That IS hard to believe, but then again I always hated biology. :) Hehe. It seems like something you have to memorize. Meh. Regardless, and this might seem kind of stupid, but I still think it's true: The problem with every approach to understanding consciousness I've ever seen seems to come from the incorrect perspective in time. Everyone seems to me to be looking at it as a traditional physics problem where t clicks from second to second in step with the atomic clock. The way I see it the very first thing you have to do is abandon that perspective and realize that no other moment actually exists besides the relative now. Unless this the model is built with consideration to this realization, I believe it to be doomed to fall short of the mark. Pardon that rambling.

It seems to me that you're mixing terms though. If you equate "experience" in terms of "in the moment" (as you do below) then please explain how that differs from conciousness itself. I suppose the problem with the term in the first place is that it can be used in any reference, future, past or present. My original comment was directed at the past - in the context of "I have had many experiences."

/But surely the experience is the having of the experience.

You messin with me man? :D What the hell does that mean?? Hehe. Please reword it for me?

/You can't have an experience before or after the experience, you've got to have it at the time.

Yes you can refer to it in the three different senses actually. I might even conclude that you technically can't have an "experience" in the present as this is a categorization that can only be applied in the past tense, even if it's "oh this is a cool experience" you are still referring to what just happened and what you might expect to continue happening. There might be a techincality whereby you are categorizing it into an "experience" in short term memory and as such it technically IS an experience in real time, but not consciously. In other words, what sort of classification do you think an "experience" really is? I say you have input and some amount awareness. Are you classifying this combination as experience? If so, how can anyone deny that this "experience" directly effects forthcoming behavior? Bah I need to get my thoughts together on this and put it to a proper post. Pardon.

/You may be right that you can't think about an experience at the precise moment that you're having it, (I can't figure that one at the moment) but I don't see how the the experience and the memory of the experience can be the same thing, there'd be nothing to have a memory of.

Isn't this just a syntax thing? Seems we've gotten the word all jumbled up. After hearing your thoughts about it I'll attempt to organize a proper train of thought for you.

/I agree that we abstract experiences into our 'conceptual geometry' (nice phrase) as a result of having them, perhaps even as part of having them. But when you stick a pin in your foot you feel the pain before you remember it.

(thanks, did you miss the thread?) Certainly, but you may refer to it as an experience you once had of sticking a pin in your foot. Damn the semantics! :)

Canute

11-19-03, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by wesmorris
That IS hard to believe, but then again I always hated biology. :)
Barmy isn't it? I don't think most of science has quite woken up to the real implications of the problem of consciousness yet.

Hehe. It seems like something you have to memorize. Meh. Regardless, and this might seem kind of stupid, but I still think it's true: The problem with every approach to understanding consciousness I've ever seen seems to come from the incorrect perspective in time. Everyone seems to me to be looking at it as a traditional physics problem where t clicks from second to second in step with the atomic clock. The way I see it the very first thing you have to do is abandon that perspective and realize that no other moment actually exists besides the relative now. Unless this the model is built with consideration to this realization, I believe it to be doomed to fall short of the mark. Pardon that rambling.
Bang on the issue imo. Those researching consciousness non-scientifically often argue that time is not what it seems to be, and that intemporality is the real truth. Hence their practice of learning to pay attention to the 'now' (which is in a strange sense outside of time, or requires stepping outside of time).

It seems to me that you're mixing terms though. If you equate "experience" in terms of "in the moment" (as you do below) then please explain how that differs from conciousness itself.
It doesn't really. The most common definition of consciousness is that it is experience, aka 'what it is like to be'.

You messin with me man? :D What the hell does that mean?? Hehe. Please reword it for me?
As you say, we can anticipate an experience and we can remember experiences. But the experience happens in the 'now'. If it didn't then consciousness wouldn't exist in the now.

Remembering or anticipating is an experience, so remembering an experience is[I] an experience, right now.

Yes you can refer to it in the three different senses actually. I might even conclude that you technically [i]can't have an "experience" in the present as this is a categorization that can only be applied in the past tense, even if it's "oh this is a cool experience" you are still referring to what just happened and what you might expect to continue happening.
I suppose you're right in one way. If you focus on thinking about experiences rather than having them then it will seem like experiences are in the past, since thinking takes time. But I feel that you're confusing the experience with the event that causes the experience. The causes are in the past, but the experience only becomes an experience at the moment it becomes a conscious experience, and that must happen at the time it happens, if you see what I mean. You can have a memory of a past experience, but it's completely impossible to have an experience in the past.

There might be a techincality whereby you are categorizing it into an "experience" in short term memory and as such it technically IS an experience in real time, but not consciously.
I would say that an experience is only an experience to the extent that you're conscious of having it, and that an 'unconscious experience' is an oxymoron. Still, I've heard some scientific thinkers argue something like what you say here. But it leads to contradictions. Scienctific diehards are wriggling on the hook over this one, and even read one published paper that states that what we think of as our experience is not actually our experience. I don't understand how people get stuff like that published.

In other words, what sort of classification do you think an "experience" really is? I say you have input and some amount awareness. Are you classifying this combination as experience? If so, how can anyone deny that this "experience" directly effects forthcoming behavior? Bah I need to get my thoughts together on this and put it to a proper post. Pardon.
I would be ok with defining consciousness as experience, (with provisos). After all if you're not experiencing anything you're not conscious.

The question of how science can deny that experiences affect behaviour is unanswerable I think. I don't have an answer anyway. It seems to be a desperate move to save science from having to deal with the subjective. Unfortunately the scienctific method is incapable of proving the existence of experiences, so it's in a difficult position on the issue.

The argument is that when you stick your hand in a fire by accident the signals sent to your brain from your hand cause you to take it out again pretty damn quick for strictly physically deterministic reasons, and that 'pain' has nothing at all to do with your response. That isn't to say that you don't feel pain, but rather that it doesn't make any difference whether you feel it or not.

The insanity of this argument has been pointed out by many philosophers, but nothing much changes in science, in which consciousness must be non-causal or the whole pack of cards starts to collapse.

(thanks, did you miss the thread?)
I think I did for some reason.

Certainly, but you may refer to it as an experience you once had of sticking a pin in your foot. Damn the semantics! :)
Nope, I still don't get it. How can you remember something that didn't happen at the time? As above I think you're mixing up the cause of the experience with the experience itself. If you stick a pin in your foot and don't experience the pain until five minutes later the experience of pain is still in the present moment. Later on, in the present moment, you may experience the memory of the pain, but the experience is always right now, as you said earlier.

Canute

Q25

12-19-03, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Xevious
As I said earlier: PROVE God does not exist.
ok,I'll try
God as defined by your bible =omni everything,right?
he is all mighty
all knowing
everywhere at the same time
controls everything
and is invisible:rolleyes:
do you realy believe that something so CONTRADICTORY can exist?
and he created man in His image,
so how come man isnt invisible???
heck everything in the bible is totaly wacko,
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

now im very knew to this scientific stuff,but its my understanding that matter,the stuff universe is made of cannot be destroyed,
only changed therefore,universe wasnt created ,
had no begining nor end,
it has always existed,in some form shape or another.
so theres absolutely no need for believing in god,
www.atheists.org

knowledge vs faith?
I take knowledge,thank you,
if you want to pray to god for a cure when you get sick instead of going to the hospital,go ahead knock your self out,
while youre at it go handle some poisonous snakes,as your bible god commands,
we'll see how far your faith will take you.
if you want to be a functioning member of the modern society,better flush the nonsense superstitions down the crapper
www.thewaronfaith.com