could you convince

[audible]

because that was your name before you changed it, and it a very nice name.
I'm sorry, I prefer it to water.

 

[kenworth]

matter is only energy in motion.

so?the question still stands.

 

[ellion]

so?the question still stands.

actually i realised there is another question which has relevance. what was the cause of the inertia that contained the potential for motion?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

if I understand this assertion correctly, the humans creating are parents, or doctors cloning, in the case of cloning they would strive for perfection, but with parenting its haphazard, but we all think of our children as perfect.( this is a valid point( but does not try and convince me of a god))

This interpretation is just fine. I know that when parents care, they make
sure to get regular checkups, the mom may take vitamins and regulates her
diet, the father may ensure the environment the baby will be living in is
optimal. The assertion can also apply to material goods. Creating watches,
snow boards, air planes, etc. The assertion alone is not intended to convince
you to believe in the existence of 'God'. It is part of a foundation I will use to
try and convince you of the existence of 'God'. Would my interpretation be
correct that this assertion is accepted as true?

as we can only know our own reality, then it would be flawless.( this is a valid point( but does not try and convince me of a god))

Again, the assertion is not meant to be the convincing factor... only part
of the initial foundation. It does sound like the assertion is beinc accepted
as true. Would this be a correct interpretation on my part?

no, the creation of a human is haphazard, we are not perfect, and may never be.(but what has this to do with a god.)

Thanks for the response. I think I may have mis-represented the assertion
as the interpretation in the response suggests that I was trying to state
that humans are perfect. Let me give the assertion a second try:

ASSERTION #3: Reality (at some point) produced humans (i.e. we came
into existence by natural processes in reality -evolution being the most accurate model to date-). The way humans behave is the result of how
the natural processes of reality made us; therefore, the human behavior
of creating works of high quality when they care about the result is how reality made us.

Let me know if this assertion makes more sense and what your thoughts on it are.

yes we want them, but no car is perfect either, even though we strive for perfection,(but what has this to do with a god.)

I am glad to hear that we're in agreement that the fundamental reason why
cars exist is that people want them. For the record I am not implying that
cars are perfect or that their existence is proof of 'God'. This assertion is
just another part of the base and it sounds like it is being accepted as
true (please correct me if I am wrong).

agreed, but they make a good arguement, as opposed to, it must of been god.

I am glad to hear that we're in agreement again. I am not implying that it must have been 'God'. Again, this is only part of a foundation and it sounds
like this assertion is being accepted as true (please let me know if I am
wrong).

you cant say that something that does not exist in reality, can effect reality, so that just brings us back to "why" we will always be left with the 'why' component.
.

I jumped into this part too soon and made an awful argument here. Let's
strike it out and see how we do on the assertions. If they are all accepted
as true (given our current discussion) then I will try to issue an argument
for the existence of 'God' and make reference to assertions (as a foundation)
throughout the argument. Let me know if this works for you.

 

[audible]

crunchy cat: perhaps I'm wrong,but I was under the impression you are an atheist.
the reason I ask is, if you have'nt managed to convince yourself, how do you expect to convince fahrenheit.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

ASSERTION #3: Reality (at some point) produced humans (i.e. we came
into existence by natural processes in reality-evolution being the most accurate model to date-). The way humans behave is the result of how
the natural processes of reality made us

yes, because reality/creation is random, the creation of a human is haphazard, we are not perfect, and may never be.

therefore, the human behavior
of creating works of high quality where they care about the result, is how reality made us.

no, it's how we evolved and continue to evolve.( we do strive for perfection.)

I am glad to hear that we're in agreement again. I am not implying that it must have been 'God'. Again, this is only part of a foundation and it sounds
like this assertion is being accepted as true (please let me know if I am
wrong).

I agreed

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something seperated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ---Albert Einstein

 

[Crunchy Cat]

crunchy cat: perhaps I'm wrong,but I was under the impression you are an atheist.
the reason I ask is, if you have'nt managed to convince yourself, how do you expect to convince fahrenheit.

You are correct , I am an atheist. Farenheit opened a challenge and for
some reason I just couldn't resist (I do have some additional motives and
I"ll keep those quiet for now... at least until I'm done here ).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Thanks for the detailed repsonse Farenheit. It sounds like we are in
agreement with all the assertions but one (Assertion #3). I would like to
address the offending component of #3 and see where it can lead us.

OFFENDING COMPONENT OF ASSERTION #3:

...therefore, the human behavior of creating works of high quality where they care about the result, is how reality made us.

RESPONSE:

no, it's how we evolved and continue to evolve.( we do strive for perfection.)

The disagreement here suggests that 'evolution' and 'reality' are two
seperate entities. My view is that 'evolution' is a process created by
reality (by random chance, by obligatory chance, etc.). To me the
probability of the processes existance isn't a concern. What is known is
that the process exists and it's the result of something very natural
(physical/mathematical law) no matter how probable or improbable.

Based on this, let me know what you would think about a revised statment
on my part:

"...therefore, the human behavior of creating works of high quality when they
care about the result, is how the reality-created process of evolution made
us."

Thanks!

 

[fahrenheit 451]

therefore, the human behavior of creating works of high quality when they
care about the result, is how the reality-created process of evolution made
us."

if you had said continuing to make us, or just simply "makes" us rather than "made", it might sound more realistic.
but I cant say as I agree, with your statement.
it has'nt made us we're still evolving.
as we evolve we become more and more discerning, eventually we may meet perfection, but we wont be satisfied.

however I'm an atheist as you are, if your arguement convinces you, and you become a born again xian, then it stands to reason it must convince me.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

if you had said continuing to make us, or just simply "makes" us rather than "made", it might sound more realistic.
but I cant say as I agree, with your statement.
it has'nt made us we're still evolving.
as we evolve we become more and more discerning, eventually we may meet perfection, but we wont be satisfied.

however I'm an atheist as you are, if your arguement convinces you, and you become a born again xian, then it stands to reason it must convince me.

I am about as close to being a born again xian as a ham is to being
psychic . I hear ya' though on your analysis... what if the following
modification is made:

"...therefore, the current human behavior of creating high quality works when
they care is a 'snapshot' result of the reality-created process of evolution."

Let me know what you think.

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

Doubts In Science Doesnot Justify God.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

"...therefore, the current human behavior of creating high quality works when
they care is a 'snapshot' result of the reality-created process of evolution."

as humans evolve they strive more for perfection, it's an on going result of evolution.
if you mean, "lets say stop evolution at any point in mans history", and that snapshot would be how man has perfected his life by his works at that time, then yes I would say we have a direct correlation.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

as humans evolve they strive more for perfection, it's an on going result of evolution.
if you mean, "lets say stop evolution at any point in mans history", and that snapshot would be how man has perfected his life by his works at that time, then yes I would say we have a direct correlation.

It's very close to the intended meaning. If we were to stop evolution and
take a snapshot of man's behavior, then we would see that works that
he cares about have higher quality than works that he does not care about.
Sound good?

 

[fahrenheit 451]

It's very close to the intended meaning. If we were to stop evolution and
take a snapshot of man's behavior, then we would see that works that
he cares about have higher quality than works that he does not care about.
Sound good?

yes good enough, I just want to see, how your going to convince you and me.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

yes good enough, I just want to see, how your going to convince you and me.

Cool beans. I want to reiterate all the assertions we agreed upon and
before I do that I want to set an expectation that I wont be able to
convince myself (this wasn't part of the original challenge unless I mis-
understood). As we are two seperate people of differing genetic makeup,
it's fairly safe to say we think differently and this is part of the vehicle
through which I want to convince you. Fair enough?

 

[fahrenheit 451]

Cool beans. I want to reiterate all the assertions we agreed upon and
before I do that I want to set an expectation that I wont be able to
convince myself (this wasn't part of the original challenge unless I mis-
understood). As we are two seperate people of differing genetic makeup,
it's fairly safe to say we think differently and this is part of the vehicle
through which I want to convince you. Fair enough?

allthough I think it's redundant to say you wont convince yourself, but you expect to convince me.
I will play along.

 

[audible]

yes come on crunchy, I want to see this as well.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

yes come on crunchy, I want to see this as well.

Hold yer horses...

 

[Crunchy Cat]

allthough I think it's redundant to say you wont convince yourself, but you expect to convince me.
I will play along.

Thanks for playing along . It's not a matter of my choosing not to convince
myself... it's that I can't. It would be like an eskimo salesman trying to sell
ice to his identical twin whom has the same knowledge, intelligence, and
profession. He may be able to work his sales charm on other eskimos and
it's not going to work on his twin. Anyhow... back on topic. Here are our
current agreed assertions with any relevant ammendments:

ASSERTION #1: When humans 'create', the end result will likely be of
extraordinarily high quality if the creator really cares about the result.
--> AMMENDMENT 1: This could be exemplified by humans creating humans
.............................naturally or artificially and by humans creating things
.............................such as trains, animatronics, and apple pie.

ASSERTION #2: The quality of reality is flawless.
--> AMMENDMENT 1: We have a limitation where we can currently only know
.............................our reality.

ASSERTION #3: Reality (at some point) produced humans (i.e. we came into
existence by natural processes in reality -evolution being the most
accurate model to date-). The way humans behave is the result of how the
natural processes of reality made us; therefore, the current human behavior
of creating high quality works when they care is a 'snapshot' result of the
reality-created process of evolution."
--> AMMENDMENT 1: Humans are not 'Perfect'
--> AMMENDMENT 2: If we were to stop evolution and take a snapshot of man's
.............................behavior, then we would see that works that he cares about
.............................have higher quality than works that he does not care about.

ASSERTION #4: Cars are a product of humans. We know how they come to
be and we know many correct answers as to why they would exist in the
first place (the most fundamental answer being humans want them).
--> AMMENDMENT 1: No cars are 'perfect'.

ASSERTION #5: In m-theory (formerly known as string theory), there are
lots of great models about how 'reality' came to be. No theory to date
postulates why any reality would exist.

I am going to throw a relational proposition out there and I want to get
your thoughts on it:

PROPOSITION #1: Based on Assertions #1, #3, & #4, it would be reasonable
to deduce that humans can create life and 'things'. The more they care,
the more likely their creations will be of high quality.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

PROPOSITION #1: Based on Assertions #1, #3, & #4, it would be reasonable to deduce that humans can create life and 'things'. The more they care,
the more likely their creations will be of high quality.

yes it would be fair to assume that, as we do create, care, and want.