Help Me Out Please

[duendy]

Peace to you guys,
I have listened (read) about the ongoing debates between the "Atheists" and the "Theists" about the begining of life etc......but as a believer of a Creator I have some questions that I would like for you guys to answer for me......

D~~ you see if you begin asking holding to your premise of a "Creator" you may filter what you find THRUOGh that premise. For that is your belief which may stifle what you want to find out

if life did occur from a "Big Bang" then what exploded?

d~~Why "explode"? why use that term? it could be a breathe out, ....it could be something else

I have heard that Matter is the cause but how did Matter get there? It couldnt have always been there could it?

D~~the idea of the dualism between 'matter' and 'spirit' is a pariarchal idea. Goddess people, pagans, knew that matter and spirit were always togther. People now--in philosophy are also re-discovering this very ancient idea. for example checkout professor of philosophy Christian De Quincey www.deepspirit.com He argues that spirit/consciousness and matter ALWAYS are togther, distinct yet always togther. so matter is an active intelligence

I have heard Atheists say that their arguments are logical and religious peoples arguments are illogical yet I wonder because as anyone knows we need a Creator to have a creation so to say that matter has always been there without a Creator is also illogical....

D~~~Only according to your PREMISE which is demanding a "Creator". this is what i meant about how a set-in belief can tend to not REALLY question, cause you filter the answer according to your belief-system




Right now I have a book in front of me but the tree from which it came didnt explode to create my book. I also have a car but I dont need to go to the factory and see them make it to know that it was created there do I? Or how about the Mona Lisa picture.......do you have to see the artist with canvas and paints in hand to know that he painted it? By Atheists standards you should believe that the paint exploded onto the canvas the way it appeared and it happened to make a picture of the Mona Lisa......These arguments seem strange to me because 100 years ago people thought they had the answers to life and that the people 100 years before them were "primitive" for having the thoughts they did at that time (about science etc...) as I'm sure the people 100 years go thought about their ancestors etc etc etc.......so I guess what I'm saying is logically speaking 100 years from now someone will be saying the same thing about you wont they? So doesnt that mean that chances are that what you think now to be the truth is in fact wrong? Why are "Believers any more illogical"?.....<shrug>.....I will say that most of the Atheists on these boards (path and Bells come immdeiatly to mind but not just them) are respectful and I dont post to "flame" or to make anyone mad but these questions bother me.....I hope to bridge an understanding between Believers and Non-Believers with this question.......peace to you :m:

Regarding your idea of 'progress', on one hand i agree with you--ie., that for example people from the earlier eras would look at our techmology and believe it to be magic, sure. BUT when we look at our species HISTORY we have lost so MUCH! many poeple now regardless of being inundates with shiny push-botton gadgets, and being spoilt for choice -IF you are a lucky Westerner, rich or whatever that is--yet still feel they have lost meaning in their lives. THAt is a HUGE loss!

 

[everneo]

A "strong argument" can't be made until either way until the subject's presence can be identified, or the effect of it's presence identified. By definition, the conventional "god(s)" cannot be identified. That leaves only an operational identification by effect.

Then why don't you agree with cause of the time dilation that is proven empirically and explained scientifically. You still call it a mystery?!

One example is that the Earths orbit is such as to support life. Any closer to the sun, and we fry. Any further, and we freeze. Therefore, Earths orbit is the work of a god.

I say, "Not so!" If we were any closer or any further, we would not be here discussing this matter!

Your assertion is not answer but the continuance of your earlier rejection of a creator who made the earth's postion like that for the purpose of start and sustenancce of life here . Theists can also assert that natural laws are such as this are as per the will of the creator with a grand purpose. Both of these 2 opposite assertions yet to be proved/disproved.

 

[marv]

Then why don't you agree with cause of the time dilation that is proven empirically and explained scientifically.

Time "dilation" has never been proven because no experiment attempting to do so has ever exceeded its margin of error. And the so-called scientific "explanations" are only theories and math games.

Theists can also assert that natural laws are such as this are as per the will of the creator with a grand purpose.

This itself is only theoretical. It's acceptable to theists with "faith" in the theory, but unacceptable to those who would ask for proof. I ask for proof.

 

[surenderer]

Marv,
I also ask for proof that you are right...for example tell me how Humans got here......Evolution? ok please show me a missing link (for example a half man-half ape) please tell me how we got where we are today from nothing if you are thinking of the Creator as an old man with a beard then yes I agree with you that doesnt exist. I think that Darwin stated that evolution was a continual process so is it happening today? Have we found fossils that show this transition?(i honestly dont know) Even those who believe in rapid evolution admit that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a alotta fossils that show this right?.......<shrug> The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is missing intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world. Does it make since to believe this? :m:

 

[duendy]

Time is a really weird phenomenon...the sense of its dilation ofr contraction can be really senses in spiritual experiences of various kinds and ordinary experience. the latter of having a shit time or a great time. for the latter it can go quick or strectch out in a luxiourious way

We use language and language can obviously channel the mind to think in cretain ways depending on syntax etc

so, for example we say over here is
(((TIME))))......and,,,,over he er e issss(EteRNITY). so our mind's understanding--cause we are thinking in the way our inheritied language-structure dicates, yeah?...we ASUME that those two terms--what they MEAN are separated. that you cannot have some form of continuous dynamic dimension that is both time ANd eternity. so many religions put it up there, or claim that to know one you must lose the other

regarding evolution and wondering about the evolution of forms--the whole creative surge of life. i feel that the problem uf understanding it from the Western Darwinian and post-Darwinian perspective is the underlying premise of a separation between consciousness and matter, and the assumption that consciousness is a 'product' of matter

rather, can we not explore the insight that matter and consciousness were NEVEr really separate at all, and thus what evolution IS is active creative intelligence...?

 

[everneo]

Time "dilation" has never been proven because no experiment attempting to do so has ever exceeded its margin of error. And the so-called scientific "explanations" are only theories and math games.

You will be proven wrong if you take this argument in physics forum. I will simply pointout few things that prove time dilation due to relativistic effects.
Muon decay; extended life time of particles at high velocites.

This itself is only theoretical. It's acceptable to theists with "faith" in the theory, but unacceptable to those who would ask for proof. I ask for proof.

Theists ask for proof from you that natural laws exist as such without a cause. Your justification that fundamental natural laws don't have a cause is also based on 'faith'. At the most you can use occam's razor to avoid some pink elephant/invisible white crow blah blah too being that cause for argument sake. This tug of war will continue for ever.

 

[marv]

Evolution is not only what appears, but what also disappears. So the question of evolution:

The mechanism, and therefore the proof, is in each of us. We are the products of our parents, but NOT EXACT COPIES of either. It's visible and it's in the DNA, and it's change, i.e., evolution. The appearance of cedar trees in the Missouri Ozarks is an example of adaptive evolution. The appearance of eyeless fish and other water creatures in underground streams is adaptive evolution. The appearance of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the presence of drugs is punctuate evolution.

An experiment (that I won't try):

I sit in a chair with my right heel just resting on a hassock. I hold an iron anvil just above my right knee. I drop said anvil. In doing so, I demonstrate several natural laws that need no theistic origin. I have demonstrated the natural law of gravity - at great sacrifice.

 

[path]

Peace to you guys,
I have listened (read) about the ongoing debates between the "Atheists" and the "Theists" about the begining of life etc......but as a believer of a Creator I have some questions that I would like for you guys to answer for me......if life did occur from a "Big Bang" then what exploded? I have heard that Matter is the cause but how did Matter get there? It couldnt have always been there could it?

I don't think we have all those answers yet though I believe that we will soon (maybe 100 years maybe 200). Just because there is not an answer to every one of lifes' questions does not mean I will simply take the easy out and say "goddidit"

I have heard Atheists say that their arguments are logical and religious peoples arguments are illogical yet I wonder because as anyone knows we need a Creator to have a creation so to say that matter has always been there without a Creator is also illogical

And they are correct as regards logic. You mention a creation must have a creator. Well an atheist (I believe) would say "look, here are the male and female reproducing we can examine what is happening under a microscope, this is what I believe to be true". You can see what is happening therefore the explaination is logical. Now to your mind since this argument is hard to win you need to go further back to a point that science hasn't yet been able to set in stone. That does not make your argument more logical, you still believe in an invisible all powerful being that has never been documented in the physical world and allows all sorts of awful things to occur to which the theist simply shrugs his/her shoulders and says "mysterious are the ways of the almighty superbeing"

I have to get the kids in bed BB later

 

[mustafhakofi]

ok Sorry, I mis-read you post cole grey.
but do you agree with the second part

you have to agree, that your reasoning is better, than for example a five year old or someone with that mental age, it only when you come up against someone, who's logic seems flawless that you doubt yourself.
and in these situations you sit back and listen and learn, unless you a brick wall, and dont want to know the truth.

 

[everneo]

An experiment (that I won't try):

I sit in a chair with my right heel just resting on a hassock. I hold an iron anvil just above my right knee. I drop said anvil. In doing so, I demonstrate several natural laws that need no theistic origin. I have demonstrated the natural law of gravity - at great sacrifice.

You need not do such sacrifice just to prove gravity.

 

[Raithere]

If you dont know then how can you say whats right and whats wrong? How was the universe hot? How? what heat source? why?

What we don't know is what came before, or what caused this relatively small, dense, primeval universe. But we can see that it was relatively small, dense, and hot. It was hot simply for the reason that it was small and dense but where the energy came from initially is beyond our ability to observe at this point. But there are a variety of hypotheses that fit well into the overall structure of empirical physics. Actually, the problem is that there are too many workable theories and we haven't yet been able to determine which of them (if any) might be correct.

But of course the Creator has no body or form so he aint no "little old man with a beard"

How does this resolve anything?

Huh?? you yourself said you dont know how Matter became so that in itself seems unnatural to me<shrug>.......if nothing is unnatural also please show me a "missing link" (I.E. a half man-half ape)or are you dismissing evolution also?

If you want to discuss evolution specifically look up one of the old threads (there are tons of them) or start a new one. My point is simply that the components of life (unlike the components of cars) exist and form naturally all over the universe. A car (or a book, or a painting) is not a good analogy for life.

So you are saying that if thrown enough times it would duplicate the Mona Lisa?....Wait it isnt random? You mean there is an order to it? who would do such a thing?

What I’m saying is that every outcome of such an event is equally improbable. Rolling a 6 is no more improbable than rolling a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Getting the Mona Lisa is no more improbable than any other specific outcome.

But you yourself admit that it's probably incorrect right?

I didn’t refer to anything specifically. What are you referring to?

Wasnt people's thought patterns 500 years ago also based uponobervation and experiment?

500 years ago was pretty much the dawn of science and the scientific method (Galileo ~1600, Newton ~1700). We’ve observed a lot more since then. Some things are unlikely to change, just as some things haven’t really changed since then. Other discoveries will not only add to our understanding but change how what we already know fits into a larger picture. For instance, think of how Einstein’s theory of relativity did not refute Newton’s laws of motion and gravity but instead complimented and expanded our understanding of them.

so what do you believe?

I believe there are some things we just don’t (and perhaps cannot) know.

It obviously happened because we are here today right? There is no scientific "evidence" to the creation of the universe is there? everything is just hypothisis...I perfer to think of a Creator "getting the ball rollin" as every bit as logical as any other solution put forth....peace to you

No. It’s just as illogical as any other assertion of truth on this matter, which was my point. The difference is that scientific hypotheses are at least supported by inductive arguments built upon an empirical framework. Theological hypothesis are simply caught fresh out of thin air as far as I can tell.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

I actually think when the athiest, or believer, works with untestable evidence, the question of logic's role is actually very important. If you believe that human beings are inherently logically functional and are able to come up with good answers based on the tiny amount of knowledge they have about the universe, you will be more likely to trust your own logic when it reaches a point where two apparently contradictory conclusions meet.

I don’t find logic to be the apex of human thought but I do find it a useful tool for analysis. The first thing to do when running into such a contradiction is to examine your premises. Typically you will find the error(s) there.

In your traveling example there is a single error which resolves the apparent contradiction. The error was simply that the person was accepting as a premise a limitation on how fast it was possible to travel. Regardless if it was technologically possible to travel that fast at the time or not, the realization that the only dilemma in the argument was how fast one could travel resolved the paradox. The response should not be “that’s (inherently) impossible” but “I can’t travel that fast”.

Someday concrete evidence may be available that will show that my concept of God probably doesn't exist. If I am still alive, I will have good reason to drop the concept.
Maybe this is unfair to humanity, but for now I will keep a limitation on the amount of faith I put in the 10%, or so, of the brain we use for logical thinking.

The 10% is just another myth but I understand your point. I don’t see a need to drop concepts of god… I hold several working concepts of god myself; I just don’t hold them to be true. The issue I have with theists is when they start asserting these concepts as truths.

~Raithere

 

[everneo]

i feel that the problem uf understanding it from the Western Darwinian and post-Darwinian perspective is the underlying premise of a separation between consciousness and matter, and the assumption that consciousness is a 'product' of matter

It has something to do with bible that says man was made from dust and became alive and conscious when god breathed life etc. When evloution gained credibility in th west, God is gone but consciousness was clubbed with matter as an emergent property of matter. It is immpossible for Darwinists to think of a seperate consciousness apart from matter.

I almost agree with you with a slight difference that evolution has a 'creative surge' as the driving force in addition to material compulsions.

 

[cole grey]

ok Sorry, I mis-read you post cole grey.
but do you agree with the second part

must.'s second part-
"you have to agree, that your reasoning is better, than for example a five year old or someone with that mental age, it only when you come up against someone, who's logic seems flawless that you doubt yourself.
and in these situations you sit back and listen and learn, unless you a brick wall, and dont want to know the truth. "

Yes.
I want to add "of course", but have seen that usually results in only adding fuel to the fire of people who aren't here to answer questions but just want to quibble.
I do realize the world is full of "brick wall" people, many who are theists, many who are atheists, many who are christian, pagan, etc.
I would like to see the constant stereotyping evident on the forums relax so that when a non "brick wall" athiest, and a non "brick wall" theist talk, for example, there will be less name-calling and more reasoning.

I am asking that sensible people keep in mind that their reasoning may not be flawless, due to possible lack of information, so that when they approach the mental "five year old" here on these forums, they will not act as if they are delivering the holy/unholy truths of God/No God.

Also, your appropriate use the of the phrase "whose logic seems flawless" is much better than the more often believed phrase "whose logic is flawless".

 

[surenderer]

Again I will ask for help understanding........Do Atheists believe that created life(all life) is random? doesnt even the smallest cell have many many complex parts that would discount this? How is believing this logical?

 

[Raithere]

Again I will ask for help understanding........Do Atheists believe that created life(all life) is random? doesnt even the smallest cell have many many complex parts that would discount this? How is believing this logical?

Complexity is not evidence of design. Complexity is a natural consequence of the laws of nature.

~Raithere

 

[marv]

Do Atheists believe that created life(all life) is random?

Two falacies. Life is not "created". Life comes about as a natural process. And there is nothing random about it. You are a product of your father's sperm and your mother's egg. You are made up of some, but not all, of each of their characteristics. You are an evolved creature as unique as each of your parents were. To really understand this, you need some courses in biology.

 

[Zero Mass]

if life did occur from a "Big Bang" then what exploded? I have heard that Matter is the cause but how did Matter get there? It couldnt have always been there could it? I have heard Atheists say that their arguments are logical and religious peoples arguments are illogical yet I wonder because as anyone knows we need a Creator to have a creation so to say that matter has always been there without a Creator is also illogical....

Who says that the universe hasn't always existed. In fact it seems much more plausible that the universe has existed and never not existed than say a magical figure producing the universe at some time. In a Brief History of Time Hawkings actually more than touches on the role that god had (if it in fact had any part to play) and it is worth reading if you haven't yet.

Is it so hard to believe? People have talked about god existing forever and nobody ever creating it before, it has always existed. It makes more sense though to think about the universe existing forever as opposed to the universe and a god.

The idea of everything having a creator is just plain wrong. On this subject I would direct you to check out "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It is about biology and evolution. Of course that your book isn't randomly put together or burst from a tree or whatever, but not everything has been created. We know how the elements are formed. Everything besides helium and hydrogen are made from stars. We are all made from star-stuff.

Where does your god have a part to play in this process? I suppose that if the universe always existed and the planets were made by exploded star material that cooled and collected over time that leaves...the laws of nature. Physics like gravity and atomic levels of attraction. But everything else including evolution and the universe all have viable explanations that do not need god...so why do we need it? Cut out the middle man, and have a more clear and direct link to science and reality

-ZERO MASS

 

[cole grey]

I hold several working concepts of god myself; I just don’t hold them to be true. The issue I have with theists is when they start asserting these concepts as truths.

~Raithere

I have the "issue" when athiests assert their concepts as "truths", insisting they are the only reasonable way to think, ignoring the (obvious to me) complexities involved in the matter. I also have a problem with theists who do the same thing, as will be evidenced by a few of my discussions on these forums, those people just help solidify the stereotypes.

re: the traveling example. My point was just that a person may call something "impossible", which isn't impossible but is just out of the realms of current understanding.

There is nothing wrong with using the least complex theory as a starting point for investigation (occam applauds you), let's just say I have a 'hunch' and want to start from there, as I am in no particular hurry.

 

[duendy]

It has something to do with bible that says man was made from dust and became alive and conscious when god breathed life etc.

D~~This was the story patriarchs appropriated from the orginal story of Goddess forming people from mud with spit and menstrual blood--of course leaving out
the menstrual blood

When evloution gained credibility in th west, God is gone but consciousness was clubbed with matter as an emergent property of matter. It is immpossible for Darwinists to think of a seperate consciousness apart from matter.

D--i would say that the idea of 'separate' consciousness' is idealist, which really is more Eastern belief. I.e., the consciousness is superior, and matter an 'illusion'.
I am not saying that. Rather matter and consciousness are NEVEr apart. you cannot have one without the other. Both Western and Eastern patriarchal thinking assumes you can, form mirroring perspectives.

I almost agree with you with a slight difference that evolution has a 'creative surge' as the driving force in addition to material compulsions.

i would say: matter is active intelligence