The joys of life without God

Funkstar

Is it? A complete mystery? No tentative hypotheses, or vague ideas of any kind?
Click to expand...
tentative hypothesis and vague ideas are not empirical evidence

Even if that is so (which I don't buy for a second), how does that mean that it is forever beyond the reach of science, as you seem to be saying?
Click to expand...

(empirical) science operate sout of sense perception - how is it possible to see what you are seeing with?


Even if that, too, were the case, why should this lend credibility to your idea of god?
Click to expand...

Its not my idea - god gives his own idea of himself in scriptures - as for the why - it wasn't so much an argument to establish that god exists - god is established only after all atheistic arguments are exhausted

There's no good reason to suspect that god resides in the holes in our knowledge of nature.
Click to expand...

why is it not good reason to perceive that the universe is directed by intelligence? Is there anything in our experience of known phenomena of complex material constructuions that do not owe their existence to intelligence - like for instance if you cannot help but look at a plastic model of th e universe and wonder who manufactured it, how is it that you can observe the actual universe and not wonder who manufactured that?


In fact, history suggests otherwise - every gap examined has turned out to hold no divinity. Why should your gap be any different?
Click to expand...
every gap? - on the contrary science seems to labour under the epitah "the more you know the more you don't know" - for instance in darwins time it was thought that cells were just globs of matter and quite easily replicatable once the foundations of atomic structure could be dilineated - however closer examination of the cell reveals an infrastructure more complex than the electricity supply net work of NYC - more gaps just seem to keep on popping up
 
lightgigantic said:
why is it not good reason to perceive that the universe is directed by intelligence? Is there anything in our experience of known phenomena of complex material constructuions that do not owe their existence to intelligence - like for instance if you cannot help but look at a plastic model of th e universe and wonder who manufactured it, how is it that you can observe the actual universe and not wonder who manufactured that?
Click to expand...
This really is bordering on the childish. We've been over this. I point out a tree as an example of complex material structure without guiding intelligence and you counter with the circular statement that that somehow proves your point. Enough already.
 
lightgigantic said:
every gap? - on the contrary science seems to labour under the epitah "the more you know the more you don't know" - for instance in darwins time it was thought that cells were just globs of matter and quite easily replicatable once the foundations of atomic structure could be dilineated - however closer examination of the cell reveals an infrastructure more complex than the electricity supply net work of NYC - more gaps just seem to keep on popping up
Click to expand...
This is the nature of any investigation that delves deeper into the structure of the universe. You seem to think this means that the more we learn, the more ignorant we become. All it really means is that we are uncovering more and more detail that, so far, shows no signs of divine intervention.
 
superluminal said:
This really is bordering on the childish. We've been over this. I point out a tree as an example of complex material structure without guiding intelligence and you counter with the circular statement that that somehow proves your point. Enough already.
Click to expand...

actually even trees are caused by other trees - and of course trees have consciousness ( at least there is a distinction between dead trees and living trees in nurseries)
 
superluminal said:
This is the nature of any investigation that delves deeper into the structure of the universe. You seem to think this means that the more we learn, the more ignorant we become. All it really means is that we are uncovering more and more detail that, so far, shows no signs of divine intervention.
Click to expand...

yes - more and more detail - less and less essence
 
superluminal said:
Nutjob. Ad hom noted. Still, that's a pretty nutty thing to say.
Click to expand...

You said a tree is an example of something that "just happens"

I explained how trees are only seen to "happen" from other trees - and even then very specifically, like an apple tree doesn't produce banyan trees.
Also it is seen that only living trees have this capacity.

not sure where the ad hom comes in here
 
lightgigantic said:
You said a tree is an example of something that "just happens"

I explained how trees are only seen to "happen" from other trees - and even then very specifically, like an apple tree doesn't produce banyan trees.
Also it is seen that only living trees have this capacity.

not sure where the ad hom comes in here
Click to expand...

I was noting my own ad hom applied to you.

Anyway, all life arose from inorganic processes 3.5+ billion years ago. And stating that dead trees don't make new trees is as informative as stating that rocks don't have nervous systems.
 
lightgigantic said:
== purpose

The real question about the universe is why does it exist or what is our relationship with it
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. And you think that by consulting and studying self-generated fantasies you will come to this knowledge? Hmm... If I remember my history, that kind of thinking gave us a flat earth, crystal spheres, an earth centered universe, demons as the cause of disease, and some god or other as the cause of weather and earthquakes.

Good luck with your god paradigm.
 
superluminal



Anyway, all life arose from inorganic processes 3.5+ billion years ago.
Click to expand...

Thats whatthey say - and they've been trying to prove it since darwin's era, about 150 years - they've recalculated the chronology a few times but still are yet to exhibit empirical evidence of a living entity emerging from the reconstruction of inanimate matter - sounds like a theory to me

And stating that dead trees don't make new trees is as informative as stating that rocks don't have nervous systems.
Click to expand...


I know - kind of makes me wonder why you brought up the tree as an example for your analogy
 
superluminal

Sounds good to me. And you think that by consulting and studying self-generated fantasies you will come to this knowledge?
Click to expand...

First you have to establish how they are self generated - at the very least I didn't generate them and neither did you


Hmm... If I remember my history, that kind of thinking gave us a flat earth, crystal spheres, an earth centered universe, demons as the cause of disease, and some god or other as the cause of weather and earthquakes.
Click to expand...

Admittedly the bible functions more as a treatise of understanding how to approach god - but not all scriptures are harassed by relentless doctoring - like for instance there are descriptions of the calculation of time from the atom (older than the greeks - 5000bc) and the stages of a foetuses development in the womb within the vedas .... as for th eother things .....you think you have a better idea how to run the universe? At least the universe disagrees ....
 
Godless said:
Now this is the way you should question your hypothesis of god LG ;) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think I have been clear from the outset that empirical evidence is not sufficient to determine the nature of god because it is not even suffcient to determine our own conscious sense of self
 
lightgigantic said:
I think I have been clear from the outset that empirical evidence is not sufficient to determine the nature of god because it is not even suffcient to determine our own conscious sense of self
Click to expand...
And this dictum is accepted by you, and you alone. I, for one, see no reason to agree.
 
We can no more describe how and why the brain regulates the pulse than we can conciousness, but it's as obvious as can be that without a brain, you have no pulse, and without a brain, you have no conciousness. The idea of conciousness surviving death is as laughable as the pulse surviving death.
 
Fire said:
We can no more describe how and why the brain regulates the pulse than we can conciousness, but it's as obvious as can be that without a brain, you have no pulse, and without a brain, you have no conciousness. The idea of conciousness surviving death is as laughable as the pulse surviving death.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the autonomic nervous system is very well understood. But I agree. I asked LG why physical brain injury can damage or eliminate the sense of self we all have (a documented fact), and there was no compelling answer forthcoming. Which I already knew.
 
superluminal said:
Interestingly, the autonomic nervous system is very well understood. But I agree. I asked LG why physical brain injury can damage or eliminate the sense of self we all have (a documented fact), and there was no compelling answer forthcoming. Which I already knew.
Click to expand...

Does it really? Or does the ability of the person to communicate his "self" get altered?

After all, what we present and what we perceive are limited by our abilities to communicate.

And changes in "self" are limited by a definition of self too. So are you talking about self or do you mean personality or memory?

After all most of our own perceptions of ourselves are derived from others. And 90% of what constitutes our "self" is unconscious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top