Which?samcdkey said:
The joys of life without God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Amazingly, it's called:
God, ontology, epistemology, blah blah blah
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57398
God, ontology, epistemology, blah blah blah
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57398
lightgigantic:
I know where you're going with this, so let's see if we can't short-cut the process.
Weather patterns are caused by things such as ocean currents, regions of high and low pressure in the atmosphere, the evaporation of water and many other factors understood to greater or lesser degrees by the science of meteorology. I'm sure you don't really care about the details. The point is, we have discovered various scientific laws about things such as pressure and evaporation and Coriolis forces which allow us to account for most of the features of the weather. We don't know everything, but we have a good understanding of how the weather works.
So, what causes the weather? Let's say I point at air pressure variations. You then ask: what causes pressure variations? I tell you differential heating of the Earth's surface by the Sun. You ask why the Sun exists. I tell you that it formed from a collapsing nebula of hydrogen gas. You ask why hydrogen gas exists. I tell you it was formed in the big bang. You ask what caused the big bang. I tell you I don't know.
At this point, you claim victory. You say "Ha! You don't really know what causes the weather at all! Because if you trace things back to the big bang, eventually you find a "mystery" - a gap in your knowledge. Therefore, God must have done it. The God of the Gaps causes the weather."
Your reasoning is fine up to the very last step. The relevant question is: how do you know God caused the big bang? For that matter, how do you know God causes anything? Just because we don't know how the universe started doesn't mean the only option is God. All it means is that we don't understand natural processes well enough. Gaps in knowledge don't imply the existence of God.
To prove that God exists, you need positive evidence of God, not just gaps in human knowledge.
It doesn't. It doesn't affect their investigations. They are open to finding evidence of intelligence, if it exists.
It is interesting that you use the term "atheistic science" throughout your post, as if science was somehow opposed to religion. The fact is, when you pick up your average science textbook, you won't see any mention of God. You won't find scientists taking the time to argue against the existence of God. In fact, many of them believe in God, and that doesn't prevent them doing excellent science. Nor does their science prevent them from believing in God.
Science is neutral towards religion. There is no "atheistic science" , or "theistic science" for that matter. Science is the study of the natural world - nothing more or less.
Because many complex structures are seen to "manifest themselves" all the time. You only have to look around you to see that.
The "atheistic" science you so disdain has produced, among other things, the complex computer you are viewing this post on, and many of the other technologies you take for granted every day.
What has the theory of intelligent design given us? Nothing. It has added nothing to the sum total of human knowledge.
Science works. Obviously. How can you argue that human knowledge has not progressed? The evidence to the contrary is all around you.
No. That's completely incorrect, and I suspect you know it.
Islamic terrorists firmly believe they are following a "true" version of Islam, and that they are acting according to God's will. They are not atheists. Nor do they listen to atheists. They are more set against atheists than you are.
Humans' failure to act in the way God wants doesn't explain natural disasters over which humans have no control.
Well, no, it doesn't make sense. Practically every human being lives in a society with other human beings, and depends on others partly for their own survival. Anybody who takes a "do as I damn well please" approach to other people is quickly ostracised from society and suffers personally as a result.
You're essentially saying that all science is an educated guess, then.
Which again makes me wonder why science has been so successful in producing knowledge and technologies.
If science is no better than guesswork, why is it so phenomenally successful?
I don't see the link between evolution and abortion.
As for passing the buck, saying "God created life" is passing the buck, too. It doesn't explain anything in a useful way. If you think every creation needs a creator then the logical next question is: who created God? The problem has just been pushed back a step.
When the Earth was formed there was no life. Then, about 4 billion years ago, life appeared on Earth. Where did it come from? Other life? Then where did the other life come from? God did it, you say? Then how did he do it? And please don't tell me some story about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
No. I wasn't around 4 billion years ago. But it must have happened, or I wouldn't be here.
No. The problem is putting the atoms together in the right combinations. You are much more than a collection of atoms. If I collected all the atoms in your body and sold them at current market prices, you might be worth a few dollars in terms of raw materials. And those raw materials are easy to obtain. The problem is assembly.
You've hit on something here. The very fact that the Earth is already swarming with living things means that if some simple form of life is arising spontaneously right now from inanimate matter somewhere, chances are it will be instantly gobbled up by some more advanced form of life which already exists. Therefore, our chances of seeing it happen are quite small.
Dead and living things don't have identical atomic constructions. The moment a human being, for example, dies, his or her body starts a process of decay. (Have you ever watched CSI?)
I know where you're going with this, so let's see if we can't short-cut the process.
Weather patterns are caused by things such as ocean currents, regions of high and low pressure in the atmosphere, the evaporation of water and many other factors understood to greater or lesser degrees by the science of meteorology. I'm sure you don't really care about the details. The point is, we have discovered various scientific laws about things such as pressure and evaporation and Coriolis forces which allow us to account for most of the features of the weather. We don't know everything, but we have a good understanding of how the weather works.
So, what causes the weather? Let's say I point at air pressure variations. You then ask: what causes pressure variations? I tell you differential heating of the Earth's surface by the Sun. You ask why the Sun exists. I tell you that it formed from a collapsing nebula of hydrogen gas. You ask why hydrogen gas exists. I tell you it was formed in the big bang. You ask what caused the big bang. I tell you I don't know.
At this point, you claim victory. You say "Ha! You don't really know what causes the weather at all! Because if you trace things back to the big bang, eventually you find a "mystery" - a gap in your knowledge. Therefore, God must have done it. The God of the Gaps causes the weather."
Your reasoning is fine up to the very last step. The relevant question is: how do you know God caused the big bang? For that matter, how do you know God causes anything? Just because we don't know how the universe started doesn't mean the only option is God. All it means is that we don't understand natural processes well enough. Gaps in knowledge don't imply the existence of God.
To prove that God exists, you need positive evidence of God, not just gaps in human knowledge.
It doesn't. It doesn't affect their investigations. They are open to finding evidence of intelligence, if it exists.
It is interesting that you use the term "atheistic science" throughout your post, as if science was somehow opposed to religion. The fact is, when you pick up your average science textbook, you won't see any mention of God. You won't find scientists taking the time to argue against the existence of God. In fact, many of them believe in God, and that doesn't prevent them doing excellent science. Nor does their science prevent them from believing in God.
Science is neutral towards religion. There is no "atheistic science" , or "theistic science" for that matter. Science is the study of the natural world - nothing more or less.
Because many complex structures are seen to "manifest themselves" all the time. You only have to look around you to see that.
The "atheistic" science you so disdain has produced, among other things, the complex computer you are viewing this post on, and many of the other technologies you take for granted every day.
What has the theory of intelligent design given us? Nothing. It has added nothing to the sum total of human knowledge.
Science works. Obviously. How can you argue that human knowledge has not progressed? The evidence to the contrary is all around you.
No. That's completely incorrect, and I suspect you know it.
Islamic terrorists firmly believe they are following a "true" version of Islam, and that they are acting according to God's will. They are not atheists. Nor do they listen to atheists. They are more set against atheists than you are.
Humans' failure to act in the way God wants doesn't explain natural disasters over which humans have no control.
Well, no, it doesn't make sense. Practically every human being lives in a society with other human beings, and depends on others partly for their own survival. Anybody who takes a "do as I damn well please" approach to other people is quickly ostracised from society and suffers personally as a result.
You're essentially saying that all science is an educated guess, then.
Which again makes me wonder why science has been so successful in producing knowledge and technologies.
If science is no better than guesswork, why is it so phenomenally successful?
I don't see the link between evolution and abortion.
As for passing the buck, saying "God created life" is passing the buck, too. It doesn't explain anything in a useful way. If you think every creation needs a creator then the logical next question is: who created God? The problem has just been pushed back a step.
When the Earth was formed there was no life. Then, about 4 billion years ago, life appeared on Earth. Where did it come from? Other life? Then where did the other life come from? God did it, you say? Then how did he do it? And please don't tell me some story about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
No. I wasn't around 4 billion years ago. But it must have happened, or I wouldn't be here.
No. The problem is putting the atoms together in the right combinations. You are much more than a collection of atoms. If I collected all the atoms in your body and sold them at current market prices, you might be worth a few dollars in terms of raw materials. And those raw materials are easy to obtain. The problem is assembly.
You've hit on something here. The very fact that the Earth is already swarming with living things means that if some simple form of life is arising spontaneously right now from inanimate matter somewhere, chances are it will be instantly gobbled up by some more advanced form of life which already exists. Therefore, our chances of seeing it happen are quite small.
Dead and living things don't have identical atomic constructions. The moment a human being, for example, dies, his or her body starts a process of decay. (Have you ever watched CSI?)
(Q) said:
Ok lets try this step by step
At the risk of running one topic on two threads,what does the first point of the process I suggest on the epistemology thread say?
I will give you a hint - two key words are "teacher" and "quality"
looking_forward said:
I am no authority on the bible,but even I know that inthe original script the king james was translated from, that quote is actually spoken in the present tense - inother words jesus is saying something more like "right here, right now, I am the only way" - considering he had to lay down a few house rules about having sex with other people's wives and the like its not hard to imagine why he gave a privledged status to his spiritual know-how
James R
I wasn't trying to prove god -you weretrying toprove how matter does not require consciousness - I just want evidence of something, anything, that has a cause not related to consciousness
“ The problem is that the relative mysteries are solved by discovering more relative information, and on the strength of these relative findings atheistic science attempts to manipulate some suggestion that intelligence is not intrinsic to creation, despite evidence to the contrary (its not like they have traced causes of material effects to an absolute material cause) ”
I use the term to distinguish from science that does not offer a bias against religion
I know -they make sure there isn't - that's part of the bias
Pseudo scientists may also believe that deciphering integers from the ocean waves rippling against the tails of dolphins is also scientific - as for theism, there are numerous incidents of atheists taking up theguise of theism -such as the common aphorism "the devil quotes scripture"
How doyou know this?
Could empiricism be anything else?
Successful in what ways?
Basically there are three types of knowledge
Direct perception - effective in looking out for cars while crossing the street
Empiricsim - effective in dealing with relative phenomena within our powers
Hearing from authority - effective in dealing with topics beyond our powers of empiricism and direct perception
I would say that empricism has failed to illuminate the nature of the universe, wouldn't you - Imean its clear from your opening post that you advocate the big bang - I know that cris strongly disagrees - at the very least it seems toindicate a failure
Then why is it absurd toaccept that consciousnes is dependant on consciousness - the assumption that consciousness evolved frommatter must be at least onthe same level as the assumption that it came from god, or perhaps even more absurd since we don't actually have experience of life coming from matter at all
Like if two people both stop breathing,why does artificial ressuscitation only work on one and not the other?
Thanks - I was actually dreading the prospect of doing this process
I never said anything about god - I said that your claim that stars, despite being so much more complex than crayon pictures of stars, requires a model of something that has a cause that is not relative to consciousness - you are yet to provide me with one.
I wasn't trying to prove god -you weretrying toprove how matter does not require consciousness - I just want evidence of something, anything, that has a cause not related to consciousness
“ The problem is that the relative mysteries are solved by discovering more relative information, and on the strength of these relative findings atheistic science attempts to manipulate some suggestion that intelligence is not intrinsic to creation, despite evidence to the contrary (its not like they have traced causes of material effects to an absolute material cause) ”
I use the term to distinguish from science that does not offer a bias against religion
I know -they make sure there isn't - that's part of the bias
Shermer isn't a scientist?
Exactly - what's the chip on shermers shoulder then?
Neutral like shermer?
So what is shermer's contention?
From your opening attempt it seems you cannot produce even one such example
And the persons who made such discoveries owe the foundations that they built upon to many scientists who had a strong conviction in the values of theistic endeavour -if they kick dirt inthe face of their superiors, why am I duty bound to offer atheistic computer designers a seat of awe and reverence?
What has the theory of the big bang or evolution given us?
progressed no doubt,but progressed in which direction - like for instance is the internet such a grand thing when over 60% of net transmissions deal with pornographic material? You may say we have improved our ability of communication, but then it raises the question of the things we are communicating - in otherwords a big slice of the word progress belongs to utility rather than performance
Pseudo scientists may also believe that deciphering integers from the ocean waves rippling against the tails of dolphins is also scientific - as for theism, there are numerous incidents of atheists taking up theguise of theism -such as the common aphorism "the devil quotes scripture"
How doyou know this?
seems like you have given an indication of social balance
In other words they unbalance the scheme of things which seems to be a change from your original post of
Could empiricism be anything else?
Successful in what ways?
Basically there are three types of knowledge
Direct perception - effective in looking out for cars while crossing the street
Empiricsim - effective in dealing with relative phenomena within our powers
Hearing from authority - effective in dealing with topics beyond our powers of empiricism and direct perception
I would say that empricism has failed to illuminate the nature of the universe, wouldn't you - Imean its clear from your opening post that you advocate the big bang - I know that cris strongly disagrees - at the very least it seems toindicate a failure
This leads to an ontological analysis of god,a direction I get the impression you are adverse to negotiating
Then why is it absurd toaccept that consciousnes is dependant on consciousness - the assumption that consciousness evolved frommatter must be at least onthe same level as the assumption that it came from god, or perhaps even more absurd since we don't actually have experience of life coming from matter at all
Yes indeed that is the problem
On the contrary, the smaller the living entity, the easier it is to locate - for instance its not like ants or germsmake it on the endagered species list - if a species tends to get eaten up quickly, it tends to exist in plaugue like numbers - can you provide any examples of living entities thatare small and highly preyed upon that don't manifest in literally clouds of numbers?
Then why are people sometimes revived from the point of death?
Like if two people both stop breathing,why does artificial ressuscitation only work on one and not the other?
lightgigantic said:
Funny, I see neither of those two words in your opening post there. But, what I do see is this:
"1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession
2 - Disciplic succession has its origin in specific foundational , paradigmatic experiences of divine revelation. Scripture contains the record of these experiences as well as of important subsequent instantations of those experiences"
The serious flaw in those two statements is that the "knowledge" MUST be received from a "qualified" person. Then you go on to claim that a "qualified" person is one who has experienced "divine revelation."
In other words, the second statement contradicted the first.
It actually boils down to what I said before with two key words for which I'll give you a hint, "blind" and "faith," hence, your process is blind faith in scriptures.
Nothing LG has given us in any of the threads I've read amounts to anything more than "god exists because written doctrine says he does; written doctrine is the divine word of god because says it is."
This isn't epistemology; it's a pseudo-epistemology. It isn't a way of knowing but a way of imagining.
I think we can safely dismiss Lightgigantic from here on out, but I have to admire James R's willingness to engage his unsubstantiated poppycock at length.
This isn't epistemology; it's a pseudo-epistemology. It isn't a way of knowing but a way of imagining.
I think we can safely dismiss Lightgigantic from here on out, but I have to admire James R's willingness to engage his unsubstantiated poppycock at length.
You must have done dreadfully at english comprehension at school then - let me put it in bold
Is it contradictory to say that a person must receive knowledge about medicine from a qualified medical practioner - and a qualified medical practioner is one who is capable of carrying out successful medical proceedures in complete knowledge?
A highschool drop out could say the same thing regarding the opportunity to learn about an electron from a qualified physicist with text books
Care to quote me?
So on the basis of your opinion now you are drawing concrete conclusions?
I agree , rather than trying to undersand something it is definitely easier to pretend one understands something as a means of dismissing it
This truly does seem to be the only "Joy of Life without God"
lightgigantic:
Fine. I concede the point. In the terms you are talking, I of course can't prove that everything doesn't ultimately trace back to consciousness, or God if you prefer.
But you can't prove that it does, either. You can't prove that God is necessary.
So, I think we can leave it there.
Well, it tells you what science is and is not about, that's for sure.
Technically, no, he isn't. He does advocate scientific methods for obtaining knowledge.
I don't think he has one.
Not really. Shermer is a person. Science is not a person. A person has beliefs. Science is a collection of knowledge and methods.
Read the article. What do you think? He makes statements about many different topics, so he has a number of contentions.
More to the point, what's your argument with him? Where do you disagree with his specific points?
A good understanding of the world in which we live. An ability to make sense of certain observations, and to predict likely future scenarios we will encounter.
You think we'd be better off without modern telecommunications? What about modern technology in general? Would you prefer that we all go back to living in caves?
Please provide one example of an atheist "taking up the guise of theism". (Make sure you choose one where the atheist wasn't concerned for his or her own safety or the safety of others.)
Are you claiming that God punishes people for the sins of others?
Yes.
So, by "moral balance" you mean social balance. Ok then. That's sorted.
I won't argue this either.
Assuming for a minute that I accept your classification:
In terms of direct perception, scientists are trained to examine phenomena carefully. The scientific method is the best one we have come up with for carefully examining directly perceived things.
Science has also be phenomenally successful in showing us how to "deal with relative phenomena within our powers". I shouldn't need to elaborate on that.
On the subject of authority, there is no evidence of any "authority" which is higher than humans. So, it seems we're stuck with direct perception and empiricism. If that means certain topics are beyond our powers right now, we just have to try harder, or work at the problems.
I completely disagree with you. Cave men didn't have computers. Today, with our understanding of electricity, light and many other topics, we do. That has come from empirical investigations.
To claim that we know nothing more than in the stone age is obviously silly.
Not at all. Bring it on. This is the Religion forum.
Life continually comes from matter. How do trees grow? Answer: they absorb non-living carbon from the air and use it to build themselves.
I'm not a biologist, so I'm not sure. It doesn't affect my previous point.
It's like a car that won't start. There can be many reasons for that - some temporary, some more serious. Sometimes you try to start a car and it is a little too cold. But work on it for a while and it might start, even without you doing anything major to it.
One is probably further gone than the other.
Fine. I concede the point. In the terms you are talking, I of course can't prove that everything doesn't ultimately trace back to consciousness, or God if you prefer.
But you can't prove that it does, either. You can't prove that God is necessary.
So, I think we can leave it there.
Well, it tells you what science is and is not about, that's for sure.
Technically, no, he isn't. He does advocate scientific methods for obtaining knowledge.
I don't think he has one.
Not really. Shermer is a person. Science is not a person. A person has beliefs. Science is a collection of knowledge and methods.
Read the article. What do you think? He makes statements about many different topics, so he has a number of contentions.
More to the point, what's your argument with him? Where do you disagree with his specific points?
A good understanding of the world in which we live. An ability to make sense of certain observations, and to predict likely future scenarios we will encounter.
You think we'd be better off without modern telecommunications? What about modern technology in general? Would you prefer that we all go back to living in caves?
Please provide one example of an atheist "taking up the guise of theism". (Make sure you choose one where the atheist wasn't concerned for his or her own safety or the safety of others.)
Are you claiming that God punishes people for the sins of others?
Yes.
So, by "moral balance" you mean social balance. Ok then. That's sorted.
I won't argue this either.
Assuming for a minute that I accept your classification:
In terms of direct perception, scientists are trained to examine phenomena carefully. The scientific method is the best one we have come up with for carefully examining directly perceived things.
Science has also be phenomenally successful in showing us how to "deal with relative phenomena within our powers". I shouldn't need to elaborate on that.
On the subject of authority, there is no evidence of any "authority" which is higher than humans. So, it seems we're stuck with direct perception and empiricism. If that means certain topics are beyond our powers right now, we just have to try harder, or work at the problems.
I completely disagree with you. Cave men didn't have computers. Today, with our understanding of electricity, light and many other topics, we do. That has come from empirical investigations.
To claim that we know nothing more than in the stone age is obviously silly.
Not at all. Bring it on. This is the Religion forum.
Life continually comes from matter. How do trees grow? Answer: they absorb non-living carbon from the air and use it to build themselves.
I'm not a biologist, so I'm not sure. It doesn't affect my previous point.
It's like a car that won't start. There can be many reasons for that - some temporary, some more serious. Sometimes you try to start a car and it is a little too cold. But work on it for a while and it might start, even without you doing anything major to it.
One is probably further gone than the other.
This is simple evolution at work.lightgigantic said:
A small organism that is preyed upon will have 3 options:
1. Multiply in vast quantities.
2. Develop a method of defence (poison etc) that will limit the prey.
3. Die out.
1. These are the small creatures that are preyed on as we now see them. Their method of survival is to multiply in vast quantities.
2. These creatures are NO LONGER preyed upon in / "eaten up quickly" as evolution has given them their defence mechanism. As such they are no longer seen as a small creature that is preyed upon easily.
3. Obviously you do not see these creatures - they no longer exist.
As a result - all small creatures that are easily eaten up quickly / preyed upon that continue to exist do so because they manifest in vast quantities.
Simple evolution.
As for why we do not see any new life springing up...
Easily explained by that new life NOT REACHING the evolutionary point where it manifests in vast quantities to survive.
This is again fairly simply explained by the fact that the building blocks of early life are a very pleasant snack for all the currently existing life-forms (bacteria included) - and so to get any sort of foothold is now more or less impossible.
The new life springs up - and is eaten.
There is no chance for evolutionary process to provide it with a survival mechanism.
JamesR
I will settle for an example of anything
We'll keep it simple for the time being and just stick to consciousness
I can prove that consciousness is at least the only perceptable evidence of the establishment of anything of complex structures however, unless you can come up with some evidence to suggest otherwise
Yet the book will maintain other premises which are purely hypothetical - namely the idea that creation does not owe its manifestation to consciousness, and in fact even accrediting consciousness to a material set of conditions, despite not a single shred of evidence that this is the case on a micro or macro level
I think he thinks he does - at the least he is doing what apparently scientists don't have the time to do, as you said
So is science represented by science or people?
Like for instance when we read in a text book that 3 000 000 years ago the earth was like XYZ is that science telling us that or a person?
I think I hae already exhibited from my first post how he is advocating atheist science, as pointed out by his fallacies, so he seems to be talking about two things in his interview - namely science and the apparently fallacious premises of religion - and he freely mixes the two subjects which gives you (hey presto) atheistic science
Do you mean "good" in the sense that it benefits the value system of a certain set of people or do you mean in some other way?
Do you mean understanding in the sense of backed up by empirical understanding or just a tentative suggestion that sounds plausible (or perhaps something else)?
Such as?
“ like for instance is the internet such a grand thing when over 60% of net transmissions deal with pornographic material? You may say we have improved our ability of communication, but then it raises the question of the things we are communicating - in otherwords a big slice of the word progress belongs to utility rather than performance ”
I never said anything about the caves - what I said was that when you talk about progress it is not simply about ability but also application - For instance to say we have advanced as a civilisation in terms of communication does it mean because we send low grade information on high grade equipment, that we are advanced?
In other words what are the general principles you apply to determine clearly what is progress and what is not?
Well how about the IRA - apparently their cause was one of religiousity, yet they were pacified at a later date by giving them a more liberal position in Irish politics (ie economic benefits, social benefits, political representation etc) - if their religious angle was pacified by the introduction of material aspects (namely economic, social and political benefits - none of which are intrinsic to religiousity ) it raises the question about the premises they had for a schism based on religion, don't you think.
In otherwords they used religion as a vehicle of authority to drive through their political agenda.
I would argue that the islamic insurgents are operating out of the same general principles and that to use religion for any other purpose than what it was intended for (to know and understand god) runs against god's instructions, and running against god's instructions is the characteristic trait of an atheist.
- disturbances caused by one's own body
- disturbances caused by other living entities bodies
- disturbances caused by natural phenomena
My point was that it is not practical to contact NASA every time you want to cross the road
Instead it might be more practical to question whether you believe that the universe with all its mysteries are knowable by humanity or whether ignorance must be an eternal concomitant factor for the progress of science.
“ I would say that empricism has failed to illuminate the nature of the universe, wouldn't you - Imean its clear from your opening post that you advocate the big bang - I know that cris strongly disagrees - at the very least it seems toindicate a failure ”
These things are all empirical and successful because they relate to the relative world - I was indicating that in terms of knowing the universe, and where it is, we have no progressed an inch. Like suppose I ask you where are you and you say in my house, in my town, in my country, on the planet in the solar system, in the universe - then I ask you where is the universe?
In other words if you take things back far enough you can see that the comforts of our knowledge are relative and therefore limited - this is what I mean by empiricism being limited because it can only busy itself with the small questions (ipods, vacuum cleaners and space shuttles) and cannot approach the big questions
We still don't know where the universe is - which arguable a theist in ancient times might have been aware of
I only mentioned the word "epistemology " 4 times in my post on the subject, and even then it was only in the intro - the fact that the process of knowing god can be virtually unexamined after 8 pages tends to indicate a general trend, while the word "process" becomes the source of even opening up a second thread
Then why do all trees eventually die even if they are in the presence of such carbon?
“ Then why are people sometimes revived from the point of death? ”
The most serious being that there is noone to start it - cars don't start themselves
Again, only if there is a conscious driver
Further gone? where are they going?
I will settle for an example of anything
We'll keep it simple for the time being and just stick to consciousness
I can prove that consciousness is at least the only perceptable evidence of the establishment of anything of complex structures however, unless you can come up with some evidence to suggest otherwise
Yet the book will maintain other premises which are purely hypothetical - namely the idea that creation does not owe its manifestation to consciousness, and in fact even accrediting consciousness to a material set of conditions, despite not a single shred of evidence that this is the case on a micro or macro level
I think he thinks he does - at the least he is doing what apparently scientists don't have the time to do, as you said
So is science represented by science or people?
Like for instance when we read in a text book that 3 000 000 years ago the earth was like XYZ is that science telling us that or a person?
I think I hae already exhibited from my first post how he is advocating atheist science, as pointed out by his fallacies, so he seems to be talking about two things in his interview - namely science and the apparently fallacious premises of religion - and he freely mixes the two subjects which gives you (hey presto) atheistic science
Do you mean "good" in the sense that it benefits the value system of a certain set of people or do you mean in some other way?
Do you mean understanding in the sense of backed up by empirical understanding or just a tentative suggestion that sounds plausible (or perhaps something else)?
Such as?
“ like for instance is the internet such a grand thing when over 60% of net transmissions deal with pornographic material? You may say we have improved our ability of communication, but then it raises the question of the things we are communicating - in otherwords a big slice of the word progress belongs to utility rather than performance ”
I never said anything about the caves - what I said was that when you talk about progress it is not simply about ability but also application - For instance to say we have advanced as a civilisation in terms of communication does it mean because we send low grade information on high grade equipment, that we are advanced?
In other words what are the general principles you apply to determine clearly what is progress and what is not?
Well how about the IRA - apparently their cause was one of religiousity, yet they were pacified at a later date by giving them a more liberal position in Irish politics (ie economic benefits, social benefits, political representation etc) - if their religious angle was pacified by the introduction of material aspects (namely economic, social and political benefits - none of which are intrinsic to religiousity ) it raises the question about the premises they had for a schism based on religion, don't you think.
In otherwords they used religion as a vehicle of authority to drive through their political agenda.
I would argue that the islamic insurgents are operating out of the same general principles and that to use religion for any other purpose than what it was intended for (to know and understand god) runs against god's instructions, and running against god's instructions is the characteristic trait of an atheist.
No - I am claiming that sinful reactions from previous lives utilises at least one of three avenues of application
- disturbances caused by one's own body
- disturbances caused by other living entities bodies
- disturbances caused by natural phenomena
My point was that it is not practical to contact NASA every time you want to cross the road
Agreed
Well, I could argue that scripture represents the authority of god, but no doubt you will write that off as a social phenomena (which I admit is easier to do from the standpoint of the bible since its history seems to indicate tampering), which is a whole argument thread we can put on the back burner until a more appropriate time arises
Instead it might be more practical to question whether you believe that the universe with all its mysteries are knowable by humanity or whether ignorance must be an eternal concomitant factor for the progress of science.
“ I would say that empricism has failed to illuminate the nature of the universe, wouldn't you - Imean its clear from your opening post that you advocate the big bang - I know that cris strongly disagrees - at the very least it seems toindicate a failure ”
These things are all empirical and successful because they relate to the relative world - I was indicating that in terms of knowing the universe, and where it is, we have no progressed an inch. Like suppose I ask you where are you and you say in my house, in my town, in my country, on the planet in the solar system, in the universe - then I ask you where is the universe?
In other words if you take things back far enough you can see that the comforts of our knowledge are relative and therefore limited - this is what I mean by empiricism being limited because it can only busy itself with the small questions (ipods, vacuum cleaners and space shuttles) and cannot approach the big questions
We still don't know where the universe is - which arguable a theist in ancient times might have been aware of
I only mentioned the word "epistemology " 4 times in my post on the subject, and even then it was only in the intro - the fact that the process of knowing god can be virtually unexamined after 8 pages tends to indicate a general trend, while the word "process" becomes the source of even opening up a second thread
Then why do all trees eventually die even if they are in the presence of such carbon?
Except that you have another theory to hang next to the crayon picture of the star
“ Then why are people sometimes revived from the point of death? ”
The most serious being that there is noone to start it - cars don't start themselves
Again, only if there is a conscious driver
Further gone? where are they going?
LG,
So, I gather that in order to correctly be able to percieve god, you must be taught by one of an unbroken line of disciples that goes back to... when? Because these disciples have the foundational experience with divine revelations and phenomena that the rest of us clearly don't posses. Is that basically it?
So, I gather that in order to correctly be able to percieve god, you must be taught by one of an unbroken line of disciples that goes back to... when? Because these disciples have the foundational experience with divine revelations and phenomena that the rest of us clearly don't posses. Is that basically it?
superluminal
When a person had a direct experience with god - in otherwords god (or arguable god's pure representative, like jesus in the case of the xtians) is the origin of disciplic succession
But don't forget to read point 4 before you respond
BTW - do you want to take this to the actual thread where this is discussed or are you particularly attached to the environment of this one?
When a person had a direct experience with god - in otherwords god (or arguable god's pure representative, like jesus in the case of the xtians) is the origin of disciplic succession
Yes
But don't forget to read point 4 before you respond
BTW - do you want to take this to the actual thread where this is discussed or are you particularly attached to the environment of this one?
lightgigantic said:
You know what? I think I'll let this one go. There's nothing really to be gained here. I think your correct epistemology argument is completely flawed since its foundation is the personal experience and hearsay of the originator of this disciplic chain. There's no evidence or serious questioning involved (how could there be? Since the disciplic chain repeats the revelations flawlessly over time?).
No, I think you've created a nice little sanctum sanctorum of self-contained certainty, impervious to logic or objective evidence. You seem happy with it. Cheerio, pip-pip, and all that.
lightgigantic said:
And you're perfectly willing to accept the claims of those who who allegedly had those experiences hundreds of years ago, without a shred of skepticism? In a time when myth and superstition reigned?
And the fact that others also claimed to have had those experiences bears no significance to you? Where do you draw the line between believing one so-called representative of god over another?
(Q) said:
Actually if you read point 4 you will understand that the person who successfully carries out the process gets the result. Its not just an infinite series of claims that cannot be verified
In other words just as a physicist comes to a certain level of performance whereby they can carry out and directly perceive an electron (which then makes the entire epistemolgy valid and correct), similarly the religious practioner also comes to such a stage when they are rightly qualified.
Last edited: