The joys of life without God

[lightgigantic]

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.

What can I say that I haven't said already

As far as coming to the point of understanding God, that will never happen by logic alone – but – if logical misconceptions are cleared about God it may enable a person to hear about the subject clearly, and that can awaken curiosity, or scientific enquiry. We have no responsibility to prove something to a person who refuses to participate in scientific enquiry (although we may give them a prasadam sweet ball). Logic is useful when dealing with a person who has a scientific mind and is willing to investigate and participate. To use logic with a person who is fundamentally irrational is useless.

There is so much testimony from great philosophers and scientists about a category (God) that explains all other categories, and if a person is not interested it seems to indicate that a person is non-philosophical – in other words if the category gets too big that it makes me small – well- that’s enough philosophy, that’s enough science, that’s enough investigation – they lose their nerve – their philosophical enquiry gets blunted by envy.

It’s just like buying a car – if you refuse to go for a test drive yet insist that the salesman logically prove to you that the car runs nicely he will say “Sorry we don’t do business that way”.

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

I will settle for an example of anything

I thought I'd already covered this. I can't give you an ironclad guarantee that any object you name doesn't come from God. But you can't give me an ironclad guarantee that any object I name does come from God. So, we've reached stalemate on that issue. Let's move on.

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?

All evidence relies on interpretation.

What you need to show is that some evidence requires God to be interpreted plausibly.

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.)

Well how about the IRA...

The disputes in Northern Ireland are fundamentally about land and self-governance. Religion is used as an excuse - just as it is in the case of radical Islam.

- 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.

Yes. It suggests to me that the real issues were not religious after all. If they had been, there would have been no compromise about religion.

In otherwords they used religion as a vehicle of authority to drive through their political agenda.

I agree.

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.

That's drawing a very long bow. There's nothing to say that atheists run against God's instructions. They don't believe in God, so what they do is not related to what you think God does or doesn't want. I'd guess that about 50% of the time, they'd run "against God's instructions" and 50% they'd go with God's instructions, if they were choosing random acts. In fact, the stats are probably not as balanced as that, since most atheists share basic moral ideas with most theists. Therefore, atheists tend to act morally, though they don't do so for religious reasons. (In fact, most of the time theists don't act morally for religious reasons either...)

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

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you making a claim for the existence of reincarnation and some concept like karma?

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

Ok. I'm happy to save this discussion for another time. At this stage I'll just point out that there is no scripture which is obviously authored by God rather than one or more human beings.

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.

Personally, I doubt that humans will ever know everything. What puzzles me is why some people seem unable to live with doubt. They want all the answers now - even if they come from unreliable sources.

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 scientific terms, that's a meaningless question. In fact, in terms of a dictionary definition of "universe", it is a meaningless question. The universe isn't part of some bigger space. Where is the universe? All around you. It's all there is, after all.

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

I think questions like "How does a star form?", "Why is the sky blue?", "How did life on Earth develop?", "How will the universe end?" are big questions. And they are ones which science answers much more effectively than religion. The bible's best guess at the value of pi is 3. Science knows it to billions of decimal places (actually, a potentially infinite number of places).

We still don't know where the universe is - which arguable a theist in ancient times might have been aware of

Theists in ancient times thought the Earth was flat, and stars were bright points painted on a huge canvas by a big man who lived in the sky. Until science came along, the theists' universe was billions of times smaller than our actual universe.

Then why do all trees eventually die even if they are in the presence of such carbon?

Are you asking for a scientific explanation, or something else? What kind of answer will satisfy you? And, more importantly, why can't you live without knowing? Why do you need some authority to give you all the answers?

Like if two people both stop breathing,why does artificial ressuscitation only work on one and not the other?

One is probably further gone than the other.

Further gone? where are they going?

It's a figure of speech. The physical process of dying is very complicated, from a biological point of view.

What's your answer to the original question, by the way? Do you think God decides that one will live and the other will die? Is your God hands-on? Does he do it for every form of life - every bacterium, every fungus, every fluke worm, every moment of the day?

 

[lightgigantic]

James R

I thought I'd already covered this. I can't give you an ironclad guarantee that any object you name doesn't come from God.

That is true, but my statements were more about how you can not provide a single example of anything of complex structures that is caused by something that is not either conscious or mysterious - something you are required to give evidence of if you want to give the theory of a designerless universe a credibility beyond th e highly speculative, what to speak of calling upon it to declare that the idea of intelligence directing the universe is perhaps something slightly better than utter ridiculous

But you can't give me an ironclad guarantee that any object I name does come from God.

I can however give you lots of examples of complex objects that are caused by consciousness - crayon pictures of stars are one

“ 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? ”



All evidence relies on interpretation.

What you need to show is that some evidence requires God to be interpreted plausibly.

This statement is not related to god - it is realted to your earlier claim...

"Not really. Shermer is a person. Science is not a person. A person has beliefs. Science is a collection of knowledge and methods. "

So when science presents the knowledge (and also the methods how they give the knowledge) that the Earth was like XYZ 3 000 000 years ago, is that science telling us that knowledge or a person telling us that knowledge?

“ 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. ”

That's drawing a very long bow. There's nothing to say that atheists run against God's instructions.

Yes there is
"The demoniac person thinks: "So much wealth do I have today, and I will gain more according to my schemes. So much is mine now, and it will increase in the future, more and more. He is my enemy, and I have killed him, and my other enemies will also be killed. I am the lord of everything. I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy. I am the richest man, surrounded by aristocratic relatives. There is none so powerful and happy as I am. I shall perform sacrifices, I shall give some charity, and thus I shall rejoice." In this way, such persons are deluded by ignorance.

BG 16.16: Thus perplexed by various anxieties and bound by a network of illusions, they become too strongly attached to sense enjoyment and fall down into hell.

BG 16.17: Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, they sometimes proudly perform sacrifices in name only, without following any rules or regulations.

BG 16.18: Bewildered by false ego, strength, pride, lust and anger, the demons become envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is situated in their own bodies and in the bodies of others, and blaspheme against the real religion."

one-eighteenth of the Bhagavad gita deals with this specifically - the parts in bold are directly realted to theistic practices

They don't believe in God, so what they do is not related to what you think God does or doesn't want.

In otherwords an atheist doesn't perceive god as the supreme authority so they act under their own authority - just like a person who does not acknowledge that a person owns a house may tresspass, which would be a transgression of the house owners authority
In otherwords the atheist may have the vision they are doing nothing wrong, but that doesn't mean god has the same vision.

I'd guess that about 50% of the time, they'd run "against God's instructions" and 50% they'd go with God's instructions, if they were choosing random acts.

So if a person accepts that another person has authority over a house only 50% of the time, doesn't that make them a theif - in fact if a person accepts that a person doesn't have authority over a house when they perceive they are not present (like when the houseowner is away on holiday) doesn't that make them even more of a theif?
In other words the atheism represented by theistic coated atheism is more of a threat and can do the most damage since they are not open about it

In fact, the stats are probably not as balanced as that, since most atheists share basic moral ideas with most theists.

words like most atheists and most theists means different things to different people

Therefore, atheists tend to act morally, though they don't do so for religious reasons.(In fact, most of the time theists don't act morally for religious reasons either...)

But I just pointed out earlier how you are not moral by your own moral definitions either (Do unto others ...) ... So in what exact ways are you different?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you making a claim for the existence of reincarnation and some concept like karma?

Without the notion of a previous existence the notion of sinful reactions becomes quite absurd (so if you don't accept reincarnation you will just be left with an absurd premise to ruminate over)

- and I would argue that it is a fundamental principle visible in all religions - there is one reference in the bible where jessus is questioned about the nature of suffering as a result of sinful reactions - they indicate a crippled man (or someone likethat) and jesus says that it was because of sins performed previously - they then indicate a person born blind and jesus gives the same answer (what sins could a child possibly perform in the womb?)
Also there is historical evidence that when the bible was reformed during Costantine's era that Origien along with his teachings (who entertained notions of reincarnation) was ousted for political (as opposed to philosophical) reasons

At this stage I'll just point out that there is no scripture which is obviously authored by God rather than one or more human beings.

So if a science book is authored by a man it indicates only his opinions and nothing about the nature of objective scientific enquiry?

Personally, I doubt that humans will ever know everything. What puzzles me is why some people seem unable to live with doubt.

Its called curiousity and it is a driving force behind all intellectual pursuits from art to science and religion

They want all the answers now - even if they come from unreliable sources.

By unreliable knowledge you don't happen to be reffering to knowledge that innvolves these four defects do you?

---- imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"

---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake

--- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert

----a cheating propensity..... our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc

In scientific terms, that's a meaningless question. In fact, in terms of a dictionary definition of "universe", it is a meaningless question. The universe isn't part of some bigger space. Where is the universe? All around you. It's all there is, after all.

Some cultures also used to t hink that ocean was an infinite expanse as well.

I think questions like "How does a star form?", "Why is the sky blue?", "How did life on Earth develop?", "How will the universe end?" are big questions.

The questions in Bold are not answered by science though - that is my point - empiricism is useless because you seem to admit that it is not sufficient to determine where the universe is, or how the universe fits in tothe scheme of things, which is integral to at least answering how the universe will end.

And they are ones which science answers much more effectively than religion. The bible's best guess at the value of pi is 3. Science knows it to billions of decimal places (actually, a potentially infinite number of places).

Your error is to assume thatthe words "religion" and "christianity" are synonymous - if its any concession I agree that the bible is not suitably equipped as a scripture toexplain the exact details of universal creation, although the essence of instruction is there - I think jesus said something along the lines of there are many things I could explain to you but you are not ready for them yet

Theists in ancient times thought the Earth was flat, and stars were bright points painted on a huge canvas by a big man who lived in the sky. Until science came along, the theists' universe was billions of times smaller than our actual universe.

Once again you are assuming that because the current reins of material ower are in eurocentric hands that christianity is the summit of religious knowledge

“ Then why do all trees eventually die even if they are in the presence of such carbon? ”



Are you asking for a scientific explanation, or something else? What kind of answer will satisfy you?

I am just trying to follow your logic - I said that consciousness does not emerge from matter to which you replied

Life continually comes from matter. How do trees grow? Answer: they absorb non-living carbon from the air and use it to build themselves.

So I am just trying to query why, if this is the case, that some trees die even in the presence of the said carbon.

My point is that it is not sufficient to establish that the driving force behind the body of a conscious entity comes from lifeless matter, because even in the said existenec of lifeless matter consciousness comes and goes independently.

And, more importantly, why can't you live without knowing?

Technically I can live, but I run the risk of living in ignorance, particularly if I ascribe questionable conclusions with an absolute authority

Why do you need some authority to give you all the answers?

Actually I have spent a great deal of this thread deconstructing the authority that establishes your answers - I could verily ask you the same question

It's a figure of speech. The physical process of dying is very complicated, from a biological point of view.

Still it remains very easy to determine the difference between a dead person and a living one

What's your answer to the original question, by the way? Do you think God decides that one will live and the other will die?

That was the original question?
My answer is yes
Can scientific or manmade endeavour guarentee that you will live to take your next breath?


Is

your God hands-on? Does he do it for every form of life - every bacterium, every fungus, every fluke worm, every moment of the day?

Yes
That and a whole lot more
If he didn't there would be no meaning to "Supreme Controller" don't you think?

 

[superluminal]

That is true, but my statements were more about how you can not provide a single example of anything of complex structures that is caused by something that is not either conscious or mysterious

Ok.

Stars. We know very well how stars form by gravitational collapse of a rotating gas cloud.

Solar systems. See above.

Crystals. We know very well how interatomic forces cause crystals of varying complexity to form the lattices they do.

Weather systems. Extremely complex yet formed from the basic action of heat transfer within a fluid medium.

There are probably hundreds of different natural phenomena that can be listed. But you seem to be completely blind to the fundamental flaw in your "complexity needs consciousness" argument.

All of the examples you use, like the simple-minded:

I can however give you lots of examples of complex objects that are caused by consciousness - crayon pictures of stars are one

are indeed created by consciousness. But they are far from the only complex things in the universe. By observing that consciousness can create complexity, and from that, deducing that complexity requires consciousness (while ignoring the abundant natural complexity in the universe) makes your argument rather silly and trivial. You do know what a circular argument is?

Can you do no better than that?

 

[superluminal]

LG:

Is
“ your God hands-on? Does he do it for every form of life - every bacterium, every fungus, every fluke worm, every moment of the day? ”


Yes
That and a whole lot more
If he didn't there would be no meaning to "Supreme Controller" don't you think?

Show us this with compelling obvious evidence that has greater explanatory power than current natural explanations which any educated layman can understand.

As every scientist knows, if you can't explain clearly to an educated layman what the basis of your work is and how you arrive at your conclusions, then you either don't understand what you're doing, or you stink at explaining things, or you're an arrogant prick who can't spare the time.

Where do you fall LG?

We're all educated laymen. And you can't seem to clear up our simple requests for some simple logic and evidence that would set us straight? What's the problem?

 

[lightgigantic]

Show us this with compelling obvious evidence that has greater explanatory power than current natural explanations which any educated layman can understand.

As every scientist knows, if you can't explain clearly to an educated layman what the basis of your work is and how you arrive at your conclusions, then you either don't understand what you're doing, or you stink at explaining things, or you're an arrogant prick who can't spare the time.

Where do you fall LG?

We're all educated laymen. And you can't seem to clear up our simple requests for some simple logic and evidence that would set us straight? What's the problem?

Its not a question of education - it is a question of attitude - like the real reason that a high school drop out cannot understand an electron is not that it is beyond his intellectual prowess but because he has a bad attitude to the persons and the process that can enable him to understand an electron.

Just like a high school drop out who calls all physicists "egg heads" and all physics books "full of crap", just like a person who suspends all channels of critical enquiry when they label all theistic persons as "nutcases" and all scriptures as "BS stories" - there is no way of indicating the conclusions of knowledge to persons possesed of such sentiments.

And as a further point, science doesn't operate on the notion that nothing is held as true unless it can be explained to the lay man on the street, so why do you hold theism by the same model - inother words why do you assume that the knowledge presented in theism bears no relevance to the qualifcation of the hearer, when even science doesn't operate out of such systems of comprehension?

 

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

James R could forsee the nature of my enquiry, thus he avoided going hrough this labourious process - but since you jumped midway through our dialouge I guess we have to go through it]

Stars. We know very well how stars form by gravitational collapse of a rotating gas cloud.

what causes the gravitational colapse. what causes the gas to rotate?

Crystals. We know very well how interatomic forces cause crystals of varying complexity to form the lattices they do.

what causes these interatomic causes

Weather systems. Extremely complex yet formed from the basic action of heat transfer within a fluid medium.

what causes the heat?

There are probably hundreds of different natural phenomena that can be listed. But you seem to be completely blind to the fundamental flaw in your "complexity needs consciousness" argument.

But all of them only operate out f relative cases - when yuo trace the causes far enough you come to the point of "we don't know"

are indeed created by consciousness. But they are far from the only complex things in the universe. By observing that consciousness can create complexity, and from that, deducing that complexity requires consciousness (while ignoring the abundant natural complexity in the universe) makes your argument rather silly and trivial. You do know what a circular argument is?

Sil - you argument thatthings can be created without consciousnes if you had one single example of soemthing that operates out of such a system

Can you do no better than that?

I am just waiting for that one example that you can use as a model of extrapolilation that the universe does not depend on consciousness for creation.
Name one single thing in our experience that is complex yet doesn't owe its cause to either consciousness or something mysterious hat cannot be dilineated

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Lightgiantic:: you seem to have a lot to say in every thread but nothing worthy of a response, you are the most irratic and irrational poster, I've come across, I do believe the only replies you are getting from other posters, are out of pity or possibly just to humour you, if you are going to make a statement or reply to a post could you at least try and make it a coherent and logical response, the site has died a death since you've been on it, you've have made it such a boring site, it once was a place for intelligent conversation, please try to think before you speak.

I used to come everyday to this site, now I just give it a passing glance, please do sort yourself out.
I and I'm sure others would like to return to intelligent conversation.

however thinking about it you could be a troll, or just a spammer.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Here's an interesting interview with Michael Shermer, talking about atheism, evolution and the theory of "intelligent design", why religion should not be enshrined in American law, and much else besides.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/

Here are a few excepts:

-----------------------

Why do people fear [the theory of evolution]?

They've been sold a bill of goods by people who like the warfare model of science and religion, particularly fundamentalists and militant atheists. Both sides want to force a choice and debunk the other side. But it need not be so. It's an incorrect interpretation promoted by extremists. The tendency is for liberals to embrace science and conservatives to mistrust it. Conservatives like technology but tend to be leery about science because it threatens their religions. They fear the Darwinian worldview is the liberal worldview, which says that if there is no God, there is no absolute right and wrong. And without an Archimedean point outside of ourselves that says this is right or wrong, then anything goes, there's no basis for morality. Therefore America will go to hell in a moral handbasket.

...

Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, recently told Salon that he believes in God, the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. "If you believe in God," Collins said, "and if God is more than nature, then there's no reason that God could not stage an invasion into the natural world, which -- to our limited perspective -- would appear to be a miracle."

What does he mean by miracle? If God is intervening into our world, he must be doing so in some measurable way. That's what we do with science. We measure. OK, Francis, where's your data? There was just a big study done on prayer and healing. If praying to God is supposed to heal people, this was the best, most rigorous study ever done, conducted by a world-class scientist who believed he would find a positive result of praying. Here's what he found: zip, nada, nothing.

So, OK, Francis, what else have you got? The virgin birth? I mean, come on. The resurrection? Now we're talking about mythic events, we're not talking about science. What he's doing is rehashing old theological arguments that have been hashed out by evangelicals for a long time. The bit [from C.S. Lewis] that Jesus can't have been a liar or a lunatic and so therefore he's the Lord? That's not science, that's creating straw men you can knock down to leave the one standing you already believe in. It's an example of the hindsight bias we're all susceptible to. We've already made a decision and then we go back and justify it. Scientists like Collins are just particularly good at it.

...

What's your best answer for why there is no God?

It's not why there is no God, it's why there's not compelling evidence to believe in God. That's a better way to put it. And from my perspective, it's just not there for me. With training in science, I have high standards of evidence. If you said God is real, and you sent your evidence to the journals Science or Nature for publication, you'd be laughed out of the room; you wouldn't get past the first reviewer.

On the other side, the best evidence that there probably isn't a God is that belief in God is so deeply culturally embedded. When you study world religions, it's obvious that, throughout time, all of these different people are making up their own stories about God. If you lived 1,000 years ago, hardly anybody would be a Christian. If you were born in India, you'd likely be a Hindu. What does that tell you? From a Christian perspective, it means we need to get more missionaries over there to tell them the truth! From an anthropological perspective, it's another case. Christians today might say, I don't believe in Zeus, that was a silly superstition. Yet for many people that was a real god.

So it turns out there are 10,000 gods and yet only one right one. That means we're all atheists on 9,999 gods. The only difference between me and the believers is I'm an atheist on one more god.

...

Earlier this summer, George Gilder, the supply-side economist and guiding light to the techno-libertarian crowd, wrote an essay in National Review. He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the foundation, as you know, that promotes intelligent design. In the essay, "Evolution and Me," he argues that physics and chemistry will never yield insight into the origins of life or consciousness. He says complex life results from a preceding intelligence. He's pretty hard on you Darwinists. He writes, "As an all-purpose tool of reductionism that said whatever survives is, in some way, normative, Darwinism could inspire almost any modern movement, from the eugenic furies of Nazism to the feminist crusades of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood."

That's completely absurd. He's listing all the liberal issues and wants us to see them as fascism. That's the typical right-wing response. What a political or ideological or racist movement does with a scientific theory is quite independent of the scientists. It's hardly fair to blame Gutenberg for the printing press that allowed "Mein Kampf" to be distributed. Science is just a tool, a way of understanding the natural world. We've got to get past this idea that science is a thing. It isn't a thing like religion is a thing or a political party is a thing. It's true that scientists have clubs. They have banners and meetings and they drink beer together. But science is just a method, a way of answering questions. It's a verb not a noun.

...

Intelligent design [ID] boosters say that if life only develops by random chance, as Darwinists say, then we're living meaningless lives.

Right, that's the moral meme. But they're confusing human meaning with natural meaning. There is no natural meaning in the universe. Nobody, Christian or otherwise, would look at a star and go, What's the meaning of that? It doesn't mean anything. It's a bunch of atoms. Believers and non-believers alike are comfortable saying human life has meaning because we make it so. That goes for Rick Warren and Dr. Phil. They say, hey, look, man, you got to go out there and do it yourself. You got to volunteer and help the poor. We give our life meaning by being helpful and sociable.

Well, that's Darwinian. We evolved as a social primate species in which we had to cooperate to get along. It's not random, there are parameters defined by our own human nature. If these guys want to say, well, that's how God did it, OK, that's fine. But let's keep studying it scientifically to understand why that would have come about through natural forces.

In the end, you don't need a top-down entity to give life meaning. If anything, if nobody is out there, it is much more important to find meaning ourselves. Instead of this world being a mere staging for the next world of eternity -- meaning it doesn't really matter what we do now -- it's better to realize there is no eternity, that this is it. In that case, we better be careful what we do, make our choices consciously, treat people kindly and be moral because this life is what really counts.

Stephen Meyer, one of the vice presidents of the Discovery Institute, says, "Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea but instead an evidence-based scientific theory." You write in "Why Darwin Matters" that the "veneer of science in ID theory is there purposefully to cover up the religious agenda." How do you know that?

Because I asked them and they told me. I know these guys. I have debated Meyer at conferences and gone out to beers with William Dembski, another major I.D. theorist. They're all evangelical born-again Christians. They all believe in Christ as their savior. They believed it before they got into all this stuff. I've asked them that if the main tenets of intelligent design turned out to be false, would they then give up their belief in Christ? No, they say. And that's because they believe in Christ for reasons that have nothing to do with their theory.

So what's the real agenda of I.D.?

They want the Judeo-Christian worldview accepted into American public life as policy. But the First Amendment says you're not supposed to do that. America is based on a diversity of beliefs and was founded on the principle of religious freedom. The conservatives want to blend public life with private life. But religion is private. It's nobody's business. Politicians have to announce they believe in God, and God bless America. But religion as public policy leads to a reduction of liberty and freedom for those who don't believe. It makes it harder for us to express our own beliefs without fear of condemnation.

Let's say that we passed legislation that requires the teaching of one dominant religion in public schools, which right now is Judeo-Christian. Hooray! Everybody's happy. Now let's say that Islam is the dominant religion 500 years from now. It most likely will be Europe. You still want that law on the books? Girls in public schools will have to wear burqas and, in fact, there will be no education for them after sixth grade. You still want the dominant religion legalized in America? No way!

--------------------

Comments?

The joys of life with God, you know what you are here, you know what you are doing, you know what your purpose is, you love yourself. God can give you these things.

Athiesm has yet to show that it can give people a sense of purpose, connection to each other and the universe, and a supernatural self esteem. Tell me, how can athiesm make a person better?

God can teach morality, logic, reading, science, and anything else, because God is the biggest social motivational force in nature. Most people who are truly motivated, are motivated for religious reasons, so why do athiests go to work?

 

[lightgigantic]

pavlosmarcos

Lightgiantic:: you seem to have a lot to say in every thread but nothing worthy of a response, you are the most irratic and irrational poster, I've come across, I do believe the only replies you are getting from other posters, are out of pity or possibly just to humour you, if you are going to make a statement or reply to a post could you at least try and make it a coherent and logical response, the site has died a death since you've been on it, you've have made it such a boring site, it once was a place for intelligent conversation, please try to think before you speak.

Feel free to exhibit the nature of the ideal reponse that you are alluding to.

I used to come everyday to this site, now I just give it a passing glance, please do sort yourself out.
I and I'm sure others would like to return to intelligent conversation.

By intelligent converstaion I assume you mean a medium where you are more free to get away with your statements without a serious examination of their premises?

Are the "others" merely persons possessed of the same value system of yourself?

If you sincerely feel no interest in submitting things here its not because I am prohibiting you

But besides this, after all , this is a thread selection that deals with the topic of religion - so if you insist on riding the atheistic bandwagon you should be aware of the value system you are advocating

however thinking about it you could be a troll, or just a spammer

Why? Because I insist on a rational format?

Frankly I am surprised that you can say that since the trolling and spamming one has to turn a blind eye to for advocating a theistic stance here is phenomenal.

I mean what substance does your response offer except namecalling, spamming and trolling to the effect of "I don't like you"
- better to put aside one's personal agenda and just examine the ideas as they are presented

 

[superluminal]

Name one single thing in our experience that is complex yet doesn't owe its cause to either consciousness or something mysterious that cannot be dilineated

1) Stars are complex yet owe their complexity to "natural" forces. No consciousness involved.

2) The mechanism of star formation is mot "mysterious" and can be delineated.

So,
"what causes the gravitational collapse" and "what causes the gas to rotate" and "what causese these interatomic causes"
These all have delineated answers, but ultimately it all gets down to one instant - that which we currently call the "Big Bang". We have no "answer" for this.

So, I deduce from your statements that your whole argument gets down to "what caused the big bang.?"

And since your circular argument seems intrenched in you, you deduce that god (consciousness) did it, because only consciousness or something mysterious can create complexity.

My simple answer to this is that the universe just is. No beginning, no end. Hard for you to comprehend since everything in your experience has a beginning and an end. The universe may go through a series of cycles that are so extended in time that time has no meaning. What is a googleplex compared to timeless eternity? 0.

So, I further deduce that, among the many possibilities of existence for a time-unbounded universe, your argument is almost childishly anthropomorphic. No insult intended.

But think about what you are doing.

You are starting with the fairly egocentric foundational assumption that because you see people and animals around you making things, that anything that appears made must be due to consciousness (or mystery, which I translate to mean a god-like consciousness). Doesn't this strike you as the least bit anthropogenic? Let's see where we stand.

1) We seem to agree that we have very good (and constantly improving) delineation of the processes of complex "natural" phenomena almost all the way back to the BB.

2) We agree that the underlying nature and cause of the BB is currently, at best, "mysterious".

3) You assume that this foundational mystery must be caused by consciousness because only consciousness can make complexity, because you observe complexity being made by consciousness some of the time (π x 2r)

4) I assume that there are many possibilities (including an uberconsciousness) that are interesting. But without many lines of solid, converging evidence for one over the other, I conclude that there are no valid statements to be made about the nature of the BB.

5) Your argument is therefore, on the face of it, anthropomorphic and quite egocentric.

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

I can however give you lots of examples of complex objects that are caused by consciousness - crayon pictures of stars are one

And I can give you lots of examples of complex objects that are not caused by consciousness. Take a tree, for example.

Before you start with the "you don't know what caused the tree", let me remind you that you don't either. You just assume it was God, without any kind of evidence.

If you can show me good evidence that God caused a tree, then I'll concede defeat.

So when science presents the knowledge (and also the methods how they give the knowledge) that the Earth was like XYZ 3 000 000 years ago, is that science telling us that knowledge or a person telling us that knowledge?

Why make such a distinction? The person isn't guessing - he is basing his conclusion on evidence. He has used the methods of science to draw a valid conclusion. I don't see where you want to go with this.

That's drawing a very long bow. There's nothing to say that atheists run against God's instructions.

Yes there is
"The demoniac person thinks: "So much wealth do I have today, and I will gain more according to my schemes. So much is mine now, and it will increase in the future, more and more. He is my enemy, and I have killed him, and my other enemies will also be killed. I am the lord of everything. I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy. I am the richest man, surrounded by aristocratic relatives. There is none so powerful and happy as I am. I shall perform sacrifices, I shall give some charity, and thus I shall rejoice." In this way, such persons are deluded by ignorance.

BG 16.16: Thus perplexed by various anxieties and bound by a network of illusions, they become too strongly attached to sense enjoyment and fall down into hell.

BG 16.17: Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, they sometimes proudly perform sacrifices in name only, without following any rules or regulations.

BG 16.18: Bewildered by false ego, strength, pride, lust and anger, the demons become envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is situated in their own bodies and in the bodies of others, and blaspheme against the real religion."

one-eighteenth of the Bhagavad gita deals with this specifically - the parts in bold are directly realted to theistic practices

I don't see the word "atheist" in any of that. Also, the Bhagavad gita is just one religious text among many. Who is to say it is a true record of God's instructions?

So if a person accepts that another person has authority over a house only 50% of the time, doesn't that make them a theif

Not unless they steal stuff...

words like most atheists and most theists means different things to different people

Just to be clear: to me, "most atheists" means "at least 50% of all atheists, and probably more than that".

But I just pointed out earlier how you are not moral by your own moral definitions either (Do unto others ...) ... So in what exact ways are you different?

Did I claim to be more moral than you? Do you claim you are more moral than me? Do you claim you are more moral than any atheist? If so, on what grounds do you make that claim?

Without the notion of a previous existence the notion of sinful reactions becomes quite absurd (so if you don't accept reincarnation you will just be left with an absurd premise to ruminate over)

I'm not sure what a "sinful reaction" is. You could explain it and why it requires reincarnation, or not, if you prefer.

...and I would argue that it is a fundamental principle visible in all religions - there is one reference in the bible where jessus is questioned about the nature of suffering as a result of sinful reactions - they indicate a crippled man (or someone likethat) and jesus says that it was because of sins performed previously - they then indicate a person born blind and jesus gives the same answer (what sins could a child possibly perform in the womb?)
Also there is historical evidence that when the bible was reformed during Costantine's era that Origien along with his teachings (who entertained notions of reincarnation) was ousted for political (as opposed to philosophical) reasons

Well, for whatever reason, reincarnation is not a central belief of current Christians or Muslims or many other religions. Are they all false religions, then?

By unreliable knowledge you don't happen to be reffering to knowledge that innvolves these four defects do you?

---- imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"

---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake

--- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert

----a cheating propensity..... our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc

Knowledge could be unreliable for those reasons, or for other reasons. Much "knowledge" of god(s) is unreliable, because it has no sound objective basis.

The universe isn't part of some bigger space. Where is the universe? All around you. It's all there is, after all.

Some cultures also used to think that ocean was an infinite expanse as well.

The universe may not be infinite, but it does, by definition, contain all the space there is. My previous point was it is meaningless to ask "Where is the universe?" The question is equivalent to asking "What is to the north of the North Pole?"

I think questions like "How does a star form?", "Why is the sky blue?", "How did life on Earth develop?", "How will the universe end?" are big questions.

The questions in Bold are not answered by science though - that is my point - empiricism is useless because you seem to admit that it is not sufficient to determine where the universe is, or how the universe fits in tothe scheme of things, which is integral to at least answering how the universe will end.

I find it interesting that you think that science answers the question "Why is the sky blue?" but not "How does a star form?" I wonder why you think that.

Your error is to assume thatthe words "religion" and "christianity" are synonymous - if its any concession I agree that the bible is not suitably equipped as a scripture to explain the exact details of universal creation, although the essence of instruction is there - I think jesus said something along the lines of there are many things I could explain to you but you are not ready for them yet

I am quite aware that there are other religions than Christianity. All have different creation stories. Many of those stories conflict with one another.

No religious text that I am aware of cuts the mustard as a scientific treatise. No religious text comes close.

I am just trying to follow your logic - I said that consciousness does not emerge from matter to which you replied

Life continually comes from matter. How do trees grow? Answer: they absorb non-living carbon from the air and use it to build themselves.

So I am just trying to query why, if this is the case, that some trees die even in the presence of the said carbon.

My point is that it is not sufficient to establish that the driving force behind the body of a conscious entity comes from lifeless matter, because even in the said existenec of lifeless matter consciousness comes and goes independently.

Are you advocating Cartesian dualism then? Do you think there is a "life force" or "soul" or "divine spark" which is needed for something to be alive?

If so, how can we detect such a thing objectively? If I say I you have no soul, can you prove me wrong?

Still it remains very easy to determine the difference between a dead person and a living one

Not really. You're just familiar with the process in large mammals.

I doubt you could easily tell a recently-dead tree from a live one, for example.

Can scientific or manmade endeavour guarentee that you will live to take your next breath?

No, but neither can your favorite religious text.

Is your God hands-on? Does he do it for every form of life - every bacterium, every fungus, every fluke worm, every moment of the day?

Yes
That and a whole lot more
If he didn't there would be no meaning to "Supreme Controller" don't you think?

Sounds like he's doing things the hard way.

 

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

So, I deduce from your statements that your whole argument gets down to "what caused the big bang.?"

Actually before you get to the big bang you run into a few snags (at least its not clear how a big bang could lead to life forms) , but even if I let you run with it, yes, it does indicate that you cannot trace ANYTHING that has a complex structure to something that is not mysterious (ie shrouded in dubious premises, and even if accepted is still contingent on some other cause that is completely unknowable) or consciousness

And since your circular argument seems intrenched in you, you deduce that god (consciousness) did it, because only consciousness or something mysterious can create complexity.

Who mentioned God? I have only mentioned consciousness - at least its proven - we wouldn't hesitate to think that a crayon picture of a star is directed by consciousness - what on earth makes you think that an actual star is? What model of extrapolilation are you working with when you make such wild claims?

My simple answer to this is that the universe just is. No beginning, no end. Hard for you to comprehend since everything in your experience has a beginning and an end. The universe may go through a series of cycles that are so extended in time that time has no meaning. What is a googleplex compared to timeless eternity? 0.

Still doesn't help you any.
How long would you have to wait for a crayon picture to draw itself (without consciousness)?
In other words with or without eternity you are still offering no premises for suggesting how inert matter can move itself into complex forms.
(BTW the vedic standpoint is that the material creation is eternal as well - the thing is that it requires consciousness to activate it - consciousness also being an eternal phemomena)

So, I further deduce that, among the many possibilities of existence for a time-unbounded universe, your argument is almost childishly anthropomorphic. No insult intended.

Lol - well first you have to prove how matter can move itself
Providing a single example to act as a model for extrapolilation would help.
How long would you have to wait to see a european sportscar evolve from matter without consciousness?
It certainly doesn't appear that darwian evolution can get the job done to get dull matter to form a single cell (that has approx 10 to the power of 27 atoms moving in sybiotic precision, producing over 2000 proteins simultaneously at every moment)

But think about what you are doing.

You are starting with the fairly egocentric foundational assumption that because you see people and animals around you making things, that anything that appears made must be due to consciousness (or mystery, which I translate to mean a god-like consciousness). Doesn't this strike you as the least bit anthropogenic? Let's see where we stand.

And when you state the opposite doesn't that strike you as absurd.

Like for instance if it is observed in every facet of existence that matter does not form any thing complex without some consciousness to order it, on what grounds do you abolish it from your thinking?
If the infrastructure of a star is countlessly billions of times more complex (and also efficient) than the infrastructure of utilities in NYC, isn't it absurd to assume that such complex structures can self manifest? (Particularly in the absence of even one single simple example of this, despite over 50 years of scientific attempts to create environments for dull matter to establish itself) - what to speak of a star - even a single cell is more complex and efficient than NYC
Nobody has ever seen anything self organise in any system., what to speak of the universe self organising.

1) We seem to agree that we have very good (and constantly improving) delineation of the processes of complex "natural" phenomena almost all the way back to the BB.

Never under estimate the ability of science to make up a story
First it they said it was proteins
Then it was dna
Then it was rna
Then it was prna
now it seems like it could be pna or maybe tna
where is the improvement?
To quote Behe

Its like the old story of the epicycles that Ptolemic astronomy had to keep putting onplanets in their orbits to try and keep the earth as the centre of the solar system. They keep adding layers and layers to the origin of life story to try and push the problem back further but NOBODY has been able to get to anything that seems plausible enough to even start things off

2) We agree that the underlying nature and cause of the BB is currently, at best, "mysterious".

yes

3) You assume that this foundational mystery must be caused by consciousness because only consciousness can make complexity, because you observe complexity being made by consciousness some of the time (π x 2r)

Yes - I am pointing out that there is nothing to draw on even for a model of extraopliltaion that matter can self organise, so your premises for an entire universe operating on such a principle are indeed highly dubious

4) I assume that there are many possibilities (including an uberconsciousness) that are interesting. But without many lines of solid, converging evidence for one over the other, I conclude that there are no valid statements to be made about the nature of the BB.

uberconsciousness? How does that solve the question if you say it started somewhere else (inother wwords you are still left with the question how did consciousness develop from matter - you don't solve it by saying "the answer is that it happened somewhere else")

5) Your argument is therefore, on the face of it, anthropomorphic and quite egocentric

To say it is anthropomorphic and therefore false you have to establish clearly what the original substance is that got abstracted - like for instance you can say mickey mouse is a false anthropomorphism because you can indicate real mice and the walt disney as the engineer - How do you propose to establish such premises in this circumstance?

 

[lightgigantic]

James R

And I can give you lots of examples of complex objects that are not caused by consciousness. Take a tree, for example.

Before you start with the "you don't know what caused the tree", let me remind you that you don't either. You just assume it was God, without any kind of evidence.

I thought a tree was conscious to begin with - at the very least there is a difference between a living tree and a dead one

If you can show me good evidence that God caused a tree, then I'll concede defeat.

Again , who mentioned god - thats an advanced topic - for the moment we're just talking about consciousness

Why make such a distinction? The person isn't guessing - he is basing his conclusion on evidence. He has used the methods of science to draw a valid conclusion. I don't see where you want to go with this.

You raised it earlier by saying that people don't tell us things in science, science tells us things in science - you were alluding to its objective authority when you said
"Not really. Shermer is a person. Science is not a person. A person has beliefs. Science is a collection of knowledge and methods. "
So thats why I am asking when science tells us that the earth was like XYZ 3 000 000 years ago is that science telling us that or a person?
When you say the person is not guessing, do you mean to say that he is not guessing what the evidence indicates?

I don't see the word "atheist" in any of that. Also, the Bhagavad gita is just one religious text among many. Who is to say it is a true record of God's instructions?

“You said “ That's drawing a very long bow. There's nothing to say that atheists run against God's instructions. ”
If you cannot quote scripture to determine the nature of an atheist what do you use?
As for the sanskrit words for atheist there are several, such as pasandi, nastik, danava - all of whom are titled asuras

“ So if a person accepts that another person has authority over a house only 50% of the time, doesn't that make them a theif ”



Not unless they steal stuff...

Well thats what I was indicating by "not accepting the authority" - If I tell you that person x has authority over yz, and you say "no he doesn't" and pay no hinderance to the claims of authority you wouldn't be aware if you were stealing or tresspassing

Did I claim to be more moral than you? Do you claim you are more moral than me? Do you claim you are more moral than any atheist? If so, on what grounds do you make that claim?

You did claim to be moral - why else did you post
Therefore, atheists tend to act morally, though they don't do so for religious reasons.(In fact, most of the time theists don't act morally for religious reasons either...)
I am just trying to determine how to qualify your statement since you are indicating that most atheists are moral, yet when I applied your own morals to yourself it is seen that you are not - what does it mean for an atheist to be successfully moral?

I'm not sure what a "sinful reaction" is. You could explain it and why it requires reincarnation, or not, if you prefer.

A sin is a transgression of the laws established by god - a sinful reaction is the result of that sin - without the notion of a previous life (in which previous sinful and pious activities were performed) it becomes difficult to ratoinalise the current ariety of misery and distress that people are born into and experience within this life.

Well, for whatever reason, reincarnation is not a central belief of current Christians or Muslims or many other religions. Are they all false religions, then?

No - because they advocate surrender to god - which is the only means to annhilate one's stockpile of material sin and piety


“ By unreliable knowledge you don't happen to be reffering to knowledge that innvolves these four defects do you?

---- imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"

---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake

--- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert

----a cheating propensity..... our perception of obejctivity is manipulated due to the influence of avaracice, wrath, lust etc ”

Knowledge could be unreliable for those reasons, or for other reasons. Much "knowledge" of god(s) is unreliable, because it has no sound objective basis.

What general principles do you rely upon to make that statement about the objectivity of knowledge pertaining to god?

The universe may not be infinite, but it does, by definition, contain all the space there is. My previous point was it is meaningless to ask "Where is the universe?" The question is equivalent to asking "What is to the north of the North Pole?"

Ok imagine this - you woke up in a strange room- you didn't know where you were, you didn't know how you got there, and you didn't know what was happening - is you natural response to that "Oh well, I guess I will just find the nearest 7-11" - at the ery least it wouldn't make a very entertaining script for an episode of the twilight zone

I find it interesting that you think that science answers the question "Why is the sky blue?" but not "How does a star form?" I wonder why you think that.

Actually in one sense science cannot properly understand why the sky is blue, since there are many unknown properties of light, but I thought I would throw it in the easy bin when you were trying to lump it in with things like how a star is formed, which is something science does not know - Of course they can give a theory how a star is formed but such theories don't translate in to practical demonstrations

I am quite aware that there are other religions than Christianity. All have different creation stories. Many of those stories conflict with one another.

But they all attribute it to consciousness

No religious text that I am aware of cuts the mustard as a scientific treatise. No religious text comes close.

I think its ironic that in the past 50 years the discoeries of science have pointed more and more strongly to something that is beyond the universe that is necessary to explain what we find in the universe.
If by cutting the mustard you mean knowing why the universe started, why it has fine tuning constants, how life started etc etc I think science is not cutting the mustard at all

My point is that it is not sufficient to establish that the driving force behind the body of a conscious entity comes from lifeless matter, because even in the said existenec of lifeless matter consciousness comes and goes independently.

But only when it is caused by consciousness - is there a single example of consciousness appearing from inert matter?

Are you advocating Cartesian dualism then? Do you think there is a "life force" or "soul" or "divine spark" which is needed for something to be alive?

Yes

If so, how can we detect such a thing objectively? If I say I you have no soul, can you prove me wrong?

By its symptoms - just like an electron is detected by its symptoms - If you say I have no soul I cannot prove you wrong if that is in fact the case because I would be dead

Not really. You're just familiar with the process in large mammals.

I doubt you could easily tell a recently-dead tree from a live one, for example.

Thats because it is the nature of a trees consciousness to be very covered - they don't tend to die suddenly- but even an amateur green thumb like myself can easily determine the truth of the matter over a period of time

“ Can scientific or manmade endeavour guarentee that you will live to take your next breath? ”

No, but neither can your favorite religious text.

I never advocated that the time element was subservient to our consciousness

“ “ Is your God hands-on? Does he do it for every form of life - every bacterium, every fungus, every fluke worm, every moment of the day? ”



Yes
That and a whole lot more
If he didn't there would be no meaning to "Supreme Controller" don't you think? ”



Sounds like he's doing things the hard way

Well you would hae to ask him that
Do you have a better idea how to run the universe?
The fact that you are not in such a position seems to indicate that the universe disagrees.

 

[superluminal]

superluminal

“ So, I deduce from your statements that your whole argument gets down to "what caused the big bang.?" ”

Actually before you get to the big bang you run into a few snags (at least its not clear how a big bang could lead to life forms) , but even if I let you run with it, yes, it does indicate that you cannot trace ANYTHING that has a complex structure to something that is not mysterious (ie shrouded in dubious premises, and even if accepted is still contingent on some other cause that is completely unknowable) or consciousness

Alright. We'll leave out consciousness then, since you have less of a basis to blame the structure of crystals or stars on consciousness than I have to claim purely natural physical law.

So, I agree. All of us can trace the origin of everything back to some ultimate mystery (i.e. we haven't yet figured it out).

“ And since your circular argument seems intrenched in you, you deduce that god (consciousness) did it, because only consciousness or something mysterious can create complexity. ”

Who mentioned God? I have only mentioned consciousness - at least its proven - we wouldn't hesitate to think that a crayon picture of a star is directed by consciousness - what on earth makes you think that an actual star is? What model of extrapolilation are you working with when you make such wild claims?

I must admit that the phrasing of this paragraph completely confuses me. No response due to I don't know what the fuck your talking about here. Sorry.

“ My simple answer to this is that the universe just is. No beginning, no end. Hard for you to comprehend since everything in your experience has a beginning and an end. The universe may go through a series of cycles that are so extended in time that time has no meaning. What is a googleplex compared to timeless eternity? 0. ”

Still doesn't help you any.
How long would you have to wait for a crayon picture to draw itself (without consciousness)?

If you insist on using such childish mischaracterizations of my arguements, I'll have to assume that you are a child with a large vocabulary.

In other words with or without eternity you are still offering no premises for suggesting how inert matter can move itself into complex forms.

This is blatantly wrong. I thought you had at least some highschool physics and chemistry, but I appear to be wrong in that assumption.
A couple of hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom (just a few of bazillions), floating aimlessly in an interstellar cloud, happen to bump into each other and due to simple physics, stick together and poof - water. Now don't you dare go on about "but what caused the physics that makes them stick" crap. There is a fundamental limit to the regression of all phenomena, as we've already agreed upon (the "mysterious" origin of all things). We get it. If this discussion boils down to "what caused everything" then it belongs in the metaphysics section.

“ So, I further deduce that, among the many possibilities of existence for a time-unbounded universe, your argument is almost childishly anthropomorphic. No insult intended. ”

Lol - well first you have to prove how matter can move itself
Providing a single example to act as a model for extrapolilation would help.

Hydrogen, oxygen, water. K? Do you really not have any clue of the basic physics of anything? Seriously. What gives?

How long would you have to wait to see a european sportscar evolve from matter without consciousness?

Again with the embarrassingly rediculous strawman approach. If you do this again I will quit trying to seriously discuss this with you and just flame every post you make.

It certainly doesn't appear that darwian evolution can get the job done to get dull matter to form a single cell (that has approx 10 to the power of 27 atoms moving in sybiotic precision, producing over 2000 proteins simultaneously at every moment)

I will address this one final time, and then the treating-you-like-a-complete-moron phase begins.

1) The province of Darwinian evolution begins the minute you have capable replicators that are subject to copy errors (mutations). The origin of the replicators is the province of theories on the abiogenesis of life. I suspect that is what you are really referring to.

2) It certainly does appear that Darwinian evolution is perfectly capable of explaining how dynamic matter (study some chemistry) can get from simpler forms to more complex. Just as a side note, complexity is not the inevitable outcome of natural selection any more that simplicity is. Evolution is blind and only creatures that fit the environment best will prevail.

Cells did not "appear" in the complicated form that you seem to think they did, and it certainly wasn't random. The first "cells" may have been as simple as a bubble of foam with membrane of organic molecules on its surface and some replicating molecules inside. You can research this deeply on the web. I suspect you already have and have summarily dismissed it, so I won't bother going any further.

“ But think about what you are doing.

You are starting with the fairly egocentric foundational assumption that because you see people and animals around you making things, that anything that appears made must be due to consciousness (or mystery, which I translate to mean a god-like consciousness). Doesn't this strike you as the least bit anthropogenic? Let's see where we stand. ”

And when you state the opposite doesn't that strike you as absurd.

Not at all since yours is a completely circular argument. Do you know what that is? Here:

You: I say that A is true because of B.

Me: And how do you know this?

You: Because B clearly indicates that A is true!

Me: Throttling you, or myself, since I've been driven mad by the illogic.

And here we go again:

Like for instance if it is observed in every facet of existence that matter does not form any thing complex without some consciousness to order it, on what grounds do you abolish it from your thinking?

In every facet of existence in the absence of any presupposed consciousness, we see matter in complex natural forms.

Here:

You: In every facet of existence, matter does not form anything complex without some consciousness to order it.

Me: And how do you know this?

You: Because I see that people and some birds and insects can produce complex structures.

Me: Well, what about crystals and stars and galaxies and people themselves?

You: Obviously there has to be a consciousness behind those things too, since only consciousness can produce complexity.

Me: *throws self off cliff to avoid being involuntarily throttled by my own lower intestine due to the intolerable illogic*

Can you not see the blatant circularity of your statements?

If the infrastructure of a star is countlessly billions of times more complex (and also efficient) than the infrastructure of utilities in NYC, isn't it absurd to assume that such complex structures can self manifest?
(Particularly in the absence of even one single simple example of this, despite over 50 years of scientific attempts to create environments for dull matter to establish itself) - what to speak of a star - even a single cell is more complex and efficient than NYC

I will ignore this. See all responses above.

Nobody has ever seen anything self organise in any system., what to speak of the universe self organising.

What? Aside from life itself (which I know is the root of the discussion) stars and solar systems self organize all of the time. As do crystals of all forms. Unless you presuppose your conclusion (that consciousness must be responsible) which makes you look like a fool, spinning in circles of illogic.

“ 1) We seem to agree that we have very good (and constantly improving) delineation of the processes of complex "natural" phenomena almost all the way back to the BB. ”

Never under estimate the ability of science to make up a story
First it they said it was proteins
Then it was dna
Then it was rna
Then it was prna
now it seems like it could be pna or maybe tna
where is the improvement?

Exactly what the hell are you talking about? Your ignorance of science is overwhelming. All of those "things" are just different biochemical expressions of replicating or pseudo-replicating molecules. They have different places in theory and practice and are just peices of the vast biological puzzle.

To quote Behe

Its like the old story of the epicycles that Ptolemic astronomy had to keep putting onplanets in their orbits to try and keep the earth as the centre of the solar system. They keep adding layers and layers to the origin of life story to try and push the problem back further but NOBODY has been able to get to anything that seems plausible enough to even start things off

This is a demonstrable idiot speaking. This is meant to do nothing more than feed the ignorance of the masses and push and agenda. The degree and tenure of one fanatic have no bearing on the observed fact of evolution and the origin of life.

“ 3) You assume that this foundational mystery must be caused by consciousness because only consciousness can make complexity, because you observe complexity being made by consciousness some of the time (π x 2r) ”

Yes - I am pointing out that there is nothing to draw on even for a model of extraopliltaion that matter can self organise, so your premises for an entire universe operating on such a principle are indeed highly dubious

Besides the bulk of this response being outright ignorance of physics, it's nice to see that you agree with my assesment that your arguments are perfectly circular ((π x 2r)

“ 4) I assume that there are many possibilities (including an uberconsciousness) that are interesting. But without many lines of solid, converging evidence for one over the other, I conclude that there are no valid statements to be made about the nature of the BB. ”

uberconsciousness? How does that solve the question if you say it started somewhere else (inother wwords you are still left with the question how did consciousness develop from matter - you don't solve it by saying "the answer is that it happened somewhere else")

Huh? All this is meant to show is that I have a blank slate for the nature of things that underlie the as-yet unknown fundamental nature of the cosmos.

 

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

Well there's a lot to say here, but it is probably beyond my powers to type or your powers to listen so I will try and cut to the chase by asking a few q's and make a few concise points

“


“ “ So, I deduce from your statements that your whole argument gets down to "what caused the big bang.?" ” ”



Actually before you get to the big bang you run into a few snags (at least its not clear how a big bang could lead to life forms) , but even if I let you run with it, yes, it does indicate that you cannot trace ANYTHING that has a complex structure to something that is not mysterious (ie shrouded in dubious premises, and even if accepted is still contingent on some other cause that is completely unknowable) or consciousness ”


Alright. We'll leave out consciousness then, since you have less of a basis to blame the structure of crystals or stars on consciousness than I have to claim purely natural physical law.

- There is a whole history of how the molecular concept of life developed in science - the main contributers were Wolher when he synthesized urea and of course darwin. Are you stating that there is evidence that life is a molecular phenomena or that it still remains a theory?

- Regardless whether you hold it as theory or evident, do you hold that chemical evolution rests upon these three points?
1) A primitive atmosphere that must have been either reducing or neutral(That is bereft of free oxegyn) to provide the environment for the phenomena of life from molecules to develop
2) Simple molecules like amino acids, purines, pyrimidines etc etc were formed under the action of ultraviolet radiation, thermal energy etc etc
3) In the course of time these molecules gave rise to protoproteins, protonucleic acids etc etc which in turn gave rise to protocells and finally to the living cell

Now to move on to consciousness as distinct from matter.

A couple of hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom (just a few of bazillions), floating aimlessly in an interstellar cloud, happen to bump into each other and due to simple physics, stick together and poof - water. Now don't you dare go on about "but what caused the physics that makes them stick" crap. There is a fundamental limit to the regression of all phenomena, as we've already agreed upon (the "mysterious" origin of all things). We get it. If this discussion boils down to "what caused everything" then it belongs in the metaphysics section.

You seem to be saying that there is evidence of matter moving (like O and H coming to make water) to form complex forms.

My point is that since we cannot dilineate exactly why the O and H is moving the way that it does (we can observe the laws of physics but we don't know why physics works the way it does).

To use an example - a train is moving at 100km/hr - so the people in the train are moving because they are conscious, but then you could also say that the water bottles, luggage and everything else on the train are also moving (at 100km/hr) so they are all conscious.

Like for instance you couldn't call the BZ reaction life could you?


In other words its not enough to say that something is moving unless you can also say how and why they are moving (because, like the water bottles on the train, they might be moving simply because something else is moving them)

If we compare the drawing of a star by a child to the coming together of a water molecule, it is easier to indicate that the child is drawing the picture because they are conscious (dead children don't do art) rather then they are undergoing a series of molecular reactions that give us what we call life, since technically a dead child and a living child are composed of the same organic and inorganic compounds

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

superluminal seems to have hit on one of the fundamental problems with your argument: it is circular.

You assume from the start that complexity can only come from consciousness, then use that premiss to conclude that every complex thing you see has a conscious origin. But that's just begging the question. You need to establish the conscious origin of complex things, not simply assume it must be there somewhere.

I thought a tree was conscious to begin with - at the very least there is a difference between a living tree and a dead one

You must be using a different definition of "conscious" than most people. Here's one definition:

"Conscious": Knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts.

Do you really think trees are conscious? (Note that automatically reacting to stimuli is not the same as having an awareness of surroundings or sensations.)

Again , who mentioned god - thats an advanced topic - for the moment we're just talking about consciousness

Methinks you protest too much. You only have one ultimate consciousness in mind.

You raised it earlier by saying that people don't tell us things in science, science tells us things in science - you were alluding to its objective authority when you said
"Not really. Shermer is a person. Science is not a person. A person has beliefs. Science is a collection of knowledge and methods. "
So thats why I am asking when science tells us that the earth was like XYZ 3 000 000 years ago is that science telling us that or a person?

It is part of the body of accepted scientific knowledge that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or so. So, in that sense, I think it is fair to say "Science tells us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old." You might also say things like "Scientist X thinks the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is incorrect", when talking about individual opinions. The body of scientific knowledge is a generally-accepted consensus view. You can always find the odd kook who disagrees with any particular fact. Some people think the Earth is flat, but Science tells us it is spherical. Science is more reliable that any individual person's views taken in isolation.

When you say the person is not guessing, do you mean to say that he is not guessing what the evidence indicates?

Yes. Science is a hypothetico-deductive enterprise. The knowledge obtained by scientific methods builds on prior knowledge. There almost no guesswork in established science. There is some guessing at the edges of knowledge, but those guesses are then rigorously queried by experiment, further observation, argument and so on.

If you cannot quote scripture to determine the nature of an atheist what do you use?

It's not difficult. An atheist is simple a person who claims no belief in god(s).

Your equating atheists with immoral devil-worshipping fiends is making an unjustifiable leap from one fact to a bunch of other facts, which is simply incorrect as a general proposition.

You did claim to be moral - why else did you post
Therefore, atheists tend to act morally, though they don't do so for religious reasons.(In fact, most of the time theists don't act morally for religious reasons either...)

Note the words "tend to". I have not claimed that atheists always act morally. They don't. But neither do theists.

I am just trying to determine how to qualify your statement since you are indicating that most atheists are moral, yet when I applied your own morals to yourself it is seen that you are not - what does it mean for an atheist to be successfully moral?

The same thing it means for a theist to be successfully moral. We can judge by the outcomes of human actions. We don't need to measure actions against some arbitrary standard written down thousands of years ago.

A sin is a transgression of the laws established by god - a sinful reaction is the result of that sin - without the notion of a previous life (in which previous sinful and pious activities were performed) it becomes difficult to ratoinalise the current ariety of misery and distress that people are born into and experience within this life.

Unless you can establish past lives and karma on some objective basis, I don't think we'll get very far with pursuing this conversational line.

What general principles do you rely upon to make that statement about the objectivity of knowledge pertaining to god?

I believe that the scientific method is the best means we have of obtaining objective knowledge about anything. Are you aware of what the scientific method entails, or should I elaborate further?

The universe may not be infinite, but it does, by definition, contain all the space there is. My previous point was it is meaningless to ask "Where is the universe?" The question is equivalent to asking "What is to the north of the North Pole?"

Ok imagine this - you woke up in a strange room- you didn't know where you were, you didn't know how you got there, and you didn't know what was happening - is you natural response to that "Oh well, I guess I will just find the nearest 7-11" - at the ery least it wouldn't make a very entertaining script for an episode of the twilight zone

This appears to be a non sequitur.

Actually in one sense science cannot properly understand why the sky is blue, since there are many unknown properties of light, but I thought I would throw it in the easy bin when you were trying to lump it in with things like how a star is formed, which is something science does not know...

As much is known about the formation of stars as the Rayleigh scattering of light in the atmosphere. I am puzzled as to how you can claim that science doesn't know how stars form. I can only assume that you haven't actually looked into the matter, so you don't know what you're talking about. If so, there's little point in our pursuing this thread of the discussion, either. Your claims are laughable to anybody who knows a little astrophysics.

Of course they can give a theory how a star is formed but such theories don't translate in to practical demonstrations

I don't follow this. What do you mean by "practical demonstrations"? Are you asking that humans create a star in the lab, or what? Astronomers see stars in the process of formation all the time, you know.

I think its ironic that in the past 50 years the discoeries of science have pointed more and more strongly to something that is beyond the universe that is necessary to explain what we find in the universe.

I don't think they have.

If by cutting the mustard you mean knowing why the universe started, why it has fine tuning constants, how life started etc etc I think science is not cutting the mustard at all

Again, you fall into the trap of assuming that because something is unknown now, science will never find the answer. You're not content simply to say "We don't know yet, but we'll try to find out". You want all the answers now. Religion can't give them to you, you know. Only science can hope to really explain the fine-tuning of physical constants, how life started and so on.

"God did it" will never come close to being a complete explanation for anything, even if it turns out to be true in some ultimate sense.

My point is that it is not sufficient to establish that the driving force behind the body of a conscious entity comes from lifeless matter, because even in the said existenec of lifeless matter consciousness comes and goes independently.

But only when it is caused by consciousness - is there a single example of consciousness appearing from inert matter?

The first quote here was your words, not mine. You're querying yourself. Try to keep track.

If so, how can we detect such a thing objectively? If I say I you have no soul, can you prove me wrong?

By its symptoms - just like an electron is detected by its symptoms - If you say I have no soul I cannot prove you wrong if that is in fact the case because I would be dead

What are the "symptoms" of a soul? How can I measure a soul?

(Remember that here you are setting out to provide evidence that souls exist. Try to avoid the circular argument that souls exist because things can't be alive without souls. That would be begging the question again.)

Do you have a better idea how to run the universe?

Yes. If I was a deity, I would set up some self-consistent laws of nature, and then sit back and let them run my universe, rather than having to personally tweak every electron collision, every reproductive action of a lifeform, the formation of every cloud and so on.

The fact that you are not in such a position seems to indicate that the universe disagrees.

Not at all. Our universe seems to be governed by a very nice an self-consistent set of natural laws. If God exists, it looks like he doesn't intervene in nature very often, if he does so at all.

 

[lightgigantic]

James R

You assume from the start that complexity can only come from consciousness, then use that premiss to conclude that every complex thing you see has a conscious origin. But that's just begging the question. You need to establish the conscious origin of complex things, not simply assume it must be there somewhere.

A crayon picture is seen to definitely originate from a child - not just one or two - all crayon pictures of stars are seen to originate with consciousness - my point is that we have no experience of anything of complex origin developing with out consciousness - I was establishing that for you to immediately refuse to acknowledge the idea of consciousness in universal affairs is highly premature since how the universe is created and why we have the world we have is still an unanswered question.

“ I thought a tree was conscious to begin with - at the very least there is a difference between a living tree and a dead one ”



You must be using a different definition of "conscious" than most people. Here's one definition:

"Conscious": Knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts.

Do you really think trees are conscious? (Note that automatically reacting to stimuli is not the same as having an awareness of surroundings or sensations.)

That is one definition of consciousness, but not one likely to draw a consensus - in fact there is no scientific consensus on what consciousness is - I was relying however on common sense - why do nurseries sell living plants as opposed to dead ones?

“ Again , who mentioned god - thats an advanced topic - for the moment we're just talking about consciousness ”



Methinks you protest too much. You only have one ultimate consciousness in mind.

That may be true but god is still an advanced topic

“ You raised it earlier by saying that people don't tell us things in science, science tells us things in science - you were alluding to its objective authority when you said
"Not really. Shermer is a person. Science is not a person. A person has beliefs. Science is a collection of knowledge and methods. "
So thats why I am asking when science tells us that the earth was like XYZ 3 000 000 years ago is that science telling us that or a person? ”



It is part of the body of accepted scientific knowledge that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or so. So, in that sense, I think it is fair to say "Science tells us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old." You might also say things like "Scientist X thinks the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is incorrect", when talking about individual opinions. The body of scientific knowledge is a generally-accepted consensus view. You can always find the odd kook who disagrees with any particular fact. Some people think the Earth is flat, but Science tells us it is spherical. Science is more reliable that any individual person's views taken in isolation.

So for how many years has science been in the consensus that the earth is 4,5 billion year old? Will the earth be older (or younger) than 50 years in another 50 years?
Does science tell us knowledge or people?

“ When you say the person is not guessing, do you mean to say that he is not guessing what the evidence indicates? ”



Yes. Science is a hypothetico-deductive enterprise. The knowledge obtained by scientific methods builds on prior knowledge. There almost no guesswork in established science. There is some guessing at the edges of knowledge, but those guesses are then rigorously queried by experiment, further observation, argument and so on.

Its not clear how examining guesswork (remember the paradigms for examination are drawn from previous "bodies of knowlege") is not guessing - What does it mean when a new truth of science is revealed and it is said "It looks like we were wrong in our previous estimations"

“ If you cannot quote scripture to determine the nature of an atheist what do you use? ”



It's not difficult. An atheist is simple a person who claims no belief in god(s).

And you don't think god has an opinion on such an attitude?

Your equating atheists with immoral devil-worshipping fiends is making an unjustifiable leap from one fact to a bunch of other facts, which is simply incorrect as a general proposition.

actually that is your connotations with the word "demon"- perhaps it doesn't translate into english so well - actually there are many "demons" who are highly intelligent, beautiful ( no horns on the head and the like) - its more a character definition (just like "gentlemen" is a character definition)

- like for instance if you read the description in the BG you will see there is no mention of devil worshipping - in fact I bet you will even find things that make you think (in a non-derrogatory way) "Hey that sounds just like me"

“ I am just trying to determine how to qualify your statement since you are indicating that most atheists are moral, yet when I applied your own morals to yourself it is seen that you are not - what does it mean for an atheist to be successfully moral? ”



The same thing it means for a theist to be successfully moral. We can judge by the outcomes of human actions. We don't need to measure actions against some arbitrary standard written down thousands of years ago.

But I judged by the outcomes of your action by your own definition of morality - you do not actually do unto others so therefore by your own standard (not the standard of some old book) you are immoral.
What distinguishes a successfully moral person from an immoral one?
Is it enough to simply try to be moral? To give some token offering in the general direction of morality (Hey I gave 50 cents to the salvos last year - I'm okay)
- How do you qualify morality (so that you make the statements that you do about it)??

“ What general principles do you rely upon to make that statement about the objectivity of knowledge pertaining to god? ”



I believe that the scientific method is the best means we have of obtaining objective knowledge about anything. Are you aware of what the scientific method entails, or should I elaborate further?

Lol - believe me I am familiar with it enough

So if there are special mentions in scripture about how god is not perceivable by materialistic scientic means (examinations of dull matter), and instead another process is advocated what then?
Inother words do you hold that the contemporary scientific paradigm is the be all and end all of processes to determine objective knowlege?

As much is known about the formation of stars as the Rayleigh scattering of light in the atmosphere.

Light can be examined in a controlled atmosphere
Star formation is not - even the examination of star formation is not (astronomy assumes that there is a uniformity of time and space - we don't know that - we just assume it)

I am puzzled as to how you can claim that science doesn't know how stars form.

I am puzzled how you can say that science does

I can only assume that you haven't actually looked into the matter, so you don't know what you're talking about. If so, there's little point in our pursuing this thread of the discussion, either. Your claims are laughable to anybody who knows a little astrophysics.

I can only assume that you are referring to a few observations of relative matter, rather than being fully conversant with how a star forms - we cannot even comprehend how a cloud forms - which is to say we cannot form clouds (of the rain and thunder variety) by scientific processes, what to speak of playing with the clouds of gas in space

“ Of course they can give a theory how a star is formed but such theories don't translate in to practical demonstrations ”



I don't follow this. What do you mean by "practical demonstrations"? Are you asking that humans create a star in the lab, or what? Astronomers see stars in the process of formation all the time, you know.

If one cannot do something that one claims to know then it tends to indicate one's knowledge is relative (ie theoretical)

“ I think its ironic that in the past 50 years the discoeries of science have pointed more and more strongly to something that is beyond the universe that is necessary to explain what we find in the universe. ”



I don't think they have.

then you are obviously satisfied with processes of acquiring knowledge that generates more questions than answers

Again, you fall into the trap of assuming that because something is unknown now, science will never find the answer. You're not content simply to say "We don't know yet, but we'll try to find out". You want all the answers now. Religion can't give them to you, you know. Only science can hope to really explain the fine-tuning of physical constants, how life started and so on.

How do you know that religion cannot provide the answers - if intelligence is the essential contributer to universal order (something which requires the same notion of faith to assume that life emerges from molecular evolution), wouln't purpose and design be closely intergrated - in other words if we understood the purpose of the intelligence that drives the universe wouldn't that enable us to make greater headway in understanding the design?
Inother words rather than viewing religion in a dualistic notion of "competing" with science, couldn't it harmonise with it?

"God did it" will never come close to being a complete explanation for anything, even if it turns out to be true in some ultimate sense.


“ “ My point is that it is not sufficient to establish that the driving force behind the body of a conscious entity comes from lifeless matter, because even in the said existenec of lifeless matter consciousness comes and goes independently. ”



But only when it is caused by consciousness - is there a single example of consciousness appearing from inert matter? ”

The first quote here was your words, not mine. You're querying yourself. Try to keep track.

My point is that even if you have the perfect material arrangement for life, life still acts independant from it - you cannot organise matter to bring on life - life comes and goes independant of material arrangements (both natural and man-made) for its continued existence or even appearance

“ “ If so, how can we detect such a thing objectively? If I say I you have no soul, can you prove me wrong? ”



By its symptoms - just like an electron is detected by its symptoms - If you say I have no soul I cannot prove you wrong if that is in fact the case because I would be dead ”



What are the "symptoms" of a soul? How can I measure a soul?

(Remember that here you are setting out to provide evidence that souls exist. Try to avoid the circular argument that souls exist because things can't be alive without souls. That would be begging the question again.)

How would it be begging the question or circular? - what is the material difference between a dead body and a living one? - they are both composed of the same organic and inorganic compounds

Yes. If I was a deity, I would set up some self-consistent laws of nature, and then sit back and let them run my universe, rather than having to personally tweak every electron collision, every reproductive action of a lifeform, the formation of every cloud and so on.

Thats precisely what god does BTW
Not to sure what you mean by "self consistent" though
(the laws are certainly very consistent with god's self - which is where your disagreement might be - you might want the laws to be consistent with your self)

“ The fact that you are not in such a position seems to indicate that the universe disagrees. ”



Not at all. Our universe seems to be governed by a very nice an self-consistent set of natural laws. If God exists, it looks like he doesn't intervene in nature very often, if he does so at all.

A nicely run country also has a ruler somewhere existing comfortably, even if you don't see them - or is national politics also bereft of intelligence?

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

A crayon picture is seen to definitely originate from a child - not just one or two - all crayon pictures of stars are seen to originate with consciousness...

I freely admit that all crayon pictures of stars I have ever seen were produced by consciousness. There is good evidence of that.

The same cannot be said for stars themselves. There's no convincing evidence of the involvement of consciousness in star formation.

...my point is that we have no experience of anything of complex origin developing with out consciousness...

Sure we do. Stars, for example.

I was establishing that for you to immediately refuse to acknowledge the idea of consciousness in universal affairs is highly premature since how the universe is created and why we have the world we have is still an unanswered question.

It depends on which "why" you're talking about. You are inferring teleology without evidence.

That is one definition of consciousness, but not one likely to draw a consensus - in fact there is no scientific consensus on what consciousness is - I was relying however on common sense - why do nurseries sell living plants as opposed to dead ones?

I acknowledge that there is a difference between living and dead things. It is a big step from saying that something is living to claiming it is conscious. You need to fill in the gaps if you wish to assert that.

So for how many years has science been in the consensus that the earth is 4,5 billion year old? Will the earth be older (or younger) than 50 years in another 50 years?

The earth will be whatever age it is. Our knowledge of that age may improve. This is why scientists always express the level of uncertainty in their results. As far as we know, the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. I'm guessing that the figure may be revised by up to a few hundred million years in either direction in light of better future evidence.

You talk as if changes in our scientific beliefs are a bad thing. In fact, they reflect better knowledge and more information.

You probably find this concept of continual challenge and revision of ideas difficult because it happens so rarely in religion. Religions often refuse to change even when they obviously conflict with observable fact.

Does science tell us knowledge or people?

Didn't I just answer that question? Please review my response until you understand it.

Its not clear how examining guesswork (remember the paradigms for examination are drawn from previous "bodies of knowlege") is not guessing - What does it mean when a new truth of science is revealed and it is said "It looks like we were wrong in our previous estimations"

It usually means we have obtained new insights based on new evidence. That isn't guesswork, either.

An atheist is simple a person who claims no belief in god(s).

And you don't think god has an opinion on such an attitude?

How would I know?

God doesn't seem to smite atheists for their non-belief, so I guess He must be ok with it.

But I judged by the outcomes of your action by your own definition of morality - you do not actually do unto others so therefore by your own standard (not the standard of some old book) you are immoral.

Wrong. I do act morally, according to the standards I believe in - most of the time, anyway. I never claimed to be perfect, but I'm not a bad person. I'll bet I do at least as well as you, in this respect.

What distinguishes a successfully moral person from an immoral one?
Is it enough to simply try to be moral? To give some token offering in the general direction of morality (Hey I gave 50 cents to the salvos last year - I'm okay)
- How do you qualify morality (so that you make the statements that you do about it)??

Don't you get any guidance from your own religion on these questions? You can rest assured that atheists probably share many of the same views.

So if there are special mentions in scripture about how god is not perceivable by materialistic scientic means (examinations of dull matter), and instead another process is advocated what then?

Then I say "Fine! Good luck to you in perceiving God according to your religious beliefs. Just don't come to me with a non-materialistic, non-scientific religious theory like Intelligent Design and pretend it is science."

Inother words do you hold that the contemporary scientific paradigm is the be all and end all of processes to determine objective knowlege?

No, just the best one we have found so far.

Light can be examined in a controlled atmosphere
Star formation is not - even the examination of star formation is not

Well, stars are rather large and unwieldy things to try to keep in a lab...

(astronomy assumes that there is a uniformity of time and space - we don't know that - we just assume it)

All the available evidence suggests it is a good working assumption.

I am puzzled as to how you can claim that science doesn't know how stars form.

I am puzzled how you can say that science does

Looks like we've reached a stalemate then. I told you we wouldn't get much further with this.

I can only assume that you are referring to a few observations of relative matter, rather than being fully conversant with how a star forms - we cannot even comprehend how a cloud forms - which is to say we cannot form clouds (of the rain and thunder variety) by scientific processes, what to speak of playing with the clouds of gas in space

As a physicist, I am quite conversant with how stars form. You are also incorrect in asserting that we don't know how clouds form, by the way. Oh, and the processes which cause rain clouds to form are rather different from the processes which lead to star formation, if you're wondering.

If one cannot do something that one claims to know then it tends to indicate one's knowledge is relative (ie theoretical)

And so...? This is a bad thing because...?

then you are obviously satisfied with processes of acquiring knowledge that generates more questions than answers

What are you talking about?

How do you know that religion cannot provide the answers...

To scientific questions? Well, it never has in the past. Who knows? Maybe tomorrow a priest will invent a new theory of gravity based on the word of the bible. But I seriously doubt it.

if intelligence is the essential contributer to universal order (something which requires the same notion of faith to assume that life emerges from molecular evolution), wouln't purpose and design be closely intergrated - in other words if we understood the purpose of the intelligence that drives the universe wouldn't that enable us to make greater headway in understanding the design?

Sure. It should. But so far, intelligent design theorists, to take one example, haven't produced any useful research outcomes. Nor have they suggested any promising new avenues of future research. What does that suggest to you?

Inother words rather than viewing religion in a dualistic notion of "competing" with science, couldn't it harmonise with it?

I never said that religion competes with science. It doesn't, except on the odd occasion when religion tries to make scientific statements.

There are many religious scientists, who see no conflict at all between their religious beliefs and their scientific work.

My point is that even if you have the perfect material arrangement for life, life still acts independant from it - you cannot organise matter to bring on life - life comes and goes independant of material arrangements (both natural and man-made) for its continued existence or even appearance

I disagree. If matter is not arranged properly, life does not exist. Clearly, life requires appropriate arrangements of matter.

Try to avoid the circular argument that souls exist because things can't be alive without souls. That would be begging the question again.

How would it be begging the question or circular? - what is the material difference between a dead body and a living one? - they are both composed of the same organic and inorganic compounds

There are physical differences between a dead body and a live one. These differences can be measured objectively.

The presence of a soul, on the other hand, is supposed to be a non-material difference between a dead body and a living one. Yet you can point to no test which will tell me whether a soul is present or absent, apart from the fact of living or death itself. That is begging the question. You are doing no more than to equate "living" with "possessing a soul". In that case, the word "soul" has no independent meaning from "being alive", and is a redundant concept. Yet I'm sure your concept of soul is supposed to have more content than merely being a substitute for "being alive". So, what properties of a soul are examinable in an objective way, apart from "being alive"? Is there ever a situation where a soul exists apart from a living body? If so, how can we verify that?

Not at all. Our universe seems to be governed by a very nice an self-consistent set of natural laws. If God exists, it looks like he doesn't intervene in nature very often, if he does so at all.

A nicely run country also has a ruler somewhere existing comfortably, even if you don't see them - or is national politics also bereft of intelligence?

I don't think your analogy works. The universe is not a country, and the laws of nature are very different from the laws made by governors of nations. One set of laws need have no parallels with the other set.

 

[lightgigantic]

James R

I freely admit that all crayon pictures of stars I have ever seen were produced by consciousness. There is good evidence of that.

The same cannot be said for stars themselves. There's no convincing evidence of the involvement of consciousness in star formation.

Instead you end with some effect that has a mysterious cause - this is somehow supposed to indicate that consciousness is definitely not innvolved

“ ...my point is that we have no experience of anything of complex origin developing with out consciousness... ”



Sure we do. Stars, for example.

So what causes a star - tell me


“ I was establishing that for you to immediately refuse to acknowledge the idea of consciousness in universal affairs is highly premature since how the universe is created and why we have the world we have is still an unanswered question. ”



It depends on which "why" you're talking about. You are inferring teleology without evidence.

so in otherwords you have the "how" already figured?
Last year Science Journal published 125 questions "What we don't know"
amongst them are
What is the universe made of?
What is the nature of gravity?
How do planets form?

“ That is one definition of consciousness, but not one likely to draw a consensus - in fact there is no scientific consensus on what consciousness is - I was relying however on common sense - why do nurseries sell living plants as opposed to dead ones? ”



I acknowledge that there is a difference between living and dead things. It is a big step from saying that something is living to claiming it is conscious. You need to fill in the gaps if you wish to assert that.

Molecular evolutionists have never seriously tried to explain consciousness, because the symptoms of consciousness awareness are simply beyond the realm of molecular description - in other words what if the gap cannot be filled by analysis of dead matter?

To quote bohr "An analysis of the very concept of explanation would naturally begin and end with a renunciation as to explaining our own conscious activity" - since bohr felt that everything could be explained by quantum theory he had no choice but to "renounce" consciousness.

“ So for how many years has science been in the consensus that the earth is 4,5 billion year old? Will the earth be older (or younger) than 50 years in another 50 years? ”



The earth will be whatever age it is. Our knowledge of that age may improve. This is why scientists always express the level of uncertainty in their results. As far as we know, the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. I'm guessing that the figure may be revised by up to a few hundred million years in either direction in light of better future evidence.

so to get back to the original question whether scientific knowledge comes from science or people .....

You talk as if changes in our scientific beliefs are a bad thing. In fact, they reflect better knowledge and more information.

... and not about whether changes in science was a "bad" thing (although you could say it indicates a cheating propensity when it is advocated that there is no guesswork involved with science) ......

You probably find this concept of continual challenge and revision of ideas difficult because it happens so rarely in religion. Religions often refuse to change even when they obviously conflict with observable fact.

....nor whether this is "good" in contrast to religion ........

“ Does science tell us knowledge or people? ”



Didn't I just answer that question? Please review my response until you understand it.

......you seem to be saying that it is people (scientists) that give us knowledge in science

“ Its not clear how examining guesswork (remember the paradigms for examination are drawn from previous "bodies of knowlege") is not guessing - What does it mean when a new truth of science is revealed and it is said "It looks like we were wrong in our previous estimations" ”



It usually means we have obtained new insights based on new evidence. That isn't guesswork, either.

It does however indicate that the previous body of knowledge that is superceeded is guesswork

“ “ An atheist is simple a person who claims no belief in god(s). ”



And you don't think god has an opinion on such an attitude? ”



How would I know?

God doesn't seem to smite atheists for their non-belief, so I guess He must be ok with it.

Still he has a few working definitions of those who choose to ignore him - like a person who does not believe in the authority of a ruler is a criminal by default (like if you don't know that there is a right and wrong side of the road to drive on you will probably get arrested very quickly - unless you are in India)

“ But I judged by the outcomes of your action by your own definition of morality - you do not actually do unto others so therefore by your own standard (not the standard of some old book) you are immoral. ”



Wrong. I do act morally, according to the standards I believe in - most of the time, anyway. I never claimed to be perfect, but I'm not a bad person. I'll bet I do at least as well as you, in this respect.

Well I may have a different set of morals - my case might be different - you however said that you do unto others, and it is obvious that you don't - sure its noble and quaint to value the notion of doing unto others but how is it qualified? You seem to be saying that it is enough to merely think that doing good unto others is enough to make one moral.
If this is the case what would make an atheist more (or less) moral than a theist (or even between one "moral" atheist and another)?

Don't you get any guidance from your own religion on these questions? You can rest assured that atheists probably share many of the same views.

From what I have understood of morals regarding atheism (from your own example) and the morals of theism they are completely different.

“ Light can be examined in a controlled atmosphere
Star formation is not - even the examination of star formation is not ”



Well, stars are rather large and unwieldy things to try to keep in a lab...

Well you are the one who is saying you know how to make them

“ (astronomy assumes that there is a uniformity of time and space - we don't know that - we just assume it) ”



All the available evidence suggests it is a good working assumption.

Is an educated guess still a guess?





“ I can only assume that you are referring to a few observations of relative matter, rather than being fully conversant with how a star forms - we cannot even comprehend how a cloud forms - which is to say we cannot form clouds (of the rain and thunder variety) by scientific processes, what to speak of playing with the clouds of gas in space ”

As a physicist, I am quite conversant with how stars form. You are also incorrect in asserting that we don't know how clouds form, by the way. Oh, and the processes which cause rain clouds to form are rather different from the processes which lead to star formation, if you're wondering.

So we can't even produce a rain cloud but I am supposed to accept that you can tell me how to build a star (when you have only observed stars form with a mechanism that operates on principles of uniformity that cannot be verified)????
Sure - you may a clue how a star is formed and quite a few educated guesses to boot but star formation doesn't fit so snuggly in the easy bin

“ If one cannot do something that one claims to know then it tends to indicate one's knowledge is relative (ie theoretical) ”



And so...? This is a bad thing because...?

Well if you were going for brain surgery would you rather someone who was experienced doing th e operation or someone with theoretical knowledge?

“ How do you know that religion cannot provide the answers... ”



To scientific questions? Well, it never has in the past. Who knows? Maybe tomorrow a priest will invent a new theory of gravity based on the word of the bible. But I seriously doubt it.

lol - well unless you are currently omniscient we have nothing to fear

“ if intelligence is the essential contributer to universal order (something which requires the same notion of faith to assume that life emerges from molecular evolution), wouln't purpose and design be closely intergrated - in other words if we understood the purpose of the intelligence that drives the universe wouldn't that enable us to make greater headway in understanding the design? ”



Sure. It should. But so far, intelligent design theorists, to take one example, haven't produced any useful research outcomes.

Probably because they run the risk of getting fired the moment they mention the word "intelligent design"

Nor have they suggested any promising new avenues of future research. What does that suggest to you?

that you have a habit of throwing in the trash bin anything that mentions ID unless it written to put it in a bad light

“ Inother words rather than viewing religion in a dualistic notion of "competing" with science, couldn't it harmonise with it? ”



I never said that religion competes with science. It doesn't, except on the odd occasion when religion tries to make scientific statements.

In other words you refuse to entertain ideas that run parallel to theism simply because they are theistic?

There are many religious scientists, who see no conflict at all between their religious beliefs and their scientific work.

I agree

“ My point is that even if you have the perfect material arrangement for life, life still acts independant from it - you cannot organise matter to bring on life - life comes and goes independant of material arrangements (both natural and man-made) for its continued existence or even appearance ”



I disagree. If matter is not arranged properly, life does not exist. Clearly, life requires appropriate arrangements of matter.

But even if you make the perfect arrangement for life by material arrangement, life may or may not appear - and once life has appeared it can go at any moment, despite all attempts to house it in a suitable material environment


“ “ Try to avoid the circular argument that souls exist because things can't be alive without souls. That would be begging the question again. ”



How would it be begging the question or circular? - what is the material difference between a dead body and a living one? - they are both composed of the same organic and inorganic compounds ”

There are physical differences between a dead body and a live one. These differences can be measured objectively.

But these are differences of functional aspects of the body - its not like the actual compounds are any different.

The presence of a soul, on the other hand, is supposed to be a non-material difference between a dead body and a living one. Yet you can point to no test which will tell me whether a soul is present or absent, apart from the fact of living or death itself. That is begging the question. You are doing no more than to equate "living" with "possessing a soul". In that case, the word "soul" has no independent meaning from "being alive", and is a redundant concept.

Yet I'm sure your concept of soul is supposed to have more content than merely being a substitute for "being alive". So, what properties of a soul are examinable in an objective way, apart from "being alive"? Is there ever a situation where a soul exists apart from a living body? If so, how can we verify that?

Suppose we were looking for a fire (soul) - Suppose I said if you look for something that is hot, smokey and emitting light (living symptoms) that is actually a fire.
How would that be begging the question?
Inother words you are assuming that the symptoms of the soul (consciousness - or being alive) are the cause of the soul, when it is the other way around - the difference between the soul and "being alive" is that the soul is the cause, just as fire is the cause of the smoke, heat and light.

As for verifying the soul by other means that requires science to come to the platform of understanding the mind (which is again distinct from the soul) with the degree of familiarity that they are currently at in regards to the gross body - in other words molecular observations don't account for what we pervceive as the mind, so it will hardly work for examining the soul.
(At the very least we are hard pressed to explain why a cuckoo lays its eggs in another birds nest as a meaningful trick or what enables a nile crocidile to pick up its egss gently and roll them gently in its mouth to enable the hatchlings to come out in terms of molecular operations)

Actually I would argue that being more agreeable to the notion of intelligent design would open up the opportunity for the study of the mind.

Here is a quote from Roger Penrose

The issue of "responsibility" raises deep philosophical questions concerning the ultimate causes of our behaviour ... is the matter of "responsibility" merely one of convenience of terminology, or is there actually something else - a "self" lying beyond all such influences - which exerts a control over our actions? The legal issue of "responsibility" seems to imply that there is indeed, within each os, some kind of independent "self" with its own responsibilities - and, by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance, environment, or chance. If it is other than a mere convenience of language that we speak as though there were such an independant "self", then there must be an ingredient missing from our present day physical understandings. The discovery of such an ingredient would surely profoundly alter our scientific outlook"

Anyway DR Singh has offerred axiomatic breakdown of matter and life

MATTER

1.Is the inferior energy of the absolute truth
2. Satisfies conservation of (material) energy
3. Eternal
4. Obeys the laws of physics and chemistry to some extent
5. Lacks consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose


LIFE

1. The superior energy of the absolute truth
2. Satisfies conservation of (spiritual) energy
3. Eternal
4. Non -physical and non-chemical
5. Possesses consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose

He also offers th e phenomena by which we can detect the difference between matter and matter associated with life --like a dead tree and a living tree

Matter by itself

1. Inert and dead
2. Characterized by either low information content or absence of specific form beyond atomic and molecular structures
3. Reduces to thermodynamicaly stable states
4. Exhibits less organized flow of matter
5. Tends to lose form or pattern under transformation
6. Grows by external accumulation only (eg Crystal>>Crystal)
Exhibits only passive resistance (eg mountain)

Matter associated with Life

1. Animated substance or entity (eg a vehicle with a driver or a bird etcetc)
2. Characterised by high information content and very specific form
3. Thermodynamically unstable states play a dominant role
4. Exhibits a precisely regulated flow of matter (metabolism)
5. Undegoes transformation without loss of complex pattern (reproduction).
6. Grows from within by an intricate construction process (Eg Baby > Child > Youth > Old age)
7. Adaptive: tries to actively over come obstacles

Of course he went into details to explain these points more clearly but perhaps they give you something to respond to that isn't all angels and light and the glory of god or whatever you were thinking ID is supposed to be about

I don't think your analogy works. The universe is not a country,

Why not?

and the laws of nature are very different from the laws made by governors of nations.

If you mean that it indicates a more consistent and reliable form of politics I agree

One set of laws need have no parallels with the other set.

Why not?