| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/13/2011 07:19:16 PM · #1576 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually this weekend I was convinced either of the certainty of there being no God or the certainty of Hell. Either doctrine was proved by home remodelling. |
I love it when you set me up like this ... ;-)
 |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 07:20:45 PM · #1577 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
What is the point of a star exploding in some remote part of the universe? |
"We are stardust"
--Joni Mitchell |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 07:54:08 PM · #1578 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Are you admitting the nuclear bomb is a massive amplifier for the quantum fluctations? You dropped talking about it and that usually means you don't have a rebuttal.
2) If you can't wring intent out of randomness, aren't we in trouble? In a similar manner, can you wring rationality out of randomness? We have just deduced that the universe, at its fundamental levels is random, be it from quantum fluctuations in the present or the mother-of-all-fluctuations the Big Bang.
3) Your clause "natural cause for random variations" makes no sense. I thought the random variations had no cause. Why are you saying they now do and what makes you so sure they are natural since, at best, they are unknown? |
In case Jason thinks not talking about something means I don't have a rebuttal (oh wait, he does)...
1. So what? Adequate determinism still applies. The bomb would blow up because it was triggered regardless of when the particle was emitted, and the particle would be emitted because that's what radioactive isotopes do. Leaves fall from a maple tree at random times, too. Big deal.
2. No, we can't wring rationality out of randomness either. If your will was uncaused and random, you'd be just as likely to decide to eat rocks tartare as dance naked with a banana in your ear. Decisions are determined by calculated reason in your physical brain. Looking for origins in quantum events is akin to saying your parents "really" made the decision because they ultimately led to your brain or that gold wedding bands are really made from hydrogen because gold is formed from hydrogen over successive rounds of stellar fusion. It's silly. Gold rings start with gold and decisions start with reasoning in your brain. The precursors for each are irrelevant in any practical sense.
3. I already answered this."Materialism needn't be cause-and-effect at every level for the same reason Newtonian physics doesn't apply at every level. Does a subatomic particle need cause to move in a particular direction? No, it would be moving at the speed of light when converted from energy, and motion has to go in SOME direction or it wouldn't be motion. However, you can't just wave your arm and declare that this 'glaring hole rent in the fabric of classical mechanics' means we can imagine a tennis ball moving in some direction without being forced that way." Adequate determinism doesn't have a problem with uncaused random events at a quantum level, but at best they only introduce noise to the decision process— memory gaps, arbitrary connections, things like that (and I doubt you want to equate free will with random noise). You still choose to do something BECAUSE you reasoned it in your brain, and it's well established that brain damage impairs reasoning (an impossible outcome if your physical brain wasn't responsible).
Fair warning: you're heading down a path to checkmate with this quantum randomness argument. If quantum fluctuations were an uncaused "first cause" that led to the universe, then you've eliminated God. If the fluctuation were caused, then you've effectively established a determinism all the way through. Fail either way. |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 07:57:53 PM · #1579 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
What is the point of a star exploding in some remote part of the universe? |
"We are stardust" |
Yes, but we couldn't be dust from THAT star. ;-) |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 08:11:12 PM · #1580 |
Shannon, I think you are misunderstanding the term "random" in #1. There is a big difference between quantum randomness and leaves falling off a tree randomly. The first, if I understand quantum theory, is truly random. Uncaused. Unpredictable. Period. The second is merely beyond our calculation, but LaPlace's demon could deduce when a leaf falls off a tree.
Adequate determinism, as I read it, boils down to, "The universe works through classical determinism. We know there may be indeterminism at the quantum level, but this can be ignored." (To quote the page (I know that's dangerous): "It is the determinism of Newtonian physics, capable of sending men to the moon and back with astonishing accuracy. It is the determinism of those physiologists who think that quantum uncertainty is insignificant in the macromolecular structures of cell biology.")
Your "because" statements don't make sense. "the particle was emitted because that's what radioactive isotopes do"? That's totally circular. And while the bomb may work through regular determinism once it's triggered, the when makes a big difference to other causal chains. In other words, LaPlace's demon would be foiled by such a bomb. If it were watching a particular group of causal chains known as "you" and you keep entering and exiting the sphere of potential destruction, he wouldn't know if the bomb was going to engulf you or not by going off.
As far as your last statement. I disagree on the checkmate. If natural materialism is destroyed, it's a new world and a new game. From what framework are you going to declare "checkmate!"? Quantum fluctuations are naturally uncaused. They could be caused by something outside of the natural system. When I say they are uncaused, the meaning is they are uncaused by anything explainable by natural materialism.
Message edited by author 2011-04-13 20:14:55. |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 08:26:39 PM · #1581 |
This was written in the 1940s, but seems very prescient and has not been corrected by further knowledge:
One threat against strict Naturalism has recently been launched on which I myself will base no argument, but which it will be well to notice. The older scientists believed that the smallest particles of matter moved according to strict laws: in other words, that the movements of each particle were 'interlocked' with the total system of Nature. Some modern scientists seem to think--if I understand them--that this is not so. They seem to think that the individual unit of matter (it would be rash to call it any longer a 'particle') moves in an indeterminate or random fashion; [19] moves, in fact, 'on its own' or 'of its own accord'. The regularity which we observe in the movements of the smallest visible bodies is explained by the fact that each of these contains millions of units and that the law of averages therefore levels out the idiosyncrasies of the individual unit's behaviour. The movement of one unit is incalculable, just as the result of tossing a coin once is incalculable: the majority movement of a billion units can however be predicted, just as, if you tossed a coin a billion times, you could predict a nearly equal number of heads and tails. Now it will be noticed that if this theory is true we have really admitted something other than Nature. If the movements of the individual units are events 'on their own', events which do not interlock with all other events, then these movements are not part of Nature. It would be, indeed, too great a shock to our habits to describe them as super-natural. I think we should have to call them sub-natural. But all our confidence that Nature has no doors, and no reality outside herself for doors to open on, would have disappeared. There is apparently something outside her, the Subnatural; it is indeed from this Subnatural that all events and all 'bodies' are, as it were, fed into her. And clearly if she thus has a back door opening on the Subnatural, it is quite on the cards that she may also have a front door opening on the Supernatural-and events might be fed into her at that door too.
I have mentioned this theory because it puts in a fairly vivid light certain conceptions which we shall have to use later on. But I am not, for my own part, assuming its truth. Those who like myself have had a philosophical rather than a scientific education find it almost impossible to believe that the scientists really mean what they seem to be saying. I cannot help thinking they mean no more than that the movements of individual units are permanently incalculable to us, not that they are in themselves random and lawless. And even if they mean the latter, a layman can hardly feel any certainty that some new scientific development may not tomorrow abolish this whole idea of a lawless Subnature.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2011 09:08:55 PM · #1582 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Here's a question, and it's totally just a personal question, out of my own curiosity. No pitchforks or semantics needed here.
If, hypothetically, it was ascertained that there was in fact no God, would you still practice? Yes, no, and why? |
Christian #5 here. Short answer: No. What would be the point of practicing?
|
Okay...and it goes to say that the Doc is totally right about it being a decision of what is "practicing."
But... here's why I asked the question-
As an atheist, I obviously don't adhere to or care for or really even understand that whole Godhead aspect. However, I do understand the creation of community and the teaching of morals that is attempted through religion. For all the arguments that have said that morality is derived through the absolute doctrine and all that jazz... this response strikes me as rather baffling. For an ideology that defines itself by and thrives upon lack of existence (faith)... this is honestly kinda surprising.
Anyway... was just curious. |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 11:08:44 PM · #1583 |
I've read your post a few times SS and I don't really get it. Specifically the bolded portions:
As an atheist, I obviously don't adhere to or care for or really even understand that whole Godhead aspect. However, I do understand the creation of community and the teaching of morals that is attempted through religion. For all the arguments that have said that morality is derived through the absolute doctrine and all that jazz... this response strikes me as rather baffling. For an ideology that defines itself by and thrives upon lack of existence (faith)... this is honestly kinda surprising.
Can you clarify? |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 11:14:26 PM · #1584 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
If you are able to debunk 20 proofs of God, I'll give it all up. I'll even send you my rosary. |
Bull. You'd sooner give up oxygen.
Originally posted by Nullix:
The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God. |
There is the music of Roseanne Barr. Therefore your proof is irrational. |
You're putting Roseanne Barr's music in the same category as Johann Sebastian Bach. If this is how you plan to "debunk" God, I'm keeping my rosary. |
|
|
|
04/13/2011 11:37:43 PM · #1585 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by JH:
At least when you're sitting in the nursing home you'll feel as if you did something worthwhile with your few decades on earth. |
But those who have faith DO believe their lives have had meaning, that their time on earth was worthwhile, that there was some purpose served by it all. Why are some of you fighting so hard to take this away from our faith-full individuals?
R. |
...ah but you see my dear friend some of us are not fighting at all to remove this from our faith based friends, not in the least.
What we cannot begin to comprehend is why they strive so ardently to convince us that our lives are devoid of true meaning since we do not share their belief in the afterlife. To some, the point of life is life itself, period.
Ray
|
|
|
|
04/14/2011 01:00:51 AM · #1586 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
What we cannot begin to comprehend is why they strive so ardently to convince us that our lives are devoid of true meaning since we do not share their belief in the afterlife. To some, the point of life is life itself, period.
Ray |
I see very little of that happening in these threads, though. Very little proselytizing from the faithful members. Just articulation of their positions. Over the last few years there have been a couple people who seem to be knee-jerk, reel-'em-in Christians, but certainly that's a minority.
Much more prevalent is this aggressive need-to-debunk that crops up any time a person of faith dares to articulate that faith, and I don't understand it.
R. |
|
|
|
04/14/2011 01:56:40 AM · #1587 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by JH:
At least when you're sitting in the nursing home you'll feel as if you did something worthwhile with your few decades on earth. |
But those who have faith DO believe their lives have had meaning, that their time on earth was worthwhile, that there was some purpose served by it all. Why are some of you fighting so hard to take this away from our faith-full individuals?
R. |
...ah but you see my dear friend some of us are not fighting at all to remove this from our faith based friends, not in the least.
What we cannot begin to comprehend is why they strive so ardently to convince us that our lives are devoid of true meaning since we do not share their belief in the afterlife. To some, the point of life is life itself, period.
Ray |
Probably to give meaning to their own.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2011 02:04:41 AM · #1588 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've read your post a few times SS and I don't really get it. Specifically the bolded portions:
As an atheist, I obviously don't adhere to or care for or really even understand that whole Godhead aspect. However, I do understand the creation of community and the teaching of morals that is attempted through religion. For all the arguments that have said that morality is derived through the absolute doctrine and all that jazz... this response strikes me as rather baffling. For an ideology that defines itself by and thrives upon lack of existence (faith)... this is honestly kinda surprising.
Can you clarify? |
Certainly-
My comment about morality refers to how the morality that has been so ardently defended as being perfect, fitting and ideal is so readily discarded. Is it only the authority that makes it worth a damn? ETA: (by "this response" I mean discarding all of what it is to practice a religion... it goes much further than "I love Jesus")
Per the lack of existence- What I'm getting at here is that the very thing that is so important and oft referenced for religion is to "have faith." What does having faith mean? It means to believe in the face of the doubt, to stand for what is (purportedly) right despite "testing" odds. For all the faith in the way of life (and religion is most DEFINITELY a way of life), the way of viewing things, to suddenly cast it off... I find that odd.
I used the term practicing because I don't personally think that what sustains interest in religion is the use of the godhead, but rather what religion provides to the adherent as a whole. That's where this question came from.
Message edited by author 2011-04-14 02:05:54. |
|
|
|
04/14/2011 02:05:24 AM · #1589 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
What we cannot begin to comprehend is why they strive so ardently to convince us that our lives are devoid of true meaning since we do not share their belief in the afterlife. To some, the point of life is life itself, period.
Ray |
I see very little of that happening in these threads, though. Very little proselytizing from the faithful members. Just articulation of their positions. Over the last few years there have been a couple people who seem to be knee-jerk, reel-'em-in Christians, but certainly that's a minority.
Much more prevalent is this aggressive need-to-debunk that crops up any time a person of faith dares to articulate that faith, and I don't understand it.
R. |
Which threads are you referring to? This one and others like it in rant exist only to debunk the other side. We can thank the Scalvert and DrAchoo bots for that.
Message edited by author 2011-04-14 02:08:13.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2011 01:04:54 PM · #1590 |
An amazingly beautiful flash mob.
Eucharistic flash mob
In accordance with the topic, why do Christians protestants refute the real presence when Martin Luther believed in it? |
|
|
|
06/24/2011 02:59:26 PM · #1591 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
In accordance with the topic, why do Christians protestants refute the real presence when Martin Luther believed in it? |
Most likely because symbolism is more appealing than cannibalism. |
|
|
|
06/24/2011 03:31:03 PM · #1592 |
"...and Oprah can't explain him away..." Nice.
Here is an honest answer I often get from evangelicals I know. They feel the idea that Jesus is represented in a real manner in the eucharist is counter to Romans 6:10 which says, "The death he died, he died to sin once for all". They will really hone in on the word "once". To them, it feels like Jesus is dying over and over and over again if he is physically found within the eucharist.
Personally, I don't think this is any deal breaker. While I personally believe the eucharist is purely symbolic (ie. there is no real presence), I have no qualms with someone who wants to believe in the miraculous presence of Jesus in the bread and wine.
Hope that helps. Thanks for the video link!
Message edited by author 2011-06-24 15:31:17. |
|
|
|
06/24/2011 03:53:07 PM · #1593 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
In accordance with the topic, why do Christians protestants refute the real presence when Martin Luther believed in it? |
Most likely because symbolism is more appealing than cannibalism. |
 |
|
|
|
06/24/2011 05:43:00 PM · #1594 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
In accordance with the topic, why do Christians protestants refute the real presence when Martin Luther believed in it? |
Most likely because symbolism is more appealing than cannibalism. |
|
|
|
|
|
06/24/2011 06:09:00 PM · #1595 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
|
That ain't right. You have too much time on your hands. |
|
|
|
09/02/2011 01:20:03 AM · #1596 |
Not trying to start anything, but many here don't get exposed enough to the good the faith community does in our country.
52 churches came together last Saturday in Eugene to beautify the public schools and hand out backpacks, school supplies, shoes, and socks to families in need.
Project Hope |
|
|
|
12/09/2011 10:03:22 PM · #1597 |
|
|
|
12/10/2011 01:09:45 PM · #1598 |
From the write-up: ". As an added bonus, they will no longer be looked upon as people who “believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing.”
Wow. |
|
|
|
12/10/2011 01:14:25 PM · #1599 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
From the write-up: ". As an added bonus, they will no longer be looked upon as people who “believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing.”
Wow. |
wait when did atheist's become politicians cause that's the definition of a politician.
seriously can't spell.....
Message edited by author 2011-12-10 13:16:12. |
|
|
|
12/10/2011 01:20:32 PM · #1600 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
From the write-up: ". As an added bonus, they will no longer be looked upon as people who “believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing.” |
This from "the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. Founded in 1973... to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination." |
|
