| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/05/2007 09:00:30 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I am not just some extremely complex organic robot. Extremely complex robots are not aware of their own existence. |
Um, what is your grounds for THAT claim? If you are not an extremely complex organic robot, then can you point out one that's been evaluated for sentience? A number of animals have been shown to be aware of their existence, yet there seems to be this biblical notion that only humans are capable of free will. Absent free will, that would make these animals both sentient beings AND extremely complex organic robots. :-/ |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 09:17:01 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
We're talking the existance of God being disproven, not trying to demonstrate the fallability of his church or the bible. For the sake of this discussion, are we requiring that all the bible be proven true? |
Given that the entire basis for Christian belief IS the church and bible, that many people hold these texts to be the infallible word of God and that people have literally been put to death for questioning them... YES.
BTW, the Gospels and New Testament were originally written in Greek, and Genesis proclaims that the sun, moon and stars were created after trees and plants, not before. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 09:46:48 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Given that the entire basis for Christian belief IS the church and bible, that many people hold these texts to be the infallible word of God and that people have literally been put to death for questioning them... YES.
BTW, the Gospels and New Testament were originally written in Greek, and Genesis proclaims that the sun, moon and stars were created after trees and plants, not before. |
Then I fear I will have to bow out of this discussion as I said I would not debate the validity of the bible until I learned Hebrew. And maybe Greek. I'm not sure how I really feel about the New Testement yet.
Good luck. Oh, and the bible requirement should be mentioned earlier. I thought I was having a rollicking good discussion about God and the other gods and the origins of the universe.
-- C, ES |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 12:03:36 AM · #479 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I am not just some extremely complex organic robot. Extremely complex robots are not aware of their own existence. |
Um, what is your grounds for THAT claim? If you are not an extremely complex organic robot, then can you point out one that's been evaluated for sentience? A number of animals have been shown to be aware of their existence, yet there seems to be this biblical notion that only humans are capable of free will. Absent free will, that would make these animals both sentient beings AND extremely complex organic robots. :-/ |
I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I'm certainly not suggesting that animals aren't aware of their existence. And I'm also certainly not suggesting that animals aren't capable of free will.
I'm not sure why we suddenly started talking about animals.
Edit: spelling!
Message edited by author 2007-01-06 00:06:43. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 12:37:22 AM · #480 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
The following is a passage from Deuteronomy 13 in The Bible. In essence it basically seems to instruct people to kill anyone who tries to convert you to a faith with gods "that you have not known". Furthermore, it seems to go on to say that if the people of a town are "led astray" into worshipping other gods "that you have not known", then you must kill everyone in that town, and their livestock, too. I have highlighted certain parts in bold print.
Here is the passage:
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God.
Comments? |
This would be Jewish law. Not Christianity. So if you try and push a false God on Seinfeld, he would have to kill you.
Message edited by author 2007-01-06 01:47:42. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 01:18:39 AM · #481 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Given that the entire basis for Christian belief IS the church and bible |
If that asertion has been at the core of your arguments throughout this marathon, I'm sorry to say you've wasted a lot of time here. :( |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 12:17:36 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Science took some particles and made a big bang theory that can not be proved or disproved, it takes a lot of faith to believe in the big bang theory. |
I guess I my faith in those particles is reinforced every time I take a step and don't sink into the sidewalk. I have yet, however, to bump into God ... |
Faith in particles is not at issue here. I think we can all agree that particles exist. If you'll read PapaBob's post again, you'll see he was talking about faith in the big bang theory, not faith in particles. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 12:25:14 PM · #483 |
Sorry it takes me so long to respond. The people who pay me apparently actually expect me to perform work. Oh, the humanity!
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ha, milo, I answered your question a half dozen times, but you kept not hearing me. |
As I recall, you answered âaroundâ my question or answered obliquely half a dozen times. You gave the concept of intentionally killing of children during a time of war the moral weight of eating ice cream before dinner, appealed to âitâs a mysteryâ, claimed that at least you, as opposed to atheists, had absolute rule for moral authority to follow and then stopped responding to me.
So, we can agree that you that you believe that it was, as a command from a morally perfect God, morally right and good that the Israelites killed the male Amorite children? You never really came out and said it.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2007 12:41:30 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Science took some particles and made a big bang theory that can not be proved or disproved, it takes a lot of faith to believe in the big bang theory. |
I guess I my faith in those particles is reinforced every time I take a step and don't sink into the sidewalk. I have yet, however, to bump into God ... |
Faith in particles is not at issue here. I think we can all agree that particles exist. If you'll read PapaBob's post again, you'll see he was talking about faith in the big bang theory, not faith in particles. |
I don't have to have faith in the Big Bang theory being perfect, since there's no real consequence in the practical universe of its being supplanted by a better explanation, but one which can be proven or derived from the physical universe.
Perhaps I merely want to see one of those "miracles" for myself, something which so clearly violates physical law that only a supernatural explanation obtains. I won't take the word of people writing about what other people said they saw 4000 years ago.
Someone wanted an example of what might give an atheist/agnostic "Faith." Perhaps if I woke up tomorrow morning and found Mars had replaced the Moon in its orbit, with the canals patterned into a sign which reads
"I believe in you --
won't you believe in Me"
-- God
I'd reconsider my position. But so far, everything we know about (have actual evidence of, not just "testimony") can be explained by physical laws without the need for God.
Message edited by author 2007-01-06 12:42:19. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 01:10:15 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...so far, everything we know about (have actual evidence of, not just "testimony") can be explained by physical laws... |
Which physical laws explain your awareness of your own existence?
|
|
|
|
01/06/2007 01:37:50 PM · #486 |
I'm not going to post on substance, but rather the form of this discussion.
To all (I think... I skipped the end bits) I say: Good Form!
Some made question of whether this should be discussed on a "photography forum", I say "Yes sir, it should!" Because this is the only forum I ever come to that actually discusses this issue with any sort of rational thought and civility.
Besides, as has been made abundantly clear on many occasions, this forum is about 75% General Discussion, 10% Photo, and 15% discussion about what the forum topic percentages should actually be.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2007 01:45:20 PM · #487 |
Thanks. :)
Message edited by author 2007-01-06 13:47:59. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 02:12:59 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Besides, as has been made abundantly clear on many occasions, this forum is ... 15% discussion about what the forum topic percentages should actually be. |
LOL : ) |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 02:21:38 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Sorry it takes me so long to respond. The people who pay me apparently actually expect me to perform work. Oh, the humanity!
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ha, milo, I answered your question a half dozen times, but you kept not hearing me. |
As I recall, you answered âaroundâ my question or answered obliquely half a dozen times. You gave the concept of intentionally killing of children during a time of war the moral weight of eating ice cream before dinner, appealed to âitâs a mysteryâ, claimed that at least you, as opposed to atheists, had absolute rule for moral authority to follow and then stopped responding to me.
So, we can agree that you that you believe that it was, as a command from a morally perfect God, morally right and good that the Israelites killed the male Amorite children? You never really came out and said it. |
OK, I'm not getting pulled back into this thread after extricating myself, but I'll answer you clearly.
First you need to define "moral". What is your absolute standard?
If God is the source of morality, His actions are moral by definition, the answer then would be "yes, it was moral". Most Christians would use God as the moral standard, so most Christians would need to answer "yes". However, do not assume that because God can command such a thing, it is also moral for us to command such a thing.
If you are using some other moral standard, then the answer would vary from "yes" to "maybe" to "no". You'd have to tell me what you were using and then we could figure it out together. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 02:22:46 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...so far, everything we know about (have actual evidence of, not just "testimony") can be explained by physical laws... |
Which physical laws explain your awareness of your own existence? |
There appears to be a gradual continuum of increasing biological electro-chemical complexity which leads to greater sensory awareness and ability to interact with the environment, an environment which includes the self. We have so far been able to partially duplicate these effects within silicon-based electrical systems.
I never said we completely understood how it all works yet, but that I expect whatever further discoveries to be consistent extrapolations from what we know about the physical universe, without need for an undetectable yet all-powerful being.
Message edited by author 2007-01-06 14:23:35. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 03:22:49 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...so far, everything we know about (have actual evidence of, not just "testimony") can be explained by physical laws... |
Which physical laws explain your awareness of your own existence? |
There appears to be a gradual continuum of increasing biological electro-chemical complexity which leads to greater sensory awareness and ability to interact with the environment, an environment which includes the self. We have so far been able to partially duplicate these effects within silicon-based electrical systems. |
Thanks for the response. I'm not trying to badger you, but I think that what we're discussing now is really important. So, to continue...
Are you suggesting that certain silicon-based electrical systems have some degree of awareness of their own existence? |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 03:39:39 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
Are you suggesting that certain silicon-based electrical systems have some degree of awareness of their own existence? |
I think that it's at least possible that such circuits could eventually contain a level of complexity sufficient to make them meet whatever tests we can currently devise to measure "self-awareness" -- Robert A. Heinlein offered an excellent description of this phenmomenon in his novel The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
That doesn't mean that machines have self-awareness now, though you have to wonder -- I think there have been studies where people talk to a "therapist" via a chat-room like process, and the subject can't tell whether the responses come from a human or a computer program.
I guess I think it's possible that "artificial consciousness" may well accompany artificial intelligence. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 07:10:12 PM · #493 |
| Time for the obligatory YouTube vid... God, Inc. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 07:26:35 PM · #494 |
| Something created the first something, no matter what those somethings might be. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 07:39:23 PM · #495 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
Something created the first something... |
It should be self-evident that this is not possible. If something is around to do the creating, then whatever is created can't be the first something. |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 07:41:55 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by boomtap:
Something created the first something... |
It should be self-evident that this is not possible. If something is around to do the creating, then whatever is created can't be the first something. |
Unless of course this something exists beyond the bounds of the physical universe, and does not therefore follow the laws of physics.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2007 07:44:22 PM · #497 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by boomtap:
Something created the first something... |
It should be self-evident that this is not possible. If something is around to do the creating, then whatever is created can't be the first something. |
Unless of course this something exists... |
The fact remains that "something exists." ;-) |
|
|
|
01/06/2007 08:15:05 PM · #498 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The fact remains that "something exists." ;-) |
Yup, the eternal and unanswerable question. Since we live inside the system (universe) anything outside the system is therefore unknown to us on a scientific basis. If God does exist, then he must be on this outside plane, because this is the only way that he can exist outside time, be omniscient, prophetic, and omnipotent.
By the same token, only full truth can be know from outside the system, because the fullness of truth cannot be seen from within. Partially because time keeps one from knowing the whole truth, mostly because we cannot really fully comprehend the universe. How can one really comprehend something that extends infinitely internally and externally?
Sorry, getting into string theory here, let's not get quite that far off (or maybe on?) track.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2007 08:44:50 PM · #499 |
Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Scientists really believe that they exist. But so far, they have been unable to "prove" that they exist. Their existence is "inferred" because they are needed to explain things that ARE observerable / measurable.
Same with God - We who believe, believe. We cannot "prove" that He exists, but His existence is "inferred" because He is needed to explain things that ARE observable / measurable ( changed lives, miraculous cures, etc. )
Guess it's just a matter of faith, either way.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2007 08:48:55 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by boomtap:
Something created the first something... |
It should be self-evident that this is not possible. If something is around to do the creating, then whatever is created can't be the first something. |
Exactly. So what can science tell me then? Nothing really except that for us to be, there needed to be something that is beyond what we can explain using science. Somthing that is not understandable by our pathetic little minds. |
|
