| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/06/2007 11:47:58 PM · #501 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
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. |
Not yet at least. Bear in mind that any claim of something existing to create the first something MUST make the assumption that something has always existed. Once you allow that assumption, there's no reason the universe itself couldn't have always existed in some form or another. That would certainly seem to fit what we observe: that things tend to get less complex the further back in time you go, not infinitely more complex (as super intelligence would demand). That also avoids several paradoxes, among them:
How can something exist before anything exists? Whether on our plane or not, you're still saying something existed because otherwise you'd literally be saying God didn't exist.
How can one know everything before there's anything to know... before the very concept of knowing?
The concept of a time before time since "before time" is still an indication of chronology (thus, time must still exist).
The concept of a heaven or hell, unknowable and unreachable, yet we're supposed to literally go there and see it when we die (making it knowable and reachable it some way). Dark matter may be unknown, but no scientist claims it's unknowable.
Omniscience. We're expected to atone for issues an omniscient being both created and knew would happen. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 01:26:39 AM · #502 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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". |
What tests can we currently devise to measure "self-awareness"?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I guess I think it's possible that "artificial consciousness" may well accompany artificial intelligence. |
"Artificial consciousness", as opposed to "real" consciousness / self-awareness? I'm asking you about real, honest-to-goodness self-awareness.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 01:42:08 AM · #503 |
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? |
...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... |
Then, in fact, you don't know that so far, everything can be explained by physical laws. You just "expect" (that's the word you used above) that it can.
Edited for clarity
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 01:59:12. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 12:45:21 PM · #504 |
Originally posted by RonB:
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. |
Mathematics and physics have nothing to do with your religious "faith".
You use the word "faith" to describe your adherence to a belief system that fails all tests of logic or the scientific method.
Dark matter etc, is a concept that is logically inferred from results of experiments based on the scientific method.
Scientists do NOT have "faith" in dark matter or dark energy - they are concepts that explain current research results. But they are dependent on the facts. If a new experimental result produces an inconvenient fact, the concepts of dark matter/energy will need to be changed. That is the essence of the scientific method.
Religious "faith", however, is constant despite whatever facts may exist to disprove it. It is perfectly and eternally irrational.
Scientific and religious "faith" mean the exact opposite.
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 12:51:37. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 01:35:33 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Religious "faith", however, is constant despite whatever facts may exist to disprove it. It is perfectly and eternally irrational. |
You give the impression of scientists coming up with the answers to everything, while religious people stand around talking about Adam and Eve.
For the most part religious faith has changed and adapted with our understanding of the universe. Many religious people would now view the old testament explanations of creation (7 days, adam and eve etc.) as metaphors, written at a time when that *was* the best explanation. As science has presented new theories (the big bang, or evolution) religious people have generally been rational enough to consider these theories, and adapt their own understanding of their faith to keep in step.
I'm not saying it's the job of science to prove *everything* - But in the areas where the scientific method can't be applied, then any philosophical or religious theories are just as valid as the scientific ones. After all, isn't a scientific hypothesis all about putting forward a theory and then proving or disproving it?
Why should I attach any more weight to 'The universe just sprung into existance' over 'The universe was created' ? |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 01:44:02 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
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. |
Mathematics and physics have nothing to do with your religious "faith".
You use the word "faith" to describe your adherence to a belief system that fails all tests of logic or the scientific method.
Dark matter etc, is a concept that is logically inferred from results of experiments based on the scientific method.
Scientists do NOT have "faith" in dark matter or dark energy - they are concepts that explain current research results. But they are dependent on the facts. If a new experimental result produces an inconvenient fact, the concepts of dark matter/energy will need to be changed. That is the essence of the scientific method.
Religious "faith", however, is constant despite whatever facts may exist to disprove it. It is perfectly and eternally irrational.
Scientific and religious "faith" mean the exact opposite. |
Science has not been able to disprove/prove anything.
Lets recap science:
Earth is flat.
Pluto is a planet, no a moon, no a planet...um...
Smoking is good for you.
Humans have 100,000 genes no wait, 20,000, um we are not sure.
plate tectonics
cold fusion
Piltdown hoax
Polywater
Oak Ridge Errors
Darwinism - most scientist are jumping ship on this one.
Thousands and Thousands of other things we believe to be true today will be disproved tomorrow.
We can't even be certain of things that are in our reach of research. How do we expect that science can see into the past or future. Every year science creates theory's that are simply myths and speculation. We don't even fully understand how the human body works yet, yet we live in it every day!
Fact: In our society there are great pressures put on scientists to come up with new theory's and ideas in order to find funding and survive. They create myths and take faith in thier truth in order to continue. It is a flawed system in a fallen world.
I am not bashing scientific progress. Not at all. In fact I firmly believe that there will come a day when science and research will actually just prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.
God exsists. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 01:52:41 PM · #507 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
After all, isn't a scientific hypothesis all about putting forward a theory and then proving or disproving it? |
No, scientists put forward an hypothesis and then try to prove or disprove it. A scientific theory is not a guess, but a model that is actually supported by facts. The terms are not interchangeable. By contrast, religion makes no attempt to prove or disprove anything, and any contradiction with observed fact is explained as misinterpretation or a miracle (or the person stating the fact is simply burned at the stake).
Originally posted by jhonan:
Why should I attach any more weight to 'The universe just sprung into existance' over 'The universe was created'? |
Because the paradoxical impossibilities required for creation (see my earlier post) are not necessary for a scientific explanation.
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 14:09:08. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 01:58:39 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
...Thousands and Thousands of other things we believe to be true today will be disproved tomorrow. |
That's the whole POINT of science... testing to prove or disprove such claims. The only reason you can even list some of those examples is because of science (several are simply invalid)...
The status of Pluto is a matter of classification (naming). Nothing changes scientifically whether it's called a planet, minor planet, asteroid or boogaflax. It was never called a moon.
Scientists never claimed that smoking was good for you. That was marketing "research" sponsored by the tobacco producers.
Who disputes plate tectonics?
Your claim that most scientists are jumping ship on Darwinism is laughable.
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 14:18:41. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 02:00:49 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
You give the impression of scientists coming up with the answers to everything, while religious people stand around talking about Adam and Eve. |
Actually, the problem that I see is that religious people are NOT standing around talking about Adam and Eve, as they should be.
They are actively campaigning to interject their fundamentalist notions as scientific fact ( creationism, intelligent design), and to turn the U.S. into a theocracy.
Originally posted by jhonan:
For the most part religious faith has changed and adapted with our understanding of the universe. |
I think one could make a cogent argument that it has come kicking and screaming. How many died in the Inquisition, the Crusades? There was this little thing called the "Dark Ages" where for hundreds of years Christians slaughtered anyone who disagreed with them. I seem to remember Galileo having a bit of a problem with the Church over the position of the Sun?
Originally posted by jhonan:
Many religious people would now view the old testament explanations of creation (7 days, adam and eve etc.) as metaphors, written at a time when that *was* the best explanation. |
Yet, we still see the fruit of the Old Testament being used by modern Christians to furthur their theological inquisitions. Hence, one passage denouncing homosexuality is considered gospel, while the passage above, saying that being disrespectful to ones parents is just as bad is evidently a quaint metaphor not to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by jhonan:
As science has presented new theories (the big bang, or evolution) religious people have generally been rational enough to consider these theories, and adapt their own understanding of their faith to keep in step. |
Tell that to the Kansas Board of Education, who feels creationism is a science. :(
Originally posted by jhonan:
I'm not saying it's the job of science to prove *everything* - But in the areas where the scientific method can't be applied, then any philosophical or religious theories are just as valid as the scientific ones. |
Where might those areas be?
Originally posted by jhonan:
After all, isn't a scientific hypothesis all about putting forward a theory and then proving or disproving it?
Why should I attach any more weight to 'The universe just sprung into existance' over 'The universe was created' ? |
Because the first is based on mathematics, physics and science, and the latter is based on magic from a 1700 year-old book. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 02:06:41 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jhonan:
After all, isn't a scientific hypothesis all about putting forward a theory and then proving or disproving it? |
No, scientists put forward an hypothesis and then try to prove or disprove it. |
Yes, thanks for the correction. I'm a bit rusty.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 02:25:20 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
Science has not been able to disprove/prove anything. |
Really? Are you from the Middle Ages
Originally posted by boomtap:
Lets recap science:
Earth is flat. |
sorry - that was a religious idea. Scientists were boiled in religiosly-blessed oil for saying it was round.
Originally posted by boomtap:
Pluto is a planet, no a moon, no a planet...um... |
Scientists made the telescopes that allowed us to even see it. Christianity disavowwed the possibility of planets at all.
Originally posted by boomtap:
Smoking is good for you. |
Again - that was corporate executives, like the fine folks paid by ExxonMobil. I believe that scientists were the ones that said smoking causes cancer?
Originally posted by boomtap:
Humans have 100,000 genes no wait, 20,000, um we are not sure. |
And fundamentalists feel we don't have functioning DNA - its all a trick to test your faith, because evolution is just a theory.
SNIP!
Originally posted by boomtap:
Darwinism - most scientist are jumping ship on this one. |
How can I put this politely? You are so misinformed as boggle the mind.
Originally posted by boomtap:
Fact: In our society there are great pressures put on scientists to come up with new theory's and ideas in order to find funding and survive. |
True.
Originally posted by boomtap:
They create myths and take faith in thier truth in order to continue. It is a flawed system in a fallen world. |
Completely false. You do not understand the scientific method. Have you ever had a biology course? Did you pass it?:D
Originally posted by boomtap:
I am not bashing scientific progress. Not at all. In fact I firmly believe that there will come a day when science and research will actually just prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Didn't you just say that Science can not prove anything?
Originally posted by boomtap:
God exsists. |
Yeah? Prove it. Give me one shred of evidence. Anything.
But you damn well know that Science exists! Every time you get in your car and drive, you are using a creation based on scientific theory and knowledge.
I'll bet you even see the doctor when you get sick to use that darned science-based medicine you suspect so much.
The fact that someone can use an internet forum using their computer, which is filled with Godless transistors and electrons, and be so dense as to still disavow the value of science is proof that there is no God. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 02:27:25 PM · #512 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=boomtap]
Your claim that most scientists are jumping ship on Darwinism is laughable. |
Yes, and they laughed that the world was round as well.
They are already pulling it from textbooks. 25 years from now it will not be the foundation of theory's. There are too many gaps in the therory and it is flawed. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 02:33:37 PM · #513 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by jhonan:
I'm not saying it's the job of science to prove *everything* - But in the areas where the scientific method can't be applied, then any philosophical or religious theories are just as valid as the scientific ones. |
Where might those areas be? |
Areas such as consciousness, the mind-body problem, AI, free will, and creation. I'm not going to dismiss 4,000 years of philosophy and theology in the belief that science will supply me with the answers to everything.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by jhonan:
Why should I attach any more weight to 'The universe just sprung into existence' over 'The universe was created' ? |
Because the first is based on mathematics, physics and science, and the latter is based on magic from a 1700 year-old book. |
What caused the Big Bang? Did it 'just happen', or did something cause it to happen? - There are scientific theories which attempt to answer that question, there are also theological viewpoints. Until one is proven or has enough supporting evidence behind it, they are all valid as theories.
(Assuming we don't count the bible and the number of people who believe in a creator as 'supporting evidence')
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 02:57:41 PM · #514 |
I just wanted to pop in again to say that this is one of the only religious vs. non-religious debate threads on DPC that I have ever *fully* enjoyed reading and following to the extent that I have, and that a huge kudos should go out to everyone involved for keeping it civil, entertaining, and generally well-grounded.
Keep on keeping on folks.. I look forward to clicking every time I see the folder has turned blue again!
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 03:00:14 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by boomtap:
Your claim that most scientists are jumping ship on Darwinism is laughable. |
Yes, and they laughed that the world was round as well.
They are already pulling it from textbooks. 25 years from now it will not be the foundation of theory's. There are too many gaps in the therory and it is flawed. |
Dude, the concept of a spherical earth was generally accepted by scholars at the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century. Ptolemy's maps were based on a curved globe, and the Greeks simply observed the earth's shadow on the moon during an eclipse as evidence. It was church leaders that pushed the idea of a flat earth, not scientists, and the same is true today with Darwinism as religious fundamentalists try to have it removed from textbooks. That does NOT mean that scientists are backing away from it.
P.S. "...new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis." âPope John Paul II
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 15:02:21. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 03:12:31 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by jhonan:
I'm not saying it's the job of science to prove *everything* - But in the areas where the scientific method can't be applied, then any philosophical or religious theories are just as valid as the scientific ones. |
Where might those areas be? |
As I said, or at least implied, earlier, I don't see how scientific method can be applied to explain one's awareness of one's own existence. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 03:28:18 PM · #517 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I don't see how scientific method can be applied to explain one's awareness of one's own existence. |
Place a mark on an animal's head and put him in front of a mirror. Why would an animal reach up to his head to feel the thing he sees in the mirror or turn to get a better angle if there was no understanding of "me?" |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 03:35:46 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
First you need to define "moral". What is your absolute standard? |
Iâm not claiming there is an absolute standard remember and I guess my basic definition for what is moral is that which reduces overall suffering. What that entails is certainly up for discussion.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If God is the source of morality, His actions are moral by definition, the answer then would be "yes, it was moral". |
If God is the source of morality, then it is moral to stone to death non-virgin brides and disobedient children and to own slaves at one period in time and not in another. In actuality, according to the New Testament, there are still no injunctions against owning slaves.
If we define âSteveâ as incapable of murder and Steve then stabs someone and that person dies, Steve, of course, could not have committed murder by definition. You define God as the source of morality and, therefore, anything God does/commands is moral. There is no way to independently judge Godâs morality and, therefore, all actions can be ultimately justifiable through appeals to faith in Godâs changing morality.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 03:57:24 PM · #519 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
There is no way to independently judge Godâs morality and, therefore, all actions can be ultimately justifiable through appeals to faith in Godâs changing morality. |
For believers, there is a way to judge God's morality with certainty - and there is an appeal for violating God's morality, but only One.
Scripture says, "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin" ( Romans 14:23 ). That means any sin - from white lie to murder. And, Scripture says, "The wages of sin is death..." ( Romans 6:23 ). From that, it would appear that we are all doomed. But...Scripture also says, in the very next part of that same verse "...but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". The "catch" is that in order to accept the gift of God, you have to believe in Him.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 04:08:56 PM · #520 |
Originally posted by RonB:
That means any sin - from white lie to murder. And, Scripture says, "The wages of sin is death..." ( Romans 6:23 ). From that, it would appear that we are all doomed. But...Scripture also says, in the very next part of that same verse "...but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord".
|
Hmm... so Scripture proclaims that the wages of is sin is death (something imposed by people) and not Hell?Not that it matters, I suppose, since there's apparently a "get out of Hell free card" for sin - from white lie to murder. :-/ |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 04:09:31 PM · #521 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Scripture says, "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin" ( Romans 14:23 ). That means any sin - from white lie to murder. And, Scripture says, "The wages of sin is death..." ( Romans 6:23 ). From that, it would appear that we are all doomed. But...Scripture also says, in the very next part of that same verse "...but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". The "catch" is that in order to accept the gift of God, you have to believe in Him. |
Yes. A more accurate word to describe it is extortion.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 04:24:38 PM · #522 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
If God is the source of morality, then it is moral to stone to death non-virgin brides and disobedient children and to own slaves at one period in time and not in another. In actuality, according to the New Testament, there are still no injunctions against owning slaves.
If we define âSteveâ as incapable of murder and Steve then stabs someone and that person dies, Steve, of course, could not have committed murder by definition. You define God as the source of morality and, therefore, anything God does/commands is moral. There is no way to independently judge Godâs morality and, therefore, all actions can be ultimately justifiable through appeals to faith in Godâs changing morality. |
Don't get me going again milo, your answer reflects that you do not grasp the situation. I bolded the part that reveals this to me. You first tell me you are denying that there is any absolute standard ("Iâm not claiming there is an absolute standard") and then you complain that there is no such standard to judge God's morality. Which is it? Until you can come up with a consistent argument, I don't have much more to say.
If you are pointing out that there is no actual absolute morality, that's great. Then we are stuck arguing that you feel God is a bad person while I think he's a good guy. We can argue until we are blue in the face. I did that before and I'm not about to start doing it again. Your point lacks any authority milo.
Here's a quote I posted above for you milo. I think it fits.
"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." --C. S. Lewis
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 16:41:04. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 04:36:38 PM · #523 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
That means any sin - from white lie to murder. And, Scripture says, "The wages of sin is death..." ( Romans 6:23 ). From that, it would appear that we are all doomed. But...Scripture also says, in the very next part of that same verse "...but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord".
|
Hmm... so Scripture proclaims that the wages of is sin is death (something imposed by people) and not Hell?Not that it matters, I suppose, since there's apparently a "get out of Hell free card" for sin - from white lie to murder. :-/ |
There are two deaths. The one is physical, one spiritual. We will all die physically ( a death not always "imposed by people" - there are deaths due to disease ( natural deaths ) and accidents ( accidental deaths ), for instance ). For believers, the second death is when he/she dies to sin ( and is born again ) when he/she accepts Christ while yet alive. The nonbeliever dies a spiritual death AFTER his/her physical death - and it is this death that Paul is speaking of. That death is eternal separation from God - namely, an eternity in Hell. And, yes, Christ is the "get out of Hell free card". |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 04:38:21 PM · #524 |
Those passages are to explain to us that we are all sinners in need of a savior. God will give us that "get out of hell free card" if we believe in our hearts that He is Lord and he died for our sins, Murderers and liers alike.
To truly give yourself over to God, have faith in him, and be able to be selfless enough to admit that you are a sinner is not an easy task or one that God takes lightly. Most people believe that they are good enough to go to Heaven. I know I am not. My sins are equal to the sins of anyone else including murderers. Unless I am forgiven of those, I should never be let through the gates of Heaven. God is good and cannot allow even a single sinful person into Heaven. I will never be able to go to Heaven without the Grace of God in the forgiveness of my sins. The point that Paul makes in Romans is just that. You fall short of God. You cannot earn your way to Heaven. You cannot do anything to get there. Jesus had to "do" the work. Those who believe this and put thier faith in Jesus will be saved by him. Those who choose to dismiss it, don't. Jeffrey Dahmer claimed before death that he believed in Jesus. If he truly did, in his heart and you do to, then you will be seeing him in Heaven.
Why do scientist and those who follow science even care if Christians believe in Heaven or Hell. They don't believe that either of these places even exist. If that is the cas why not just dismiss the whole argument and let us crazy's go about our pathetic meaningless lives believing whatever it is we choose. What is it that drives science crazy about God and religion?
Bottom line:
You do not need to believe in Jesus. Some people will, and some will not. I believe that if you do not, well you will spend eternity seperated from God (what you would call Hell). The choice is yours, and NOBODY can force you or tell you to believe, because you have to believe fully in your heart of hearts that it is true. Acting it out, playing "good little Christian" will get you nowhere with God. I also believe that if you do, Jesus who died for your sins will act on your behalf in Heaven in front of the King of Kings and allow you to spend eternity with God. Only God can do the work in you and through you. You cannot save yourself.
Oh ya, I believe in God not because of the fear of Hell, but because of the promise of Heaven.
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 16:47:51. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 04:44:26 PM · #525 |
God made cheese puffs in his image.
|
|
