| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2009 05:56:02 PM · #351 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Nullix:
There are numerous religions around the would that believe in the spiritual world. Can they all be wrong? |
Yes they can, see this list of fallacious arguments, in particular the Appeal to widespread belief |
I wasn't referring to communities of people hearing about a belief and following. I was referring to different religions across the world who independent believe in a spiritual realm.
You can't jump on the bandwagon if you live on another continent and don't have wagons. |
True, but just because multiple religions across multiple regions who have no influence on each other believe in some sort of spiritual realm doesn't make it so. In fact, the difference in the spiritual realms across these multiple religions are so vastly different that it points more to something along the lines that the human brain is incapable or unwilling to deal with mortality and thus fabricates of a means to deal with this problem. To use your argument, if the Native Americans believed the world to be flat as did the Europeans that doesn't make the world flat, just because neither were exposed to the other and both came up with the same idea does not make that idea any more correct. |
|
|
|
09/25/2009 07:01:35 PM · #352 |
OK, I'm signing off for the weekend. It's my 20th high school reunion tonight and I'm planning on having some fun with old friends.
You can can feel free to continue that Brownian Motion Boogie without me. ;) |
|
|
|
09/25/2009 07:09:27 PM · #353 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Point blank Shannon, do you believe in anything immaterial? Are there any phenomena that cannot ultimately be explained by the natural laws of the universe?
I will drop my jaw in complete awe if you say yes. I'll be much less surpised if you just remain silent which you tend to do when faced with a difficult question. |
I was at a photo shoot all day, thankyouverymuch. The answer to your point blank question is, OF COURSE! (subtitled "Duh!"). Time is immaterial. Ideas are immaterial. The space between electrons is immaterial. Einstein's so-called "spooky action at a distance" is immaterial. Emotions might be immaterial. Your argument that atheists must think everything is material is immaterial, and the basis for religious belief is immaterial... ;-P
Now pick your jaw up. Yer gettin' drool on the floor. |
|
|
|
09/25/2009 07:10:56 PM · #354 |
I thought he'd never leave. So who's up for some immorality? :P
|
|
|
|
09/25/2009 07:13:43 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So who's up for some immorality? :P |
Shhhh! Morality isn't a material thing, so only the chosen ones are supposed to believe it exists. |
|
|
|
09/25/2009 07:15:01 PM · #356 |
| Im always game for some immorality. |
|
|
|
09/25/2009 07:17:31 PM · #357 |
| If whipped cream is involved, I'm in. |
|
|
|
09/25/2009 07:18:52 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
If whipped cream is involved, I'm in. |
Yes, whipping would generally be regarded as immoral. |
|
|
|
09/25/2009 09:44:39 PM · #359 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Point blank Shannon, do you believe in anything immaterial? Are there any phenomena that cannot ultimately be explained by the natural laws of the universe?
I will drop my jaw in complete awe if you say yes. I'll be much less surpised if you just remain silent which you tend to do when faced with a difficult question. |
I was at a photo shoot all day, thankyouverymuch. The answer to your point blank question is, OF COURSE! (subtitled "Duh!"). Time is immaterial. Ideas are immaterial. The space between electrons is immaterial. Einstein's so-called "spooky action at a distance" is immaterial. Emotions might be immaterial. Your argument that atheists must think everything is material is immaterial, and the basis for religious belief is immaterial... ;-P
Now pick your jaw up. Yer gettin' drool on the floor. |
OK, I'm waiting for the missus at the moment. I wasn't going to bust on you for not answering until you posted again, so you're all good. I do appreciate the answer, but I'm not going to let you off the hook because I think you are weasling out a bit by only answering half the question. If we wiki Materialism we see the basic definition is as follows:
The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.
So while your examples are obviously not made of matter, the question then becomes whether they are "the result of material interactions"? So I'll ask a follow up as to whether you feel that ideas, "spooky action at a distance" or emotions are "the result of material interactions"? Time is an interesting example, but is merely a dimension. The same could be asked about "width". Is width the result of material interactions? It doesn't really make sense probably because dimensions do not qualify as a thing or a phenomena. But we can knock the easy ones off first. You can prove me wrong again, but I'm guessing that when you reduce ideas, "spooky action at a distance" and emotions down to their bare essentials, they are all the product of material interaction. Do you agree? |
|
|
|
09/25/2009 10:19:01 PM · #360 |
Is a pattern a material interaction, or an immaterial interpretation?
|
|
|
|
09/25/2009 11:05:20 PM · #361 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
when you reduce ideas, "spooky action at a distance" and emotions down to their bare essentials, they are all the product of material interaction. Do you agree? |
Who knows? Time exists, but it's not really "made" of anything. Space exists, but it's the absence of material. Emotions are likely a byproduct of physical brain function, but spooky action at a distance is much tougher to classify. It seems to break several laws of physics, but could also be an anomaly of measurement, a currently unknown physical interaction, or something else entirely. The universe prior to the Big Bang may have been immaterial. In any case, the only connection you can make to atheism is that gods are not required (or credible) to explain them.
As already noted, when you go down the path of the completely immaterial, you set your own trap because that which does not physically interact with our universe cannot possibly produce any physical effect in our universe since it would then be measurable. Like a cloaked Klingon warship, it can't make an impact without revealing itself. Gods are riddled with such contradictions: they create matter and answer prayers yet cannot be detected, they exist before anything existed, they demand acknowledgement yet are defined as unknowable... each is a paradox that cannot be true unless the claim itself is false.
"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence." Ă¢€”Thomas Jefferson
Message edited by author 2009-09-25 23:25:21. |
|
|
|
09/25/2009 11:26:33 PM · #362 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For all those who enjoy the journey more than the destination, can I ask whether a journey of Brownian Motion would be worthwhile? If you say "yes", then I can see the root of our differences as I would not consider a journey of random movement to be fulfilling. If you say "no", then I would still ask where are you headed? |
Why is the journey, for the journey's sake, such an alien concept to you?
Columbus, Magellan, Vasco de Gama, Cortez, Marco Polo......all of these great men, by history's standard, took off on a Sunday drive.....and got lost.
I want to do that in my convertible, Courtenay wants to do that in her boat, and you tell us we're nuts?
It's just a different way of looking at the world, and finding out what's out there.......even if you haven't a clue where "There" is when you start out.
For me, and I'm gathering Courtenay, that's what it's all about.
Check this out:
Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad
Complete, random accidental find......went driving around, with my camera, which I often do. I never jknow where I'm going, or what I'll find.....and tomorrow, I'm shooting a Civil War re-enactment from the train as the official photographer for the railroad.
This is an example of a completely random occurrence from a Saturday afternoon drive.
HOW can you tell me that this is anything but a fulfilling result of a random journey?
And had I not found somethimng specific, well, then I would have had a relaxing journey driving around the countryside just seeing what I saw.
My wife and I took a cross country trip right after she graduated college.....we took three weeks off, and drove 8800 miles with *NO* specific place in mind.
It was a blast! Personally, I feel sorry for someone who cannot just up and go.......for the sake of just taking off with the wind at your back, the road & adventure before you.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2009 11:35:40 PM · #363 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
There are numerous religions around the would that believe in the spiritual world. Can they all be wrong? |
Why couldn't they?
As they're all based on supposition, of course they can all be wrong.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2009 11:59:01 PM · #364 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
There are numerous religions around the would that believe in the spiritual world. Can they all be wrong? |
Argumentum ad populum
Numerous people all around the world once believed the earth was flat, demons caused sneezes, eclipses were evil, lightning and volcanoes were the wrath of deities, the sound barrier could never be broken, colorful stones prevented disease, tomatoes were poisonous, man could never fly or walk on the moon...
Message edited by author 2009-09-26 00:00:33. |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 09:20:53 AM · #365 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. |
The more I think about it, the more I figure I must be a materialist then. BTW - All dimensions we know to exist are measures of matter (time being the measure of decay).
Ha. Actually, no. Try reading Leibniz's Monadology to start. Here's a wiki of it, though his actual work is much more complete and complex (A better treatment of it can be found here, under the section Matter and thought). He believed neither materialism nor dualism adequately explained perception and consciousness.
BTW - Leibniz believed in (a) God.
Message edited by author 2009-09-26 09:25:01. |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 10:42:55 AM · #366 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Who knows? Time exists, but it's not really "made" of anything.... |
I'm not so sure about that, actually, and I am not alone in thinking time's a human construct that has no objective "reality"....
R. |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 01:11:04 PM · #367 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For all those who enjoy the journey more than the destination, can I ask whether a journey of Brownian Motion would be worthwhile? If you say "yes", then I can see the root of our differences as I would not consider a journey of random movement to be fulfilling. If you say "no", then I would still ask where are you headed? |
Why is the journey, for the journey's sake, such an alien concept to you?
Columbus, Magellan, Vasco de Gama, Cortez, Marco Polo......all of these great men, by history's standard, took off on a Sunday drive.....and got lost.
I want to do that in my convertible, Courtenay wants to do that in her boat, and you tell us we're nuts?
It's just a different way of looking at the world, and finding out what's out there.......even if you haven't a clue where "There" is when you start out.
For me, and I'm gathering Courtenay, that's what it's all about.
Check this out:
Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad
Complete, random accidental find......went driving around, with my camera, which I often do. I never jknow where I'm going, or what I'll find.....and tomorrow, I'm shooting a Civil War re-enactment from the train as the official photographer for the railroad.
This is an example of a completely random occurrence from a Saturday afternoon drive.
HOW can you tell me that this is anything but a fulfilling result of a random journey?
And had I not found somethimng specific, well, then I would have had a relaxing journey driving around the countryside just seeing what I saw.
My wife and I took a cross country trip right after she graduated college.....we took three weeks off, and drove 8800 miles with *NO* specific place in mind.
It was a blast! Personally, I feel sorry for someone who cannot just up and go.......for the sake of just taking off with the wind at your back, the road & adventure before you. |
The problem here is you keep confusing physical journies for the metaphorical one I'm speaking of. I LOVE going on road trips. Heck, I deducted over 2,000 miles on my taxes last year for my photography business. But I don't love the idea of a random (ie. no) purpose to my life. |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 01:19:35 PM · #368 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But I don't love the idea of a random (ie. no) purpose to my life. |
No one does -- that's why virtually every known society has invented some form of religion to provide some rationale for human existence. But that doesn't make any of them "true" except in the allegorical sense. |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 01:19:36 PM · #369 |
| Doc, you didn't bring this stuff up at the reunion did you? They would have pummeled you! ;-) |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 01:22:04 PM · #370 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
when you reduce ideas, "spooky action at a distance" and emotions down to their bare essentials, they are all the product of material interaction. Do you agree? |
Who knows? Time exists, but it's not really "made" of anything. Space exists, but it's the absence of material. Emotions are likely a byproduct of physical brain function, but spooky action at a distance is much tougher to classify. It seems to break several laws of physics, but could also be an anomaly of measurement, a currently unknown physical interaction, or something else entirely. The universe prior to the Big Bang may have been immaterial. In any case, the only connection you can make to atheism is that gods are not required (or credible) to explain them.
As already noted, when you go down the path of the completely immaterial, you set your own trap because that which does not physically interact with our universe cannot possibly produce any physical effect in our universe since it would then be measurable. Like a cloaked Klingon warship, it can't make an impact without revealing itself. Gods are riddled with such contradictions: they create matter and answer prayers yet cannot be detected, they exist before anything existed, they demand acknowledgement yet are defined as unknowable... each is a paradox that cannot be true unless the claim itself is false.
"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence." Ă¢€”Thomas Jefferson |
I'm somewhat impressed with your answer only because it's the most I've ever heard you say "who really knows sometimes?" but I still have to believe that if you do not qualify as a Materialist then such terms and definitions have no meaning. You and I know this to be true unless you are hiding another side of your worldview that you simply choose not to exhibit on threads like this.
I would submit it would be possible for dual worlds to interact without obvious measures. Take the mind. While one would speculate we should be able to see the "ghost" in the machine, we also know that at least currently we lack any sort of sophistication in measuring the trillions upon trillions of neuronal connections. If there was something pulling levers behind the scenes we would be helpless to see it.
Likewise a Supreme Being could exert an effect in the quantum foam of matter. Having ultimate knowledge, it could be easy to know exactly where to invoke a Butterfly Effect to accomplish his purposes.
This is all speculation, of course, but I'm trying to show how it's at least rational. I agree its somewhat bizarre to imagine a cause-effect chain for such things. At one point the chain is in the other world and at the next it is in our world. Seems crazy, but it's not irrational. Any scientist who adheres to the Big Bang would hold a comparable (if not exactly similar) view. |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 01:23:38 PM · #371 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Doc, you didn't bring this stuff up at the reunion did you? They would have pummeled you! ;-) |
No. I was too busy performing the Heimlich on my wife. True story. Worked like a charm. Phew! |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 01:29:18 PM · #372 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Doc, you didn't bring this stuff up at the reunion did you? They would have pummeled you! ;-) |
No. I was too busy performing the Heimlich on my wife. True story. Worked like a charm. Phew! |
Yikes! That must have been scary ... so glad it worked out! |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 01:30:26 PM · #373 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Doc, you didn't bring this stuff up at the reunion did you? They would have pummeled you! ;-) |
No. I was too busy performing the Heimlich on my wife. True story. Worked like a charm. Phew! |
Yikes! That must have been scary ... so glad it worked out! |
It was the shrimp cocktail wasn't it? Hope she is well. |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 01:37:12 PM · #374 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Doc, you didn't bring this stuff up at the reunion did you? They would have pummeled you! ;-) |
No. I was too busy performing the Heimlich on my wife. True story. Worked like a charm. Phew! |
Yikes! That must have been scary ... so glad it worked out! |
It was the shrimp cocktail wasn't it? Hope she is well. |
You know, that's what I was worried about. Jenn is allergic to seafood and at first I thought she was having an allergic reaction. She was all red and holding her throat. I was all geared to make the dash to the car for her epi-pen, but she managed to get out the word "choking" which made me realize what was really going on. It was a piece of beef and while we didn't get the typical flying-of-a-foreign-body-across-the-room, the maneuver fixed her immediately. At the moment it was all too fast to be scared, but in retrospect I am a little distressed that a) Jenn had classically left the room to try to take care of the problem privately (common with choking victims which is a bad thing) and b) I had the wrong diagnosis in my mind at first. I am thankful it all worked out fine!
Everybody who doesn't know the heimlich should learn it and if anybody chokes out there do not leave the room because you are embarassed!!! |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 01:41:54 PM · #375 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would submit it would be possible for dual worlds to interact without obvious measures. Take the mind. While one would speculate we should be able to see the "ghost" in the machine, we also know that at least currently we lack any sort of sophistication in measuring the trillions upon trillions of neuronal connections. |
Maybe not, and if there was something pulling levers behind the scenes of your mind, as you put it, free will would not exist.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Likewise a Supreme Being could exert an effect in the quantum foam of matter. Having ultimate knowledge, it could be easy to know exactly where to invoke a Butterfly Effect to accomplish his purposes. |
Just as the butterfly effect could be traced back to the butterfly, ANY sort of influence upon our universe requires a physical interaction. There can be no effect without cause. |
|
