|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2010 03:47:50 PM · #1501 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically my point stands. Materialism cannot account for the kick off of the material system (an obvious fundamental problem) unless it resorts to justifications/rationalizations that do not fit within the framework of the Scientific Method (and even then the answers are flawed and nonspecific). Personal I find that every bit as perplexing as explaining exactly how the resurrection works. The grass is no greener on the other side. And this is only one of the multiple topics I brought up. |
I do not disagree with the underlined portion above, as I think that the statement is simple fact as to the current state of scientific knowledge. However, I don't see this as an "obvious fundamental problem" and I would argue with your characterization that what is occurring in physics right now in regard to the hashing out of string theory.
As the article points out, string theory is a mess currently, because the equations have surpassed our current ability to experiment. When I say the math points to the theory, I mean that the core observation - the "stings" - appears to be necessary under our current mathematical understandings. The messy part is the current attempt to fill in the details and - you are right - that is messy and untrustworthy right now because no one has yet come up with an experimental model by which we can test string theory. However, I am confident that we either will come up with such models - and then sting theory will either rise or fall based on the results of the model - or string theory will pass into historical oddity because of a continued inability to come up with such models.
I don't see the current inability to know what happened prior to the big bang as an "obvious fundamental problem" because I understand the complexity of coming up with answers and/or models for a period before the current universe existed. Indeed, I would be perfectly willing to believe that it may be impossible to ever know the "before" given our place in time and space in the "after." This does not bother me that much because it says nothing about whether the scientific method provides an accurate description of the "after." And it does.
I decidedly don't agree that the resurrection (along with the other topics I mentioned above) and string theory are equivalents. One lies on the very outer edge of current scientific understanding and one lies at the heart of the Christian worldview. As I said before, I would expect that only a relative few would be able to intelligently discourse on the mathematics of sting theory, but I would expect that almost all Christians should be able to give a coherent and non-self referential account of the resurrection. Yet it turns out that even advanced theologians have trouble articulating such an account, and few agree on the particulars of even the most (not very) coherent explanations.
The aspect of the debate that you continually ignore is the question of why any "answers" that your faith can provide should be accounted any weight for those who do not already accept the underlying premises of the faith or why such "answers" should be preference over any other faith-based claims.
The fact that faith can provide an "answer" says nothing about the veracity of that "answer" or the reasonableness of whether such an "answer" should be accepted given our current state of knowledge of how the world works.
(And yes, the scare-quotes are deliberate.)
Message edited by author 2010-02-23 15:51:08. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 04:07:17 PM · #1502 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Thanks for your reply Jeb. I feel a connection with people and with nature, and think of this as spirituality. I would like to learn more about Native American beliefs and Buddhism, I just haven't done it.
Like you, another one of my problems with religion(and I have many problems with religion!)is that they all claim to be right which is not possible.
Maybe the answer is that there is no answer. :) |
If you google native spiritually you will find a series of interesting links. As an aside, you might also consider googling Native Shape Shifters, Two Spirited People of the First Nations, and Shamanism.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 04:24:59 PM · #1503 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
1947 is more than a few decades back! LOL!!! |
Six? A very recent drop in the bucket in terms of overall scientific exploration. It's still merely decades, not centuries. To say that we cannot account for a particular phenomena is premature at best. We don't know everything... and that includes not knowing what we can know.
Message edited by author 2010-02-23 16:26:37. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 04:39:32 PM · #1504 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Every religion only compounds the problems, so I find my own way. |
I meant to come back to this. Would you mind expanding on how one finds ones own way? I'm not sure what that looks like practically. (I'm being serious here.) |
What do you mean by practically? I don't know that you can ever really understand my point of view, since you come from one that is almost incomprehensible to mine, (and vice versa). Know that I don't believe, nor feel the need to believe, in any kind of ultimate 'force' or 'god' or 'supreme being' or anything of the kind, so anything I do and feel is a combination of pure luck, environment, experience, and conditioning. I am lucky to have grown up among people that gave me a decent environment, and have experienced enough pain and suffering to be conditioned to do everything in my power to avoid these things in myself and those around me. My experiences and education, and observances of RELIGION (not faith), are almost inexorably on the side of negativity, suffering, mindlessness, power-hungry and pointlessness. While I know plenty of people with personal spirituality that humbles me at times, and impresses me often, the minute this spirituality is gathered into a group, it becomes dangerous and corrupted. What is worse, is that too often the corruption hides behind an intense mask of virtue, which only serves to seduce.
I will not be a part of any of it.
I think a part of why many people can't grasp the concept of no 'god', if you will, is because of those questions you asked and the lack of understanding how a person can answer how I answer. I am not concerned with "why". Not in this regard. Not in this capacity. I don't have any desire to understand WHY we are here. Thus, I have no need to generate a more powerful figure of imagination in order to explain the question so that I can feel relieved or at peace. It doesn't frighten me to think that it's all just random chaos with no control, no fate, and nothing waiting at the end.
I don't need an answer, I don't need a god, and while I don't begrudge those that do, if it gives them happiness, I no more understand the need for it than you probably understand my utter lack of need.
So I can and do live peacefully with many people that have a personal spirituality and faith, but far too often their need for such things becomes an insistence that I must follow such thinking, or that such thinking must interfere with my life and decisions, and every time that happens, well, I am not afraid to fight back :D |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 05:38:51 PM · #1505 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically my point stands. Materialism cannot account for the kick off of the material system (an obvious fundamental problem) unless it resorts to justifications/rationalizations that do not fit within the framework of the Scientific Method (and even then the answers are flawed and nonspecific). Personal I find that every bit as perplexing as explaining exactly how the resurrection works. The grass is no greener on the other side. And this is only one of the multiple topics I brought up. |
I do not disagree with the underlined portion above, as I think that the statement is simple fact as to the current state of scientific knowledge. However, I don't see this as an "obvious fundamental problem" and I would argue with your characterization that what is occurring in physics right now in regard to the hashing out of string theory.
As the article points out, string theory is a mess currently, because the equations have surpassed our current ability to experiment. When I say the math points to the theory, I mean that the core observation - the "stings" - appears to be necessary under our current mathematical understandings. The messy part is the current attempt to fill in the details and - you are right - that is messy and untrustworthy right now because no one has yet come up with an experimental model by which we can test string theory. However, I am confident that we either will come up with such models - and then sting theory will either rise or fall based on the results of the model - or string theory will pass into historical oddity because of a continued inability to come up with such models.
I don't see the current inability to know what happened prior to the big bang as an "obvious fundamental problem" because I understand the complexity of coming up with answers and/or models for a period before the current universe existed. Indeed, I would be perfectly willing to believe that it may be impossible to ever know the "before" given our place in time and space in the "after." This does not bother me that much because it says nothing about whether the scientific method provides an accurate description of the "after." And it does.
I decidedly don't agree that the resurrection (along with the other topics I mentioned above) and string theory are equivalents. One lies on the very outer edge of current scientific understanding and one lies at the heart of the Christian worldview. As I said before, I would expect that only a relative few would be able to intelligently discourse on the mathematics of sting theory, but I would expect that almost all Christians should be able to give a coherent and non-self referential account of the resurrection. Yet it turns out that even advanced theologians have trouble articulating such an account, and few agree on the particulars of even the most (not very) coherent explanations.
The aspect of the debate that you continually ignore is the question of why any "answers" that your faith can provide should be accounted any weight for those who do not already accept the underlying premises of the faith or why such "answers" should be preference over any other faith-based claims.
The fact that faith can provide an "answer" says nothing about the veracity of that "answer" or the reasonableness of whether such an "answer" should be accepted given our current state of knowledge of how the world works.
(And yes, the scare-quotes are deliberate.) |
A few random responses:
* The more you guys talk, the more you start using concepts found in religion. "I have confidence" is no different than having faith. You don't have the answers, but you have faith they will work themselves out in the end. You have faith...and hope.
* You keep pushing string theory to the "fringe" of science, and I agree with that in the sense that String Theory hardly counts as science at all, but the concept of a beginning for a system is fundamental to the system. If the statement of materialism is "there is nothing outside our physical reality", but you cannot explain the existance of that physical reality, don't you think that is potentially a fatal flaw and, in fact, there COULD BE something outside our physical reality (be it God or something else)? You can't simply say the philosophy works very well for everything (except the things it doesn't work well for) and impress me.
* Your question about why this religion and not another is a good one. I guess I would just point to a nebulous term like "resonate". Some philosophies resonate more with people and I would pay some attention to that. I know that's really touchy-feely, and it isn't the whole answer, but it counts for something.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 06:09:07 PM · #1506 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"I have confidence" is no different than having faith. |
It's COMPLETELY different. Having confidence in a process that has proven to be reliable in resolving countless questions with verifiable, objective evidence is in no way comparable to belief alone. You tacitly acknowledge the difference when you demand proof of details for one side but hold no expectation of even basic evidence for the other.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the statement of materialism is "there is nothing outside our physical reality", but you cannot explain the existance of that physical reality, don't you think that is potentially a fatal flaw and, in fact, there COULD BE something outside our physical reality (be it God or something else)? |
The question is self-answering: that which is outside reality is, by definition, not reality. Moreover, bodies disappearing from tombs, burning bushes, great floods, parting seas and healing wounds would be within our physical reality or they could not manifest such tangible effects.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Some philosophies resonate more with people and I would pay some attention to that. |
Of course they would. The stories you grew up with would naturally be the most familiar, and the fact that religion generally follows cultural and family lines supports the idea of a tradition more than a truth.
Message edited by author 2010-02-23 18:23:58. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 06:12:41 PM · #1507 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the statement of materialism is "there is nothing outside our physical reality", but you cannot explain the existance of that physical reality, don't you think that is potentially a fatal flaw and, in fact, there COULD BE something outside our physical reality (be it God or something else)? |
The question is self-answering: that which is outside reality is, by definition, not reality. Moreover, bodies disappearing from tombs, burning bushes, great floods, parting seas and healing wounds would be within our physical reality or they could not manifest such tangible effects.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Some philosophies resonate more with people and I would pay some attention to that. |
Of course they would. The stories you grew up with would naturally be the most familiar, and the fact that religion generally follows cultural and family lines supports the idea of a tradition more than a truth. |
So are you rejecting materialism as a self-contradicting principle? Interesting.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 06:39:25 PM · #1508 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Thanks for your reply Jeb. I feel a connection with people and with nature, and think of this as spirituality. I would like to learn more about Native American beliefs and Buddhism, I just haven't done it.
Like you, another one of my problems with religion(and I have many problems with religion!)is that they all claim to be right which is not possible.
Maybe the answer is that there is no answer. :) |
It's funny, but most of the people I have met that I would consider to be spiritual are those people who have managed to become comfortable with themselves. I don't think that there necessarily has to be a religion involved so much as a deep and abiding appreciation of life and a respect for your fellow man, coupled with a genuine ability to like people as well, warts and all. To be able to accept them as they are, love them, and genuinely be interested in who they are are also things that I see in the people whom I consider spiritual. For me, spirituality comes from within, not from outside influences, and there's no telling in whom you'll see it.
I'm perfectly content with the fact that I don't have an answer, and part of that stems from the realization that I'm just not particularly important in the big picture. There have been millions of lesser mortals such as myself that have gone before me and been forgotten, and though I'd like to think that there are some people who will remember me well, in a hundred years or so, I'll just be a name that once was.
If there is some sort of heaven kind of thing, great, but like you, I'm not sure I buy that petty show fealty to me or else kind of mentality so often associated with gods. I will try to be the best humanoid that I can be, hope that my concept of God makes me a better person, but at the end of the day, if I'm just dead and buried, so be it.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 06:40:13 PM · #1509 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So are you rejecting materialism as a self-contradicting principle? Interesting. |
Your question is self-contradicting. Anything outside of reality is, by definition, unreal (synonymous with imaginary, fictitious, mythical, pretend, make-believe, false, phony, etc.). Reality includes ALL that is real, so quite obviously there can be nothing real outside of reality. The question itself is as silly as asking if there can be anything imaginary outside the world of fiction. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 06:41:39 PM · #1510 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So are you rejecting materialism as a self-contradicting principle? Interesting. |
Your question is self-contradicting. Anything outside of reality is, by definition, unreal (synonymous with imaginary, fictitious, mythical, pretend, make-believe, false, phony, etc.). Reality includes ALL that is real, so quite obviously there can be nothing real outside of reality. The question itself is as silly as asking if there can be anything imaginary outside the world of fiction. |
I love how you leave words out just to make things look better. I believe I said "PHYSICAL reality". Do try to keep up. You know the definition of materialism as well as I do.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 06:49:45 PM · #1511 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
* You keep pushing string theory to the "fringe" of science, and I agree with that in the sense that String Theory hardly counts as science at all, but the concept of a beginning for a system is fundamental to the system. If the statement of materialism is "there is nothing outside our physical reality", but you cannot explain the existance of that physical reality, don't you think that is potentially a fatal flaw and, in fact, there COULD BE something outside our physical reality (be it God or something else)? You can't simply say the philosophy works very well for everything (except the things it doesn't work well for) and impress me. |
I think you want to use "fundamental" in two different ways in your arguments. "How it all began" is a "fundamental" question in that it goes the origins of the system we now live in, but it is not a "fundamental" question in the sense that one cannot describe the system without first answering the question. (Fundamental - of origins vs. Fundamental - of central importance.) You want to say that because "how it all began" is a question about the basic origins of the universe, it must necessarily be of central importance to the way the universe operates now. But, while understanding the origins of something might provide you insight in to how that thing functions, there is no necessary connection between the two.
By way of example, let's say a person who has no experience with automobiles finds a car in the middle of an empty parking lot. There is no explanation for why the car is there, but it has gas in the tank, keys in the ignition and fuzzy dice hanging from the rear-view mirror. The person is curious and so begins to make observations about the car - these things move, these things don't, when I lift the handle here the door opens, etc. Eventually, the person gains enough knowledge that the person begins to experiment, they learn that if they turn the key the car starts, if they press the gas pedal while the car is on it moves forward, and if they press the brake pedal it stops. They learn that none of these things apply if the ignition key is not first turned and the car started..
You can see how - as long as they don't crash the car and kill themselves first - the person with no prior knowledge of automobiles or of the origin of the car could learn how to operate the car. You should be able to see how - given enough time and allowing for trial and error, and again assuming that the person doesn't completely muck up the car along the way - the person might even be able to figure out how the car is built, how the components of the car work, the origin for the car's power (gasoline in the tank), and how to effect change within the system (fill it up when the tank runs dry, swap out the stock wheels for some sweet 18 inchers, etc.)
One could, with enough time and patience, gain an almost complete understanding of the car - although, the fuzzy dice may remain an eternal mystery - while remaining completely clueless as to how in the world the car ended up in that abandoned lot in the first place. One might really want to know how the car got there. One might even devise theories about the origin of the car and ways to test those theories. But even if one was never successful in discovering the origin of the car, it would not prevent you from discovering everything about the car.
This is science.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 07:00:42 PM · #1512 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
By way of example, let's say a person who has no experience with automobiles finds a car in the middle of an empty parking lot. There is no explanation for why the car is there, but it has gas in the tank, keys in the ignition and fuzzy dice hanging from the rear-view mirror. The person is curious and so begins to make observations about the car - these things move, these things don't, when I lift the handle here the door opens, etc. Eventually, the person gains enough knowledge that the person begins to experiment, they learn that if they turn the key the car starts, if they press the gas pedal while the car is on it moves forward, and if they press the brake pedal it stops. They learn that none of these things apply if the ignition key is not first turned and the car started..
You can see how - as long as they don't crash the car and kill themselves first - the person with no prior knowledge of automobiles or of the origin of the car could learn how to operate the car. You should be able to see how - given enough time and allowing for trial and error, and again assuming that the person doesn't completely muck up the car along the way - the person might even be able to figure out how the car is built, how the components of the car work, the origin for the car's power (gasoline in the tank), and how to effect change within the system (fill it up when the tank runs dry, swap out the stock wheels for some sweet 18 inchers, etc.)
One could, with enough time and patience, gain an almost complete understanding of the car - although, the fuzzy dice may remain an eternal mystery - while remaining completely clueless as to how in the world the car ended up in that abandoned lot in the first place. One might really want to know how the car got there. One might even devise theories about the origin of the car and ways to test those theories. But even if one was never successful in discovering the origin of the car, it would not prevent you from discovering everything about the car.
This is science. |
It frightens me on multiple levels that you would even consider 18 inch wheels and fuzzy dice in relation to the same vehicle......8>)
Are you really Boyd Coddington hiding under an assumed name?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 07:09:49 PM · #1513 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I love how you leave words out just to make things look better. I believe I said "PHYSICAL reality". Do try to keep up. You know the definition of materialism as well as I do. |
I know what you said, and as I pointed out in the first post, it makes no difference— "bodies disappearing from tombs, burning bushes, great floods, parting seas and healing wounds would be within our physical reality or they could not manifest such tangible effects." Therefore even YOU are not talking about something that exists completely outside of physical reality. The only way you can play that card is by forfeiting all tangible effects on earth: the apple, walking on water, answered prayers, the creation of ducks— they all have to go or you're talking about something occurring in THIS universe.
Message edited by author 2010-02-23 19:12:37. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 07:15:40 PM · #1514 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Are you really Boyd Coddington hiding under an assumed name? |
Boyd Coddington doesn't do fuzzy dice. Anyway, he's so yesterday... How about Chip Foose, his nemesis?
R. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 07:54:14 PM · #1515 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Are you really Boyd Coddington hiding under an assumed name? |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Boyd Coddington doesn't do fuzzy dice. |
IIRC, Chezoom had fuzzy dice......
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anyway, he's so yesterday... How about Chip Foose, his nemesis? |
A mere poser....Foose got nuthin' in the Smithsonian!
Message edited by author 2010-02-23 19:57:46.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 08:15:35 PM · #1516 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
* You keep pushing string theory to the "fringe" of science, and I agree with that in the sense that String Theory hardly counts as science at all, but the concept of a beginning for a system is fundamental to the system. If the statement of materialism is "there is nothing outside our physical reality", but you cannot explain the existance of that physical reality, don't you think that is potentially a fatal flaw and, in fact, there COULD BE something outside our physical reality (be it God or something else)? You can't simply say the philosophy works very well for everything (except the things it doesn't work well for) and impress me. |
I think you want to use "fundamental" in two different ways in your arguments. "How it all began" is a "fundamental" question in that it goes the origins of the system we now live in, but it is not a "fundamental" question in the sense that one cannot describe the system without first answering the question. (Fundamental - of origins vs. Fundamental - of central importance.) You want to say that because "how it all began" is a question about the basic origins of the universe, it must necessarily be of central importance to the way the universe operates now. But, while understanding the origins of something might provide you insight in to how that thing functions, there is no necessary connection between the two.
By way of example, let's say a person who has no experience with automobiles finds a car in the middle of an empty parking lot. There is no explanation for why the car is there, but it has gas in the tank, keys in the ignition and fuzzy dice hanging from the rear-view mirror. The person is curious and so begins to make observations about the car - these things move, these things don't, when I lift the handle here the door opens, etc. Eventually, the person gains enough knowledge that the person begins to experiment, they learn that if they turn the key the car starts, if they press the gas pedal while the car is on it moves forward, and if they press the brake pedal it stops. They learn that none of these things apply if the ignition key is not first turned and the car started..
You can see how - as long as they don't crash the car and kill themselves first - the person with no prior knowledge of automobiles or of the origin of the car could learn how to operate the car. You should be able to see how - given enough time and allowing for trial and error, and again assuming that the person doesn't completely muck up the car along the way - the person might even be able to figure out how the car is built, how the components of the car work, the origin for the car's power (gasoline in the tank), and how to effect change within the system (fill it up when the tank runs dry, swap out the stock wheels for some sweet 18 inchers, etc.)
One could, with enough time and patience, gain an almost complete understanding of the car - although, the fuzzy dice may remain an eternal mystery - while remaining completely clueless as to how in the world the car ended up in that abandoned lot in the first place. One might really want to know how the car got there. One might even devise theories about the origin of the car and ways to test those theories. But even if one was never successful in discovering the origin of the car, it would not prevent you from discovering everything about the car.
This is science. |
Actually I'm using fundamental in both senses. Both of us agree the universe exists. Where we differ is how it functions. You would contend that it functions only through physical processes while I would contend that something outside (figurative) the physical universe can interact with it. Forgetting my portion for now (because we are talking about your side of the fence), it takes rationalization/justification to say this is the way the system works when we cannot account for a way for the system to bring itself about. If physical processes are the ONLY mechanism by which the universe functions, what physical process brought about the Universe? The philosophical position would be much stronger if we lived in a steady state universe. We could postulate that physical processes continued back into eternity without a drastic change in anything. But we have very strong evidence to say we do not live in a steady state universe and that at some point in the past (roughtly 13 billion years ago) something drastic happened.
So as it stands we have an event that our scientific methods are blind to probe beyond and our mathematical models cannot describe. And you cannot see that this requires some justification/rationalization to hold the position that the Universe functions ONLY through physical processes? I'm not sure how to make you see it if you don't already. The position is almost trying to pull the old "prove a negative", which we know doesn't really work. The usual reply is to say, no, you have to show me evidence to say my system doesn't work. So the antagonist points to the big bang and origin of the universe to which the reply is, "oh, well, that doesn't count or isn't important or we WILL figure that out don't you worry!" It seems to turn a blind eye every bit as much as the theists are accused of.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 08:47:25 PM · #1517 |
Not particularly new news, but appropriate to the conversation and probably means we're all screwed. :) Heard this sociology study on the way home on NPR.
Belief in climate change depends on worldview |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 09:08:57 PM · #1518 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it takes rationalization/justification to say this is the way the system works when we cannot account for a way for the system to bring itself about. If physical processes are the ONLY mechanism by which the universe functions, what physical process brought about the Universe? |
Your own position doesn't account for a way for a god to bring itself about, so if that's your hangup they both fail. If you allow for something to be eternal, then it requires no greater effort to postulate the universe itself as eternal. Actually, if the universe started at the beginning of spacetime, then it might have to be eternal or you'd reach a paradoxical 'time before time.'
You seem to be demanding an explanation for a universe poofing into existence from nothing, but no proposed cosmological model starts with nothing. They each describe a result of existing structures or mechanisms (which need not be supernatural). Religion has exactly the same requirement— minus the physics. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 09:10:36 PM · #1519 |
Scientific processes are an ongoing method of proposing, testing, and proving or disproving theories. Part of the process *is* that is ongoing, and the beauty of it is that it remains open to new discovery, and change, as new information, and better analysis comes to light. The scientific process has proven itself over and over again on so many levels, in so many fields of study. That there are things that we do not yet know does nothing more than establish the critical need for the process.
Religion is a system whereby people come together in their similar beliefs, none of it based on any tangible evidence. These beliefs are based on their faith, and their respective systems are for the most part, somewhat complicated and confusing to all but the most learned among them. Though many people achieve great comfort and solace from them, their is so much difference and diviseness around the world that it's no wonder so many suffer at the hands of others in the name of their respective Gods.
I'm putting these out there as what my understanding of the two systems are as I've wandered through life. I love to learn, I have a naturally inquisitive nature, and I didn't grow up in a household with a God, so I had no indoctrination, or for that matter, any exposure to religion if I didn't seek it out and ask questions. Yet for some odd reason, I do believe in God. But I also think that God would think me a fool for not using my head and asking all the questions I could.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2010 11:42:51 PM · #1520 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it takes rationalization/justification to say this is the way the system works when we cannot account for a way for the system to bring itself about. If physical processes are the ONLY mechanism by which the universe functions, what physical process brought about the Universe? |
Your own position doesn't account for a way for a god to bring itself about, so if that's your hangup they both fail. If you allow for something to be eternal, then it requires no greater effort to postulate the universe itself as eternal. Actually, if the universe started at the beginning of spacetime, then it might have to be eternal or you'd reach a paradoxical 'time before time.'
You seem to be demanding an explanation for a universe poofing into existence from nothing, but no proposed cosmological model starts with nothing. They each describe a result of existing structures or mechanisms (which need not be supernatural). Religion has exactly the same requirement— minus the physics. |
Every time you say something like this it only proves my point. The grass is no greener on the other side. |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 11:48:25 PM · #1521 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Every religion only compounds the problems, so I find my own way. |
I meant to come back to this. Would you mind expanding on how one finds ones own way? I'm not sure what that looks like practically. (I'm being serious here.) |
What do you mean by practically? I don't know that you can ever really understand my point of view, since you come from one that is almost incomprehensible to mine, (and vice versa). Know that I don't believe, nor feel the need to believe, in any kind of ultimate 'force' or 'god' or 'supreme being' or anything of the kind, so anything I do and feel is a combination of pure luck, environment, experience, and conditioning. I am lucky to have grown up among people that gave me a decent environment, and have experienced enough pain and suffering to be conditioned to do everything in my power to avoid these things in myself and those around me. My experiences and education, and observances of RELIGION (not faith), are almost inexorably on the side of negativity, suffering, mindlessness, power-hungry and pointlessness. While I know plenty of people with personal spirituality that humbles me at times, and impresses me often, the minute this spirituality is gathered into a group, it becomes dangerous and corrupted. What is worse, is that too often the corruption hides behind an intense mask of virtue, which only serves to seduce.
I will not be a part of any of it.
I think a part of why many people can't grasp the concept of no 'god', if you will, is because of those questions you asked and the lack of understanding how a person can answer how I answer. I am not concerned with "why". Not in this regard. Not in this capacity. I don't have any desire to understand WHY we are here. Thus, I have no need to generate a more powerful figure of imagination in order to explain the question so that I can feel relieved or at peace. It doesn't frighten me to think that it's all just random chaos with no control, no fate, and nothing waiting at the end.
I don't need an answer, I don't need a god, and while I don't begrudge those that do, if it gives them happiness, I no more understand the need for it than you probably understand my utter lack of need.
So I can and do live peacefully with many people that have a personal spirituality and faith, but far too often their need for such things becomes an insistence that I must follow such thinking, or that such thinking must interfere with my life and decisions, and every time that happens, well, I am not afraid to fight back :D |
Thanks for taking the time to answer. Of course I don't really agree with you. Too often I've run into people of a similar persuasion and what it boils down to, ultimately, is they just don't want to be told what to do. (I don't know you enough to know if you fit this mold.) It's too bad you have run into such negative religious experiences. Maybe we see what we want, because I tend to see honest people who are making an effort (yet often failing).
But what makes you read threads like this? You don't seem to have the same pathologic compulsion to present your case as the rest of us, so why even bother being here? |
|
|
|
02/23/2010 11:49:44 PM · #1522 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Every religion only compounds the problems, so I find my own way. |
I meant to come back to this. Would you mind expanding on how one finds ones own way? I'm not sure what that looks like practically. (I'm being serious here.) |
What do you mean by practically? I don't know that you can ever really understand my point of view, since you come from one that is almost incomprehensible to mine, (and vice versa). Know that I don't believe, nor feel the need to believe, in any kind of ultimate 'force' or 'god' or 'supreme being' or anything of the kind, so anything I do and feel is a combination of pure luck, environment, experience, and conditioning. I am lucky to have grown up among people that gave me a decent environment, and have experienced enough pain and suffering to be conditioned to do everything in my power to avoid these things in myself and those around me. My experiences and education, and observances of RELIGION (not faith), are almost inexorably on the side of negativity, suffering, mindlessness, power-hungry and pointlessness. While I know plenty of people with personal spirituality that humbles me at times, and impresses me often, the minute this spirituality is gathered into a group, it becomes dangerous and corrupted. What is worse, is that too often the corruption hides behind an intense mask of virtue, which only serves to seduce.
I will not be a part of any of it.
I think a part of why many people can't grasp the concept of no 'god', if you will, is because of those questions you asked and the lack of understanding how a person can answer how I answer. I am not concerned with "why". Not in this regard. Not in this capacity. I don't have any desire to understand WHY we are here. Thus, I have no need to generate a more powerful figure of imagination in order to explain the question so that I can feel relieved or at peace. It doesn't frighten me to think that it's all just random chaos with no control, no fate, and nothing waiting at the end.
I don't need an answer, I don't need a god, and while I don't begrudge those that do, if it gives them happiness, I no more understand the need for it than you probably understand my utter lack of need.
So I can and do live peacefully with many people that have a personal spirituality and faith, but far too often their need for such things becomes an insistence that I must follow such thinking, or that such thinking must interfere with my life and decisions, and every time that happens, well, I am not afraid to fight back :D |
Thanks for taking the time to answer. Of course I don't really agree with you. Too often I've run into people of a similar persuasion and what it boils down to, ultimately, is they just don't want to be told what to do. (I don't know you enough to know if you fit this mold.) It's too bad you have run into such negative religious experiences. Maybe we see what we want, because I tend to see honest people who are making an effort (yet often failing).
But what makes you read threads like this? You don't seem to have the same pathologic compulsion to present your case as the rest of us, so why even bother being here? |
It never hurts to expand your mind. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 12:16:49 AM · #1523 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It never hurts to expand your mind. |
Fair enough. Plus it often provides fodder for the sharp wit, eh? :) |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 12:32:19 AM · #1524 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It never hurts to expand your mind. |
Fair enough. Plus it often provides fodder for the sharp wit, eh? :) |
What does a robot know about wit ;D |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 01:03:45 AM · #1525 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It never hurts to expand your mind. |
Fair enough. Plus it often provides fodder for the sharp wit, eh? :) |
What does a robot know about wit ;D |
That's not...uh...what your girlfriend told me. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 04:28:19 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 04:28:19 PM EDT.
|
