Christians: What's Your Best Evidence?

TheJollyNihilist
TheJollyNihilist's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-12-30
User is offlineOffline
Christians: What's Your Best Evidence?

Carl Sagan famously declared that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This profound truth is a key that frees us from religion’s shackles, since each faith lacks the requisite evidence to substantiate its fantastical claims. Sagan’s oft-quoted observation is self-evident, given humankind’s abundant, demonstrable fallibility. With that in mind, ten simple requests for the Christian faithful follow.

1. Present extraordinary evidence for Jesus' bodily resurrection.

2. Present extraordinary evidence that Jesus was born asexually (of a virgin).

3. Present extraordinary evidence that some Biblical characters, such as Adam and Noah, lived in excess of 900 years.

4. Present extraordinary evidence that immaterial “souls” haunt our carcasses.

5. Present extraordinary evidence that human consciousness survives death, passing to another world of some sort.

6. Present extraordinary evidence that Yahweh exists, to the exclusion of other god characters.

7. Present extraordinary evidence that there was a cataclysmic flood as described by the Bible.

8. Present extraordinary evidence that evolution—the cornerstone of modern biology—fundamentally is incorrect.

9. Present extraordinary evidence that “miracles” are possible, let alone actually have occurred.

10. Present extraordinary evidence that serpents and donkeys can speak in human language, whether by Yahweh’s help or of their own linguistic ingenuity.

Note: I recognize that Christianity is a “wide tent,” as it were. Christians’ beliefs vary widely on the issues I have raised. As such, respond only to those beliefs which apply to you. If, for example, you disbelieve in Jesus’ asexual birth, certainly you are not obligated to defend it.

The road to truth is paved with evidence.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
First, my concept of motion

First, my concept of motion in the universe does not require a temporal beginning. The analogy of the rays from the sun and their dependence on the sun itself is analogous to the state of an proposed perpetual universe and its dependence on God as its cause.

Second, there is no contradiction in maintaining that God, who sustains all creation in existence, is likewise absolutely simple and One.

Third, I don't think any concept of imaginary time is able to be proven to exist before the Big Bang. Hawkings theory moved beyond science and into the realm of philosophical speculation. However, I think his philosophy is based on faulty premises. The universe exists only from the Big Bang, in real time, according to Hawkings. Imaginary time does not apply prior to the Big Bang, for it can only exist in conjunction with the existence of the universe. It seems to me, and I don't claim to be an expert on Hawkings' theory, that this proposal seems flawed.

Fourth, your move to the idea that imaginary time and real time cancel each other out does not seem to follow from any premises.

Fifth, this still cannot prove that motion does not have a beginning. In Hawkings' estimation, at least, the necessary beginning of the universe is a reality. Without positing a real beginning in time, which is unnecessary to my argument, it must be admitted that the universe had a Prime Mover, or else there would be no way to posit motion exists. 

  Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Second,

StMichael wrote:

Second, there is no contradiction in maintaining that God, who sustains all creation in existence, is likewise absolutely simple and One.

I wonder, StMichael, if you really appreciate what it would mean for god (or anything else, for that matter) to be absolutely simple. For example, all other things being equal, a thing with intelligence is much less simple than a thing without it. So, for god to be absolutely simple, he would have to be unintelligent. Without intelligence, god couldn't make decisions, and couldn't understand prayer, and couldn't design anything, and couldn't intervene into the universe, and couldn't sit in judgment over sinners, and couldn't understand, let alone enforce morality. In fact, I'm pretty sure that nothing that can be accurately described as "absolutely simple" could in reality exist.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
You are misunderstanding

You are misunderstanding what it is to be simple versus complex in this context. God must be, as Prime Mover, without any division of any kind in His substance. In fact, there is no division in what He is from how He is. His intellect is His substance. His will is His substance. Consider, for example, the human mind. There exist no parts in the human mind; we can create division between for example intellect and will, but these are merely designations of powers of the soul, not parts. A part only exists in matter and no spiritual substance can have parts. The human soul is simple and without parts, as is any seperate spiritual substance, like an angel or God. Any such immaterial entity lacks parts by definition. The only composition that can exist in an seperate immaterial entity, such as an angel, is the divison between its essence and its existence (what it is and how it is). In God, no such division exists (which is how God is different from an angel). This is what is meant by "simple." God might be "complex" in a different sense, for example, difficult to comprehend, but He is actually simple and without any part or division.

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: First, my

StMichael wrote:


First, my concept of motion in the universe does not require a temporal beginning. The analogy of the rays from the sun and their dependence on the sun itself is analogous to the state of an proposed perpetual universe and its dependence on God as its cause.


The analogy of light and the universe doesn't work, simply because light and the universe are not analogous in the first place, they are two different.  Light is inside of time, whereas the universe as a whole is not (it contains time inside of itself).

StMichael wrote:

Second, there is no contradiction in maintaining that God, who sustains all creation in existence, is likewise absolutely simple and One.


rexlunae already responded to this point (very well might I add), so I won't repeat what he has already said.

StMichael wrote:

Third, I don't think any concept of imaginary time is able to be proven to exist before the Big Bang. Hawkings theory moved beyond science and into the realm of philosophical speculation. However, I think his philosophy is based on faulty premises. The universe exists only from the Big Bang, in real time, according to Hawkings. Imaginary time does not apply prior to the Big Bang, for it can only exist in conjunction with the existence of the universe. It seems to me, and I don't claim to be an expert on Hawkings' theory, that this proposal seems flawed.


Imaginary time did not exist before the big bang, it exists alongside of real time.  As for Hawkings theory moving into philosophical speculation, I think you need to read the actual theory (including the mathmatics and physics) before you make that claim.  As for you finding his proposal flawed, this seems to be only because you don't understand it (as evidenced by you thinking that I was saying imaginary time existed prior to the big bang).

StMichael wrote:

Fourth, your move to the idea that imaginary time and real time cancel each other out does not seem to follow from any premises.


As I had mentioned before, this can be shown mathematically (Think of it like 1-1=0, but a little more complicated).

StMichael wrote:

Fifth, this still cannot prove that motion does not have a beginning. In Hawkings' estimation, at least, the necessary beginning of the universe is a reality. Without positing a real beginning in time, which is unnecessary to my argument, it must be admitted that the universe had a Prime Mover, or else there would be no way to posit motion exists.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael


I think you missed completely what I was getting at, and I'll try to explain it a different way.  When you look at the big bang, with only real time, it forms a singularity (a begining point), and all physical laws break down.  when you add imaginary time to the equation, the singularity is removed.  In other words, there is no begining point.

Also, I think one of the problems you have with all this, is that you lack an understanding of just how bizarre the universe is (especially on a quantum scale).  You try to use philosophy to understand the universe, but philosophy concerns itself with the universe as we see it.  When you study physics (especially quantum physics), you realize the universe is an incredibly bizarre place, where you can't use philosophy to understand it, it simply isn't suited for it, you need to use physics, mathmatics, and the sciences, and let those tell you how things work.  Just thinking about something in your head won't lead you to understand the nature of the universe, you need to look at the universe itself to understand its nature.


Eggplant
Eggplant's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-01-13
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
In context, I was referring to what God is and why He is thus necessary.

StMichael, this sentence notes a rather conspicious error in your logic. An argument for god using facts would require an assemblage of logical inferences, but you are reversing it and thus removing any semblance of logic as you are taking a conclusion through your admitted methods and forcing facts towards that position.

Your statement could be viewed thusly: "Since I consider α to be true, it follows β is true as β presupposes α." This is not a logical or rational way of debate or argument. Your statement should be formed more like this: "As β1, β2, ..., and βn, it can be logically inferred γ1, γ2, ..., and γn. α fulfills all the conditions required of all γ, thus α is a logical conclusion as a possible answer based on all β."

What you are doing is taking a preconceived conclusion and fitting statements (not necessarily even backed up by logic) to it. What I am doing is exploiting a chance to use Greek letters because they're sexy. Neither is rational, but one involves logic.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: StMichael wrote:

 

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
In context, I was referring to what God is and why He is thus necessary.

StMichael, this sentence notes a rather conspicious error in your logic. An argument for god using facts would require an assemblage of logical inferences, but you are reversing it and thus removing any semblance of logic as you are taking a conclusion through your admitted methods and forcing facts towards that position.

I meant not that I was working from an a priori knowledge of God to conclusions that followed from it, but that I was working from the a posteriori knowledge of God as Prime Mover, in which case certain attributes can be validly inferred. I understand that, if one were not closely following the debate, such a remark could easily be taken out of context.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

First, my concept of motion in the universe does not require a temporal beginning. The analogy of the rays from the sun and their dependence on the sun itself is analogous to the state of an proposed perpetual universe and its dependence on God as its cause.

The analogy of light and the universe doesn't work, simply because light and the universe are not analogous in the first place, they are two different.  Light is inside of time, whereas the universe as a whole is not (it contains time inside of itself).

That has nothing to do with the analogy. I merely meant to indicate that a dependence can exist between cause and effect that would be simultaneous and perpetual. If the universe did exist perpetually, such a dependence on a Prime Mover would exist.

 

Quote:


Imaginary time did not exist before the big bang, it exists alongside of real time.  As for Hawkings theory moving into philosophical speculation, I think you need to read the actual theory (including the mathmatics and physics) before you make that claim.  As for you finding his proposal flawed, this seems to be only because you don't understand it (as evidenced by you thinking that I was saying imaginary time existed prior to the big bang).

I said that I did not understand the theory. I believe Hawkings moves into philosophical speculation which his science does not support, or that you are drawing an inference invalidly from the evidence. By all means, show me how this theory of imaginary time renders the Prime Mover unnecessary. Currently, I don't see how it does.

Quote:


As I had mentioned before, this can be shown mathematically (Think of it like 1-1=0, but a little more complicated).

Then, please, show this. I shouldn't have to merely trust your fiat that such is the case. Further, I see no reason why they would "cancel out" or how this would affect my Prime Mover argument at all.

Quote:
 

When you look at the big bang, with only real time, it forms a singularity (a begining point), and all physical laws break down.  when you add imaginary time to the equation, the singularity is removed.  In other words, there is no begining point.

OK, assuming infinite time in both directions, God is still necessary as the Prime Mover. As I said before, what is in motion requires a mover, whether it was perpetually in motion or not. If the universe is in motion, it requires a mover. Its relation to the mover might be such of the sun ray to the sun, but such a relationship nevertheless exists.

Quote:
 

Also, I think one of the problems you have with all this, is that you lack an understanding of just how bizarre the universe is (especially on a quantum scale).

While I profess my ignorance of the detailed problems of quantum mechanics, I see no unique reason to trust your assertion.

Quote:
 

You try to use philosophy to understand the universe, but philosophy concerns itself with the universe as we see it.

It does not merely treat the universe in a superficial way. Metaphysics in particular treats of what being is in itself, which is something that physics cannot study. Philosophy has a real and true place among the sciences, and is not merely a superficial glance at reality. It is the most fundamental science, prior to all others.

Quote:
 

 When you study physics (especially quantum physics), you realize the universe is an incredibly bizarre place, where you can't use philosophy to understand it, it simply isn't suited for it, you need to use physics, mathmatics, and the sciences, and let those tell you how things work.  Just thinking about something in your head won't lead you to understand the nature of the universe, you need to look at the universe itself to understand its nature.

Physics or mathematics merely treat with a subset of being - being in motion or as quantity. Philosophy and metaphysics in particular are more prior to these sciences because they study being in itself, which is most necessary and the foundation of these other sciences. Using logic and reason in philosophy can and is necessary to explain the universe. Science necessarily cannot give an adequate or complete explanation of the universe, because it only treats a subset of being; it necessarily only gives a partial explanation. Of course, philosophy cannot be haphazardly applied where it does not belong, but philosophy can and does tell us a great deal about real things. 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: You are

StMichael wrote:

You are misunderstanding what it is to be simple versus complex in this context.

I didn't figure there was so much wiggle room in a concept like "absolutely simple". It seemed pretty, well, absolute, to me.

StMichael wrote:
God must be, as Prime Mover, without any division of any kind in His substance. In fact, there is no division in what He is from how He is. His intellect is His substance. His will is His substance.

Neither intellect nor will are substance. This is like saying that wishes are fishes.

StMichael wrote:
A part only exists in matter and no spiritual substance can have parts. The human soul is simple and without parts, as is any seperate spiritual substance, like an angel or God. Any such immaterial entity lacks parts by definition.

This is like speculating on whether or not unicorns have spots. We don't have any samples of "spiritual substance" to examine, so we don't know how it would behave if it were to exist. Why do you believe that there is "spiritual substance" or souls in the first place?

StMichael wrote:
The only composition that can exist in an seperate immaterial entity, such as an angel, is the divison between its essence and its existence (what it is and how it is).

Why is that exactly? How do you know? You seem to be making up rules arbitrarily here. Why is there one special division that is possible in immaterial entities?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Actually, I very recently

Actually, I very recently read what Stephen Hawkings proposes by the notion of "imaginary time." First, this theory would not be in contradiction with God - it would merely be a variety of what I said earlier, namely, that God created the universe perpetually. Second, this is clearly a highly hypothetical theory that, as yet, has little or no basis in empirical evidence. Third, it still maintains the existence of the beginning of real time (while not being essential to my argument for a Prime Mover, is highly conducive to the Christian doctrine of the universe having a beginning in time). Fourth, even assuming imaginary time, such a proposal does not necessitate the infinite character of the universe, and it is not clear how imaginary time would function without real time. Fifth, with reference to Wick rotation, it would not seem that an singularity could adequately be eliminated. I do not know the mathematics or physics well enough, but it would seem that imaginary space is dependent upon real time for its existence, as imaginary time is merely a mathematical translation of ordinary time. As real time began at a singularity, imaginary time might be helpful in explaining the point of singularity, it seems to cease existing at the same time that natural physical laws break down in singularity. Lastly, the notion of imaginary time does not do away with the notion that time had a beginning at a particular point - it rather seems to indicate that such a point is not an infinite singularity, but rather can be defined.

None of these positions, of course, would be in contradiction to any argument for an unmoved mover. As I have shown, the idea of an unmoved mover being logically necessary to account for motion in the universe is necessary in a logically prior, and not temporally prior way. In this way, it is fundamentally irrelevant whether the universe existed perpetually or not, as it was always and in all respects dependent upon God for the existence of its motion.

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MEH
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-01-26
User is offlineOffline
well whats your proof? how

well whats your proof? how the heck do you recon the world came to be in your own words.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Neither intellect

Quote:
Neither intellect nor will are substance. This is like saying that wishes are fishes.

My definition of substance differs from yours. Define substance. As I use it, substance is "that which a thing is," or, differently phrased, "this actual thing." Both an intellect and a will easily meet this criterion.

Quote:
 

 


This is like speculating on whether or not unicorns have spots. We don't have any samples of "spiritual substance" to examine, so we don't know how it would behave if it were to exist.

We have OUR souls. And, by definition, that which is without matter is without parts. Parts only exist in matter. A spiritual substance is not just a finer material body that we cannot see; it doesn't have ANY matter at all. You can't "examine" it with scientific instruments. We can examine our own souls and the nature of God by way of rational reflection. A soul is the principle of life in a living thing. My soul, as a human being, is a rational soul, or a mind.

 

Quote:



Why is that exactly? How do you know? You seem to be making up rules arbitrarily here. Why is there one special division that is possible in immaterial entities?

Because this is all that is possible in immaterial entities. They lack any parts, due to the above nature of what it is to be immaterial. Hence, the only division that can exist in them is the division between their essence and existence.

 

 

Quote:

well whats your proof? how the heck do you recon the world came to be in your own words.

"In the beginning, God created heaven and earth." Simple enough?

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
Neither intellect nor will are substance. This is like saying that wishes are fishes.

My definition of substance differs from yours. Define substance.

I would say that something has substance if it is made of matter, but I suppose different definitions are possible.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

This is like speculating on whether or not unicorns have spots. We don't have any samples of "spiritual substance" to examine, so we don't know how it would behave if it were to exist.

We have OUR souls. And, by definition, that which is without matter is without parts. Parts only exist in matter. A spiritual substance is not just a finer material body that we cannot see; it doesn't have ANY matter at all. You can't "examine" it with scientific instruments. We can examine our own souls and the nature of God by way of rational reflection.
...
Because this is all that is possible in immaterial entities. They lack any parts, due to the above nature of what it is to be immaterial. Hence, the only division that can exist in them is the division between their essence and existence.

I don't know how you can claim to know something about souls (that they don't have parts) when you claim to be unable to examine them. It seems like that would mean that you can't know anything about them. And, if you don't know anything about them, how do you know they exist?

You claim that immaterial things can't have parts, but I can provide a counterexample of this. A computer program, which is entirely composed of information, commonly has parts (algorithms, data structures, modules, classes, etc.). The terminology and feature sets differ from one language to another, but these are all parts. In fact, it's generally considered bad design when a complex program doesn't have parts.

Your entire claim here is based on a lack of information, which is no basis at all.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't know how

Quote:
I don't know how you can claim to know something about souls (that they don't have parts) when you claim to be unable to examine them. It seems like that would mean that you can't know anything about them. And, if you don't know anything about them, how do you know they exist?

We do know something about them. I meant by saying that we cannot "examine" them to say that no physical evidence could be used to examine a rational soul - you can never take a bit of a rational soul and put it into a mass spectrometer. However, we can know something about the rational soul because, surprises of surprises, you and I have them. This sort of examination can proceed by philosophical reflection as to the powers and subsistence of the soul. We clearly know that our minds exist, which is all that a rational soul is.

Quote:
 

 You claim that immaterial things can't have parts, but I can provide a counterexample of this. A computer program, which is entirely composed of information, commonly has parts (algorithms, data structures, modules, classes, etc.). The terminology and feature sets differ from one language to another, but these are all parts. In fact, it's generally considered bad design when a complex program doesn't have parts.

This is applying my definition of immaterial substance to where it doesn't really apply. But I would point out that, even in a computer program, the actual idea of the program itself and the information of the program might have intellectual divisions, but it lacks parts. But, regardless, this idea is an idea that would involve a general notion of matter in its conception (the idea of a program running to print my papers involves, of necessity, an idea of matter in the thing - and, hence, parts of some sort), so that it is not of the same species as a purely immaterial substance, such as the rational soul. Parts can only exist in matter. There is no way that a thing without matter can have parts. 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I meant by

StMichael wrote:
I meant by saying that we cannot "examine" them to say that no physical evidence could be used to examine a rational soul - you can never take a bit of a rational soul and put it into a mass spectrometer. However, we can know something about the rational soul because, surprises of surprises, you and I have them. This sort of examination can proceed by philosophical reflection as to the powers and subsistence of the soul. We clearly know that our minds exist, which is all that a rational soul is.

A soul and a mind, in normal usage, have substantially different meanings, so crossing the two is plain deceptive. There is physical evidence for the existence of a mind, to the extent that the mind is the result of the coordinated processes of the parts of the brain. There is no evidence for the existence of a "soul", where that is understood to be an immortal, incorporeal thing, independent of the body. Contrary to your assertion, I am not aware of possessing any such thing as a soul, and your sense that you do could just as easily be a delusion. I need some hard evidence to believe in such a thing, not just private intraspection.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
 

 You claim that immaterial things can't have parts, but I can provide a counterexample of this. A computer program, which is entirely composed of information, commonly has parts (algorithms, data structures, modules, classes, etc.). The terminology and feature sets differ from one language to another, but these are all parts. In fact, it's generally considered bad design when a complex program doesn't have parts.

This is applying my definition of immaterial substance to where it doesn't really apply. But I would point out that, even in a computer program, the actual idea of the program itself and the information of the program might have intellectual divisions, but it lacks parts. But, regardless, this idea is an idea that would involve a general notion of matter in its conception (the idea of a program running to print my papers involves, of necessity, an idea of matter in the thing - and, hence, parts of some sort), so that it is not of the same species as a purely immaterial substance, such as the rational soul. Parts can only exist in matter. There is no way that a thing without matter can have parts. 

Seems too apply perfectly well, as it directly addresses the claim that only things made of matter can have parts. Just because you didn't expect it to be used with things other than souls doesn't fix your broken claim. You claimed that "by definition, that which is without matter is without parts." Programs are not made of matter, they are purely information. They can be transferred around, from one medium to another, without altering them in any fundamental way. And, although there are programs that are designed to have specific physical implications (such as giving you the ability to print a document), there are also many that have none.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
While your concept of a

While your concept of a soul might differ from mine, what is important is what the Catholic Church/Christianity defines as a soul. And then a soul is clearly a mind, according to their definition. The mind might use matter, but it is not equivalent with matter for three reasons: [1] matter is particular and universals are what the mind thinks, and so matter cannot be what the mind thinks, [2] the mind knows intelligibles more clearly as they are more intelligible, whereas a sense organ sensing is impeded by the increased sensibility of things, and [3] the mind can know all bodies, whereas if it were material, it could only know one type of body.

 Programs, as pure information, do not have parts. They contain no parts that one could manipulate directly. One could form another idea of an program with modified elements, but the actual idea has no parts. You can't take the idea and divide it into three or four equal parts. Also, I see no reason why a program is not always material. Regardless of whether it leads to an action outside of the computer itself, such as printing, the program is presumed to exist in a material medium in the computer's electronic signals and can only exist as such in that. Programs cannot properly exist on walls or in my foot. Computer programs are tied to matter inextricably because they presume operating in a computer's electonic signals. Hence, this is not a good analogy, because their information is not pure information, but tied to matter.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MEH
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-01-26
User is offlineOffline
I might be wong sorry if i

I might be wong sorry if i am. So basicly you all belive the world started with a bang am i right? Well what made the bang? Gasses well where the hell did they come from? I got this quoet of an internet sight

 

"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions"

 

So basicly your theory on how the world is created has not been fully proved. So now whats ur proof to say there is no god?

 

How can you be so quick to judge God did not creat the world when the big bang theory is only a theory and has no real proff to say it happend?

 

If i sound rude im sorry to.

mmmm


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MEH wrote: I might be wong

MEH wrote:
I might be wong sorry if i am. So basicly you all belive the world started with a bang am i right? Well what made the bang? Gasses well where the hell did they come from? I got this quoet of an internet sight

Using that backwards logic, where did your god come from? If god could always exist, so could the universe.

MEH wrote:
Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions

It's already been proven. It's just not perfectly clear what it was.

MEH wrote:
So basicly your theory on how the world is created has not been fully proved. So now whats ur proof to say there is no god?

Your "proof" about god is insubstantial, while we can see and touch the evidence of the universe.

MEH wrote:
How can you be so quick to judge God did not creat the world when the big bang theory is only a theory and has no real proff to say it happend?

The big bang was a physical event with corroberating evidence. God has nothing. Why do you believe in nothing?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MEH
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Yep God was always there.

Yep God was always there. Wasnt the universe created by the big bang? To me a god that is powerful is more likely true then a bunch of gas that came from no where.

 

You say its been proven well why did a site of it say it wasnt. And how can it be proven if they dont know what it was?

 

Air you cant see but its there so is eletricity.

 

God had evdenice called a bible. Rather good book to read. Also a good book charles dawin black book it proves his theroys wong and its not even a christain book.

 

Also my god is nothing he is the king of kings lord of lords.

mmmm


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
MEH wrote:

MEH wrote:

Yep God was always there. Wasnt the universe created by the big bang? To me a god that is powerful is more likely true then a bunch of gas that came from no where.

There is far more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for a god. Besides, what sort of explanation is that? People used to attribute the rain falling, the sun rising, and volcanic eruptions to a god.

MEH wrote:

God had evdenice called a bible. Rather good book to read.

The bible is filled with atrocities and contradictions. Perhaps you should give it a good read through.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a book so it must be true. Also, Muslims have a book about their God so that must be true as well. Hmmm... no, the logic doesn't work so well.

-Triften


MEH
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-01-26
User is offlineOffline
but there is still not

but there is still not enough evadince to say the big bang did really happen. there is also not enough prof to 100% say god is not reall and also the big bang is not real.

 

Im prety sure in the front page of the fsm book it says this book is not real and if it is where all screwd or somthin on those lines.

 

The bible is filled with truth and morals by which we live by. Contradictions not the best at answering those sorry i just normaly ask my pastor and he helps with it or i just read a youth bible which makes it easer to understand.

mmmm


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
MEH wrote:

MEH wrote:

but there is still not enough evadince to say the big bang did really happen. there is also not enough prof to 100% say god is not reall and also the big bang is not real.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Otherwise any claim ever made would have to be assumed true until proven otherwise.

Can you prove that unicorns don't exist?

MEH wrote:

Im prety sure in the front page of the fsm book it says this book is not real and if it is where all screwd or somthin on those lines.

 

The bible is filled with truth and morals by which we live by. Contradictions not the best at answering those sorry i just normaly ask my pastor and he helps with it or i just read a youth bible which makes it easer to understand.

Morals like stoning disobedient children? (Deut. 21:18-21) Or killing those who convert to different religions? (Deu. 17:2-5) Or stoning those who break the Sabbath? (Numbers 15:32-56)

(Jesus himself says that all the old laws still apply in Matthew 5:17-20.)

--------------

Fun fact: Long ago, people thought that the sun was only a few feet across and just a feature of the daytime sky. They believed that the sky merely got brighter on its own and the light was not from the sun.

In Genesis, chapter 1, God makes night and day on the first day but the sun and moon on the 4th (which he says are for astrology and keeping track of seasons.) You'd think that if the bible was the word of god, he'd have known that the light of day comes from the sun and the creation would have gone accordingly. On the other hand, if the Bible was written by someone 2000 or so years ago, they would have likely thought nothing special of the sun.

-Triften 


MEH
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-01-26
User is offlineOffline
can u appove that unicorns

can u appove that unicorns do exsist?

 

thats all old testament. we are now coverd by the blood of christ meaning that ur sins are forgiven.

 

in matthew he was talking bout the commandments you now shall not steal kill that stuff.

 

5:17
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.
5:18
I assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest detail of God's law will remain until its purpose is achieved.
5:19
So if you break the smallest commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
5:20
"But I warn you – unless you obey God better than the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees do, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven at all!

same commanments but not same punishing just lower seat in heaven.

 

 

mmmm


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MEH wrote: Yep God was

MEH wrote:
Yep God was always there.

Irrational assumption that you only believe because you were told to.

MEH wrote:
Wasnt the universe created by the big bang?

No. The universe expanded from the big bang. The universe was already there. Just a lot smaller.

MEH wrote:

To me a god that is powerful is more likely true then a bunch of gas that came from no where.

Your god came out of nowhere instead of gas always existing? Yeah, that's logical alright. Lol.

MEH wrote:
You say its been proven well why did a site of it say it wasnt.

Because people lie.

MEH wrote:
And how can it be proven if they dont know what it was?

You can see something happen without knowing what it is.

MEH wrote:
Air you cant see but its there so is eletricity.

You can see air or energy. You just have to use a technology to do it. Our eyes only see a limitted amount of the spectrum.

MEH wrote:
God had evdenice called a bible.

That's not evidence. It's an old book written by men. A book written by socially primitive men is no reason to believe in a god.

MEH wrote:
Rather good book to read.

It is not. It's a poorly written horror story. Disgusting is what it is.

MEH wrote:
Also a good book charles dawin black book it proves his theroys wong and its not even a christain book.

There's part of your problem. You assume the science can only be right if the man is perfect and never makes a mistake. Proving Darwins direct theory wrong isn't hard. Proving evolution wrong is impossible.

MEH wrote:
Also my god is nothing he is the king of kings lord of lords.

Your god is nothing and a king at the same time? What kind of dumb ass logic are schools teaching these days?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MEH
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-01-26
User is offlineOffline
No i wasnt told to i was

No i wasnt told to i was told to belive in what ever you want to. Because some one says to belive in somthing im not goin to belive it like that. I have to check it out for a while and if it is crap to me i dont belive.

 

Thanku for clearing up the univers thing.

 

It is rather logical god was always there it explains it a lot easyer then some gas goin round. Think bout it a powerful god creating things or gas.

 

The bible is a book in history that is highly looked at and belived. The bible has tons of proof. Eg the bible refers to Ceaser which everyone belives in him am i right. If you do ur histoory studies alot of the history u lean in school gives proof the bible is real.

 

hope that made sense.

 

All the sites i look at could not 100% prove thats how the world is formed by the big bang.

 

You can see something happen without knowing what it is.

 

What is that ment to mean?

 

Actualy the bible is an intresting book to read the war stories kick ars they should b made into movies.

 

Also high schools dont teach religion trust me on that.

mmmm


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MEH wrote: No i wasnt told

MEH wrote:
No i wasnt told to i was told to belive in what ever you want to. Because some one says to belive in somthing im not goin to belive it like that. I have to check it out for a while and if it is crap to me i dont belive.

Most people do. But you would never have even known about it if another person didn't tell you. Who was told by a different person. And so on and so on. Until you get to a time where there's no evidence anything claimed occurred in the first place.

MEH wrote:

Thanku for clearing up the univers thing.

No problem. Smiling

MEH wrote:
It is rather logical god was always there it explains it a lot easyer then some gas goin round. Think bout it a powerful god creating things or gas.

But if there had to be something to make everything, then there has to be something to make anything. If the universe needs a god, then god needs a god. And that god needs a god. And you have an infinate chain of gods of increasing omnipotence. Which is logically impossible.

MEH wrote:
The bible is a book in history that is highly looked at and belived.

Usually only evangilists tend to believe the bible speaks of literal events. The majority of our species does not look at it as a credible history. Christians may be the majority religion, but there are more people in the world that believe in another religion or in no religion at all than there are christians who believe in the bible.

MEH wrote:
The bible has tons of proof. Eg the bible refers to Ceaser which everyone belives in him am i right.

That's not proof that the bible is accurate. I could write a book about ancient earth, the almighty Force, and it's prophet virgin born son Anakin Skywalker, and by your logic if I added a few things that actually happened the rest must have too.

MEH wrote:
If you do ur histoory studies alot of the history u lean in school gives proof the bible is real.

Maybe your school system has been corrupted by religion. Mine wasn't. Fortunately. Though that probably wouldn't have changed much for me in the long run anyway.

MEH wrote:
hope that made sense.

I hope my response did.

MEH wrote:
All the sites i look at could not 100% prove thats how the world is formed by the big bang.

Nobody can prove every facet of the universe. It is far beyond even our dreams of technological advancement. That is no reason to believe in a fictional deity to fill in the blanks of what you don't know.

MEH wrote:
What is that ment to mean?

Have you never seen something that you couldn't explain right away, yet learned to explain later? Lightning maybe, or rain? A comet or star? The older you get the less you experience this, but it is a reality of today that noone can go through life knowing everything.

MEH wrote:

Actualy the bible is an intresting book to read the war stories kick ars they should b made into movies.

I would imagine many of them have. I find the writing style to be the work of rookies though.

MEH wrote:
Also high schools dont teach religion trust me on that.

Depending on where you live your statement may be accurate or inaccurate. Some do. Some don't. Some do without seeming to. Religion is sneaky.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MEH
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-01-26
User is offlineOffline
  You said if there has to

 

You said if there has to be somthing to make anything they would need a god who had a go eg. But god is the most powerful thing in the world why does he need somthing. And for the gas to exsit it needs somthing to make it.

 

A lot of people look to the bible as history eg bc ad to periods in the world.

 

Acutaly a lot of people read the bible. It is the most sold book, most stolen, translated in most languages unlike other books that are a few languages, Its the most baned book from countries eg vietnam china, its the book that is taken illegaly into other countries. Alot of people read it.

 

Why would a book that has no acruaty talk about people who are studyed and fullied belived in now. everyone belives in ceaser and actualy there is less information to show he is real then jesus is real. but again every1 belives in ceaser.

 

My school not crupt by religion it took moths to get a christain band allowed into my school. Very hard to do anything to share bout jesus in the school.

 

In my ancient class my teacher of non faith we learned bout greece and rome and the stories in there had refrence to the people in the bible eg esther.

 

I dont belive in a god because there are blanks i belive because i have faith. You dont belive in god because you belive there are many flaws right? But how can you belive in the big bang that has gaps. I really feel this question is going to go in circles.

 

So you said things that you cant explain. How bout a criple gettin out of his wheel chair right in front of your eyes and this man been in the chair for years. How would you explain that?

 

work of rookies. Is that because you find the way the bible is writen is hard to understand or you think there a bunch of crack pots?

mmmm


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MEH wrote: You said if

MEH wrote:
You said if there has to be somthing to make anything they would need a god who had a go eg. But god is the most powerful thing in the world why does he need somthing. And for the gas to exsit it needs somthing to make it.

There's no logic in your statement. You are effectively suggesting that a rock can't exist on it's own, but a computer can. You are suggesting that something as complex as the universe cannot have always existed, but think something even MORE complex(an all powerful god capable of creating the universe) can always have existed. There's no logic in that.

MEH wrote:
Acutaly a lot of people read the bible.

That doesn't mean it's recognized as accurate history. If it were, it would be in class rooms everywhere around the world. It isn't in classrooms everywhere, so it isn't acceptable as accurate history to the majority.

MEH wrote:
ob It is the most sold book, most stolen, translated in most languages unlike other books that are a few languages, Its the most baned book from countries eg vietnam china, its the book that is taken illegaly into other countries.

That's only because of circumstance. If I were able to convince people to start believing in a fiction book as a description of reality, I could overcome the bibles history in a few hundred years.

MEH wrote:
Alot of people read it.

So? A lot of people jump off a bridge to commit suicide. Doesn't mean I'm going to.

MEH wrote:
Why would a book that has no acruaty talk about people who are studyed and fullied belived in now.

Because of religion.

MEH wrote:
everyone belives in ceaser and actualy there is less information to show he is real then jesus is real.

Maybe so. I can't argue one way or the other since I haven't studied the idea. But Ceaser was just a man who ran an empire. There are thousands of men who ran empires in history, and there's nothing spectacular about them. Jesus on the other hand is claimed to be the son of an omnipotent being. If Ceaser had claimed to be the son of an omnipotent being, then people would demand a lot more to prove it than they would for a simple guy.

MEH wrote:

but again every1 belives in ceaser.

If there is as little proof as you say, I would have to seriously doubt that.

MEH wrote:
My school not crupt by religion it took moths to get a christain band allowed into my school. Very hard to do anything to share bout jesus in the school.

As it should be. But that doesn't mean there aren't religious pressures. Even the calendar we use is based on an unproven idea about someone who hasn't been proven to exist.

MEH wrote:
In my ancient class my teacher of non faith we learned bout greece and rome and the stories in there had refrence to the people in the bible eg esther. I dont belive in a god because there are blanks i belive because i have faith. You dont belive in god because you belive there are many flaws right? But how can you belive in the big bang that has gaps.

You're confusing the situation. We know that something explosive happened around 13 billion years ago. The big bang is one of many theories that may or may not be completely accurate. All of these theories have corresponding evidence that you can discover on your own without being taught some scripture or another. There is no such evidence for a god. Absolutely none whatsoever. Someone came up with the idea to explain stuff he or she couldn't explain, and the idea caught on and got more complicated when it started to be widely accepted. That's all.

MEH wrote:

I really feel this question is going to go in circles.

Rational breakthrough. Smiling

MEH wrote:
So you said things that you cant explain. How bout a criple gettin out of his wheel chair right in front of your eyes and this man been in the chair for years. How would you explain that?

I've never seen it. If I did, I'd ask for evidence he was crippled in the first place. People love to decieve others. I'd also ask for evidence he would never heal. Noones ever gotten that far. So I don't need to explain it. It never happened.

MEH wrote:
work of rookies. Is that because you find the way the bible is writen is hard to understand or you think there a bunch of crack pots?

The bible isn't that hard to understand. I can see how some people might think it is, but I was reading Shakespear(sp) in grade 7 or earlier. So it's no big deal for me. The problem is that there's no real depth. Read a novel by R.A. Salvatore. Or Terry Brooks. Timothy Zahn. Maybe Tolkein, but he can be a bit much if you aren't a big reader. Then you'll see why I say the bible was written by rookies.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: While

StMichael wrote:

While your concept of a soul might differ from mine, what is important is what the Catholic Church/Christianity defines as a soul. And then a soul is clearly a mind, according to their definition.

I don't really care how your church defines a soul or a mind. My complaint in your usage is that you treat them as interchangeable ideas, which they are not, at least in the common usage. One of them (the mind) refers to something which is a reality that we can agree on, and that most people can agree on, theist and atheist alike. The other (the soul), however, is a concept with extra features that no atheist would ever agree are possible, and since this is an atheist forum, and you are trying to converse with atheists, I think you should not try to mix ideas in ways that are likely to confuse. I realize that you consider souls and minds to be the same thing, but ask that you keep in mind the fact that others here do not, so that we can build from the things that we agree on toward a better understanding.

StMichael wrote:
The mind might use matter, but it is not equivalent with matter for three reasons:

I never said that the mind was equivalent to matter. The mind is the result of the activities of the brain, and the brain is made of matter. The mind, to me, is more of a concept than a physical reality, but the coordination between parts of the brain is quite real and measurable.

StMichael wrote:
[1] matter is particular and universals are what the mind thinks, and so matter cannot be what the mind thinks,

I think, if I am understanding you correctly, that you are saying that the fact that we understand things on a higher level than particles (atoms, photons, etc), the mind is not equivalent to matter. Correct? It's true that the mind does not naturally think in terms of particles. Richard Dawkins has explained this as a result of the fact that our brains evolved in "middle world", a place where we don't really deal with particles very directly as microbes would, but we also don't think of things in terms of galaxies and other very large things. Our brains deal with things in terms of medium-sized objects, like predators, and prey, and shelter, and other things that are similar in size. But that doesn't mean that you can't build something that thinks in the abstract out of matter. We can build (as a simple example) devices which counts numbers, a completly abstract task, and the major raw materials are a bit of metal, and some silicone (sand).

StMichael wrote:
[2] the mind knows intelligibles more clearly as they are more intelligible, whereas a sense organ sensing is impeded by the increased sensibility of things, and

I'm not really quite sure what you mean by this. Could you restate it in modern English, and while you're at it, explain the relevence?

StMichael wrote:
[3] the mind can know all bodies, whereas if it were material, it could only know one type of body.

Once again, I think the archaic language you are using is getting in the way here. Could you restate this more clearly? What are bodies, by your definition, and what does it mean to "know" a "body" (surely you don't mean 'know' in the Biblical sense)? This seems like it might be addressed by the counter example above, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.

StMichael wrote:
Programs, as pure information, do not have parts. They contain no parts that one could manipulate directly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "directly" here, but I have manipulated the parts of a program, in a very direct way. I can't touch them, I can't even touch the program as a whole, however, I can test them individually, examine the way a particular part works (component testing), remove a part and replace it with another (modularity).

StMichael wrote:
One could form another idea of an program with modified elements, but the actual idea has no parts. You can't take the idea and divide it into three or four equal parts.

What is the difference between an element and a part? This sounds like a semantic game to me.

StMichael wrote:
Also, I see no reason why a program is not always material. Programs cannot properly exist on walls or in my foot.

A program is information, and information is not material. Information can be transferred from one storage medium to another, thus changing entirely the matter it is stored on without altering the information in any fundamental way.

Programs cannot (easily) be run on a wall or in your foot, but in a very meaningful sense, they can exist there. They could be shouted from the tops of mountains (though why one would do such a thing is beyond me), they could be written on papyrus scrolls, or etched into clay. Programs have been designed to be run on computers, and so that is where they fulfill their function, but they can exist anywhere that information can be stored in sufficient quantities, and no matter where they are stored, if they are then transferred to a computer that was designed to execute them, they will work as they did before.

Actually, you could run a program on a peice of paper, but it would be rather tedious and time-consuming. All you need is a place to store the information and a copy of the program on some readable medium. Any program can be run on any Turing Machine, so there's really no limit to the number of places you could run any given program, albeit in many cases with a great deal of effort.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


MEH
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-01-26
User is offlineOffline
there is so logic. ok just

there is so logic. ok just say you belive in god for a min he is the most powefull thing in the world like hes big just imagine that. why does he need someone to creat him if he is everything and the beging can u understand that.

 

Now imagin no god yay there is a gass it made a world dosent sound so acurate of you know powerfull. Like where did the gass come from where did the universes come from.

 

I really doubt that we are both going to be able to fully understand each other and both are really hard things to belive in to.

 

The bible is read a lot there is no denying that. Back in the day of jesus not everyone belived him to be the son of god. Not everyone in the world is going to belive also jesus god is real. That vis why its not teached in class rooms also the choice of free belife and to keep a peace in the school. Also a lot of countries are communist or havnt heard the gosple.

 

The reason the book is so fussed about because it holds power it can turn communties to belive in god it can turn people away from there empora it can caus wars.

 

Im just making a statement alot of people do read the word not saying that you need to.

 

Why would a book that has no acruaty talk about people who are studyed and fullied belived in now.

 

 

Because of religion.

i dont understand your answer sorry.

 

Ceaser declared to be the son of a god his mum use to sleep with snakes and ment to have an affair with a god. that is why he was such a great leader because he belived he was powerfull.

 

ok i was first saved saw the famous benny hinn. that healer guy. People got out of wheel chairs cancer oin hearing back. Me i was like it might b real it could b fake to this day im a bit um benny hinn just because i dint know the people b4 they got healed of if they where ill.

 

But i belive this we had a older man at church for 2 years been in a wheel chair one day my pastor prayed for him he walked infront of my eyes and i was not on crack.  i suffer bad headackes i got prayed for never had them again.

 

 

mmmm


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MEH wrote: there is so

MEH wrote:
there is so logic. ok just say you belive in god for a min he is the most powefull thing in the world like hes big just imagine that. why does he need someone to creat him if he is everything and the beging can u understand that.

No. It makes no sense to me. I've done a lot of philosophical thinking about the universe, and in no way can I place a god. I've never seen any evidence of some kind of magical powers. And until I do, I won't believe in them.

MEH wrote:
Now imagin no god yay there is a gass it made a world dosent sound so acurate of you know powerfull. Like where did the gass come from where did the universes come from.

I'm not sure why you need to understand where matter comes from but don't need to understand where a god comes from. Matter and energy in all it's various forms cannot be created or destroyed. It can be converted to a different form, but that's it.

Maybe if you do some studying of the universe you can get a better idea of just how much "power" there is. There isn't much if anything more powerful than a supermassive black hole, gamma ray burst, or hypernova.

MEH wrote:

I really doubt that we are both going to be able to fully understand each other and both are really hard things to belive in to.

I'll admit that it can be hard to discard religion. I've never been religious, but I can see how it's nice to believe in a god that watches you and cares for you. I've seen people go through hard times when the accept that a big chunk of their life has been wasted. But once you accept that you are responsible for yourself, that your being on earth is a process of billions of cooincidental actions, that you only have one life to live...life is so much more precious.

MEH wrote:
The bible is read a lot there is no denying that.

True. It's the top selling book in the world to my knowledge. And I believe it was one of the first if not the first book to be printed. But Hitler was the first guy to be on TV, and look how he turned out.

MEH wrote:
Back in the day of jesus not everyone belived him to be the son of god.

There's no conclusive evidence he existed in the first place.

MEH wrote:
Not everyone in the world is going to belive also jesus god is real. That vis why its not teached in class rooms also the choice of free belife and to keep a peace in the school.

Exactly. The seperation of church and state is the idea of whether or not there is a god(s), we have to live together. So remove every god from anywhere there could be a conflict, and you have less pressures to violence. And suddenly a more peaceful society is found thanks to the removal of a god or gods.

MEH wrote:
Also a lot of countries are communist or havnt heard the gosple.

Communism has nothing to do with religion. It is primarily an economic system. Americans tend to equate communism with dictatorship due to Soviet and Chinese examples. Neither the Soviet Union nor China is or was truly communist. They were/are dictatorships that hijacked portions of communism for their own use. I'm sorry, but when ever someone brings up communism this way I have to bring that to a halt. It's blaming an innocent economic style for the brutal acts a dictatorship tends to commit.

Aside from that rant, the very fact that there are even today places on the planet that haven't heard of your god is further proof your belief is irrational. If there really was an omnipotent god who sent its son down to teach us about him, why did he restrict the location to a tiny corner of the world? How can this all powerful god possibly expect the human race to follow him when he only appeared to a few thousand people, if at all?

MEH wrote:
The reason the book is so fussed about because it holds power it can turn communties to belive in god it can turn people away from there empora it can caus wars.

Any idea can do that. It doesn't have to be an accurate one.

MEH wrote:
Im just making a statement alot of people do read the word not saying that you need to. Why would a book that has no acruaty talk about people who are studyed and fullied belived in now.

To make it seem accurate.

MEH wrote:
i dont understand your answer sorry.

It's a cause and effect thing. You start a religion, and teach it to your kids as absolute. Most of the people around you think you're nuts, but they don't bother with you much. Your kids then grow up and follow your path. Now instead of 1 preacher you have 3 or more. Every now and then you'll find people who agree with your story, either because they can't prove it wrong or because they like the sound of it. Chrisitanity made it a point to explore the world and spread itself to other nations and peoples. And they did so very aggressively. There was no room for debate. There's a god, this is his book, read it or burn in hell. Period. The jews and the moslems haven't done it on nearly as great a scale, and so their religions aren't as widespread.
The problem with christianity is that it's suddenly hit a wall. It can't go any further. Science has started to reveal the universe to be much grander than religion would suggest. What's the point in having a galaxy 13 billion light years away from us if he created the universe for us? As a creation, the universe doesn't make sense. As a constant, it does. Even worse for christianity, their own aggressiveness has started to backfire. Technology and communications has revealed how underhanded their techniques can be, disillusioning tens of thousands of former believers. Not to mention the contradictions that can no longer be supressed.

Most people who believe in the christian god haven't even read the whole bible. Let alone done any research on science. There are exceptions, but those are few and far between.

MEH wrote:

Ceaser declared to be the son of a god his mum use to sleep with snakes and ment to have an affair with a god. that is why he was such a great leader because he belived he was powerfull.

Lol. I stand corrected. The difference however is that people didn't believe it after he died.

MEH wrote:
ok i was first saved saw the famous benny hinn. that healer guy. People got out of wheel chairs cancer oin hearing back. Me i was like it might b real it could b fake to this day im a bit um benny hinn just because i dint know the people b4 they got healed of if they where ill.

I'm glad you question it without blind obedience. I have yet to see an evangelical healer with any credibility. It reminds me of a scene near the end of Man on the Moon with Jim Carrey.

MEH wrote:
But i belive this we had a older man at church for 2 years been in a wheel chair one day my pastor prayed for him he walked infront of my eyes and i was not on crack.  i suffer bad headackes i got prayed for never had them again.

The problem with these things is that they can never be repeated and proven in front of someone who isn't willing to believe they are godly at face value. It's like watching a psychic repeatedly be vague and open to interpretation in order to claim psychic powers. Another problem is that they don't always work. Even if the patient and the priest both are believers, it doesn't always work. The cop out is that god does what he wants. How convenient.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MEH
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-01-26
User is offlineOffline
To me it makes sense. Im

To me it makes sense. Im rather sorry i have a problem explaning myself at tiimes.

 

The reason i want to know where matter comes from is because im very intrsted in what people belive i like to studie all religions.

 

I just find it hard people cant belive in a god but yer a bang. I dont think i will ever understand.

 

To me my life is presious. I live life to the full. I find my life rather presious knowing god created me and gave me a destany.

 

I dont think the removel of gods will stop all wars theres still racism countries wanting more land eg that stuff.

 

When i metioned communist i ment not many people heard of jesus. Like china vietnam they have to belive a certain religion or they are killed its hard to share the gosple. Yer there are alot of people that take bibles and throw out tracks but not everyone in  that countrie will hear the gosple. i love to studie communism so intresting.

 

the bible was writen along time ago am i right? they wold never know ceaser would be famously studdied today. they did not put it in the bible to be more beliveable.

 

i agree many christains havnt read the bible or studies science but there are a lot that have. For me i study the bible and try to understand science to a degre.

 

haha ceaser is a fruit loop alexzander was the same he named places after him.

 

Yep with a healing you need to be there and know the person that is being healed i fuly understand that. its a hard one to belive.

 

by the way thanks for talking to me and not saying im an idiot

mmmm


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The mind does not exist

The mind does not exist merely as the coordination or harmony of the various parts of the brain. Harmony is a composition of various elements together, so that the mind would not be the things blended (matter), but other from it. Also, harmony cannot be the source of movement, as the soul clearly is the originating force of movement in the body. Also, a harmony is an disposition of various parts. But where can we find parts in the intellect? You can't maintain that the soul is "mixed" together with the elements of the body either, as the consequence of this would be to say that there would be a mixture of souls, differing in every part of the body. Lastly, an material action cannot be the cause of an immaterial result. Matter only leads to matter.

 When I meant that the mind uses universals and not particulars, I did not mean that the mind does not think particles. The mind does not think "Fido" when it sees a dog, it thinks "dog." It does not work with merely individual instances of things, but it knows as its proper object the essences or universal concepts of things. A counting machine does not deal in universals, but in counting a material quantity of electronic signals. 

 On the subject of how the mind knows more intelligible concepts, look at the operation of the mind. In sense organs, we find that there are more and less sensible objects. For example, more or less hot in relation to skin. In a sensible action, if we take a very sensible action, such as a red hot poker, and sense it with the sense organ, touching the poker to your skin, the very sensible thing is sensible, but is actually less sensible. It damages the sense organ, in this case. Or, in the case of taste, a most bitter thing overwhelms the sense organ and impairs one's ability to taste. However, if the mind were merely some material organ, for example, the brain, we would expect this same thing to occur. But this is not the case. Rather, the mind knows more intelligible things better. Thus, it seems clear that the mind is not the same as a material organ.

 The last reason why the mind is not material stems from the fact that the mind can know all bodies. By "body," I mean corporeal physical objects having dimensions and mass. It is clear in sense organs that a material body can only be known by a material organ under some particular fashion. For example, the nose only percieves a body under the aspect of smell. Likewise, the eye only percieves something as color. But, the mind is not so limited. The mind knows everything from sub-atomic particles to planets, and under any and all aspects. Thus, it is clear that the mind is not dependent for its existence upon matter.

 You can instantiate the program in matter and manipulate the signals, but you cannot physically manipulate the idea of the program itself. 

Further, the program itself can only run in a computer, which is its proper medium. You can write the code elsewhere, but it always only properly exists as running on a computer. The information is thus immaterial in itself, but its actually implementation and any way in which you may manipulate the information is material.

The only way in which an idea can have a "part" is when the concept is of something which has a general notion of matter in it. For example, I can think of a koala bear and think of its foot. In this way, mental divisions exist. However, these are not properly parts of the idea itself. Also, the idea only has these ideas of parts in it because of the idea being of a material thing. A concept such as "being" or "what is desirable" has no such parts, even conceptually.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Regarding Unicrons:

MEH, 

Regarding Unicrons:

That's my point. You are telling me that God exists and I have to prove 100% he doesn't, so by that reasoning, I can say "Unicorn's exist, prove to me that they don't" and it would be your job to prove 100% that they don't. Explainations don't work that way. You say that God exists, please prove it to us.

Regarding the origin of the universe:

Where did God come from?

If you can say that god always existed to create the universe, why can't the universe have always existed without a god to create it?

Regarding Ceasar:

There are a lot of works of historical fiction that use actual places and people in them. For example, "A Tale of Two Cities". The bible does mention Ceasar, but it has conflicts regarding Herod and other actual historical figures.

Regarding commandments:

But why would they phrase it as "smallest commandments"? Are the Ten Commandments ranked in importance? Also, 5:18 says "even the smallest detail of God's Law will remain". Do you think he's only referring to the 10 commandments? God gives many rules and laws in the Old Testament, not just the 10 commandments.

 

Another contradiction:

According to the Bible, is Jesus the Son of Joseph?

Read Matthew 1:18, 22:45, and Luke 1:31-35.

Then read Acts 2:30, 13:23, 2 Timothy 2:8, and Revelation 22:16

 

If you want a huge list of these to think about, you can go to

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html

 

-Triften


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't defend everything

I don't defend everything MEP says, but I do want to intervene here a little.

First, the universe is not a necessary cause of its own existence. This is clear from the fact that it is in motion and changing. What is necessary must be unable to change, otherwise that places it in potentiality to something else able to act upon it. The absolute first cause of existence must be unable to change or "move" in any way - hence, the unmoved mover.

Second, the apparent contradictions in the Scriptures over whether Our Lord was the son of Joseph are easily resolved just by considering that sometimes the "sonship" spoken of is that Jesus is the son of Joseph by way of fatherhood, and not of generation, while in others it is speaking of Joseph being the literal biological father of Our Lord.  

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Second,

StMichael wrote:

Second, the apparent contradictions in the Scriptures over whether Our Lord was the son of Joseph are easily resolved just by considering that sometimes the "sonship" spoken of is that Jesus is the son of Joseph by way of fatherhood, and not of generation, while in others it is speaking of Joseph being the literal biological father of Our Lord.

Sounds like a case against Jesus being of virgin birth.

So Jesus was Jospeh's biological son? 

-Triften 

 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
No, that is precisely the

No, that is precisely the point. Sometimes the Scriptures speak of Jesus as having Joseph as His legal father and other times they speak of Him as being not the biological son of Joseph. Both are true.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: No, that

StMichael wrote:

No, that is precisely the point. Sometimes the Scriptures speak of Jesus as having Joseph as His legal father and other times they speak of Him as being not the biological son of Joseph. Both are true.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

So Romans 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" is metaphorical?

"Made of the seed of David" seems pretty explicit to me. 

-Triften 

 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The first and most obvious

The first and most obvious solution is that Our Lady was likewise of the seed of David.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: The first

StMichael wrote:

The first and most obvious solution is that Our Lady was likewise of the seed of David.

So why did the Bible bother tracing Joseph's lineage (contradictingly, I might add) in Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38? In fact, almost every geneology in the bible traces ancestry through fathers. (Except for the one in Matthew, which mentions 4 women convicted of improprieties.)

-Triften 


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: The mind

StMichael wrote:

The mind does not exist merely as the coordination or harmony of the various parts of the brain. Harmony is a composition of various elements together, so that the mind would not be the things blended (matter), but other from it. Also, harmony cannot be the source of movement, as the soul clearly is the originating force of movement in the body.

First, read up on some basic anatomy, particularly the basic motor pathways, before trying to explain the souce of movement in the body. Movement in the body is initiated by various parts of the brain, coordinated by the primary motor cortext. Aristotle had the excuse that these things were unknown when he was alive, but you do not have the same excuse. Not only are the movements of the body not due to some poorly-defined spiritual concept like a soul, we have fairly specific knowledge of which parts of the brain initiate them. This isn't the deep mysterious process you wish it was. If you insist on treating the brain as a black box that can't be understood, obviously you will find it mysterious, however, the people who have examined it have been able to understand a great deal about it.

If the mind isn't dependent on the brain for it's existence, then what is the brain for? It's seems like it would be a lot simpler if all it needed to do was generate heat.

StMichael wrote:
Also, a harmony is an disposition of various parts. But where can we find parts in the intellect? You can't maintain that the soul is "mixed" together with the elements of the body either, as the consequence of this would be to say that there would be a mixture of souls, differing in every part of the body.

The intellect, or the capacity for knowledge, is something that people have percieved to be a property of the mind, however, it is probably actually the result of several different parts of the brain working together. I'll leave it to you to read up on what the various parts of the brain do, but it is interesting to note that the consequences of brain damage that isolate one part of the brain from other parts that they are supposed to be connected to can lead to seemingly paradoxical problems with the thought process. Now, if the mind were independent of the brain, why would brain damage effect it?

StMichael wrote:
Lastly, an material action cannot be the cause of an immaterial result. Matter only leads to matter.

This is obviously wrong. Evolution leads to the creation of a great deal of information, which is nonphysical, by entirely physical mean.

StMichael wrote:
When I meant that the mind uses universals and not particulars, I did not mean that the mind does not think particles. The mind does not think "Fido" when it sees a dog, it thinks "dog." It does not work with merely individual instances of things, but it knows as its proper object the essences or universal concepts of things.

Now I recognize this argument, Aristotle. Wait, you can't be Aristotle because he didn't just spout ancient philosophies that are millenia out of date.

Humans recognize not only specific things, like Fido, but also general classes of things, "universals", as Aristotle put it, such as dogs. This is done by recognizing their common traits. I don't see why this would be beyond purely physical things.

StMichael wrote:
A counting machine does not deal in universals, but in counting a material quantity of electronic signals.

A digital counting machine deals with numbers, which seem pretty universal to me, and they are at least abstract. It doesn't have anything to do with the "quantity" of electronic signals.

StMichael wrote:
On the subject of how the mind knows more intelligible concepts, look at the operation of the mind. In sense organs, we find that there are more and less sensible objects. For example, more or less hot in relation to skin. In a sensible action, if we take a very sensible action, such as a red hot poker, and sense it with the sense organ, touching the poker to your skin, the very sensible thing is sensible, but is actually less sensible. It damages the sense organ, in this case. Or, in the case of taste, a most bitter thing overwhelms the sense organ and impairs one's ability to taste. However, if the mind were merely some material organ, for example, the brain, we would expect this same thing to occur.

Sense organs can be damaged or overwhelmed by light, heat, etc, as can the brain. The difference is that the brain is more isolated from these things, so damage to it is less likely.

StMichael wrote:
But this is not the case. Rather, the mind knows more intelligible things better. Thus, it seems clear that the mind is not the same as a material organ.

This is an incredibly weak analogy. First, the brain is not a sense organ, it is the processing center of the body. Sense organs collect information which is then process by the brain. Second, each sense organ works on a different principle, so concluding that they should work the same way, is wrong from the beginning.

StMichael wrote:
The last reason why the mind is not material stems from the fact that the mind can know all bodies. By "body," I mean corporeal physical objects having dimensions and mass. It is clear in sense organs that a material body can only be known by a material organ under some particular fashion. For example, the nose only percieves a body under the aspect of smell. Likewise, the eye only percieves something as color. But, the mind is not so limited. The mind knows everything from sub-atomic particles to planets, and under any and all aspects. Thus, it is clear that the mind is not dependent for its existence upon matter.

The brain is very capable of processing information, but I don't see why that means it can't be purely physical. Proof by analogy is very weak.

StMichael wrote:
Further, the program itself can only run in a computer, which is its proper medium. You can write the code elsewhere, but it always only properly exists as running on a computer.

That's just not true. You can run a program on paper, it's just tedious and time consuming.

StMichael wrote:
The information is thus immaterial in itself, but its actually implementation and any way in which you may manipulate the information is material.

Sounds exactly like the relationship between the brain and the mind. The mind is implemented in the physical medium of the brain.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
  Again, the first

 

Again, the first resolution of that difficulty is that the geneologies describe two different people. The first possible solution is that the one in Luke gives Our Lady's geneology. The second is that the levirite marriage of Joseph's father accounts for the legal geneology in Matthew and the biological descent occurs in Luke. 

Quote:

First, read up on some basic anatomy, particularly the basic motor pathways, before trying to explain the souce of movement in the body. Movement in the body is initiated by various parts of the brain, coordinated by the primary motor cortext. Aristotle had the excuse that these things were unknown when he was alive, but you do not have the same excuse. Not only are the movements of the body not due to some poorly-defined spiritual concept like a soul, we have fairly specific knowledge of which parts of the brain initiate them. This isn't the deep mysterious process you wish it was. If you insist on treating the brain as a black box that can't be understood, obviously you will find it mysterious, however, the people who have examined it have been able to understand a great deal about it.

I am not disputing that the brain is the source of electrical impulses which move the parts of the body. I am disputing that the coordination of the brain and neurons is all that the mind is.

Quote:
 

 

If the mind isn't dependent on the brain for it's existence, then what is the brain for? It's seems like it would be a lot simpler if all it needed to do was generate heat.

The brain is the place where the body stores material sense perception. The mind abstracts universals from the particular sense images stored in the brain and presented to it in the imagination.

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
Also, a harmony is an disposition of various parts. But where can we find parts in the intellect? You can't maintain that the soul is "mixed" together with the elements of the body either, as the consequence of this would be to say that there would be a mixture of souls, differing in every part of the body.

The intellect, or the capacity for knowledge, is something that people have percieved to be a property of the mind, however, it is probably actually the result of several different parts of the brain working together.

That is precisely my point. This point is assumed by you. It clearly is not the case that the harmony of parts of the brain is the mind. 

Quote:
 

Now, if the mind were independent of the brain, why would brain damage effect it?

Because the mind depends upon the brain for its knowable data.

 

Quote:

This is obviously wrong. Evolution leads to the creation of a great deal of information, which is nonphysical, by entirely physical mean.

Matter produces merely matter. One cannot get something that was not in the premises. A particular cannot produce a universal.

Quote:
 

 


Humans recognize not only specific things, like Fido, but also general classes of things, "universals", as Aristotle put it, such as dogs. This is done by recognizing their common traits. I don't see why this would be beyond purely physical things.

But the universal does not exist in physical things. The universal can only exist in the mind, even though it is correlated with real things. Read more Aristotle.

Quote:
 

 

A digital counting machine deals with numbers, which seem pretty universal to me, and they are at least abstract. It doesn't have anything to do with the "quantity" of electronic signals.

Yes it does, if it's counting. I think you need to remember how a computer operates. A computer doesn't "know" number; electronic signals are sent into a chip or a transistor, a logical circuit, which turns the signal into something else, which is relayed elsewhere. Electronic signals created by man in a specific order. It is no more than creating channels in the sand which spell "John was here," when you pour water through them. The sand doesn't know the phrase. The sand contains information because something else gave it to it - in this case, man. The computer is a means to process information no greater than a complex version of a calculator. An abacus doesn't "know" numbers; it is merely an instrument to keep track of them. It is a fundamental error on your part to attribute universal knowledge to something that is basically nothing more than a complex rock. On the other hand, man knows universals. I can think of the concept "being" or even "2".

 You also haven't answered my questions yet. Sidestepping into irrelevancy is not an answer.

 

Quote:
 


Sense organs can be damaged or overwhelmed by light, heat, etc, as can the brain. The difference is that the brain is more isolated from these things, so damage to it is less likely.

The mind is never damaged by an object of too much intelligibility. Show me a case where something more intelligible is less knowable in itself. No such case exists.

Quote:
 

 

S

This is an incredibly weak analogy. First, the brain is not a sense organ, it is the processing center of the body. Sense organs collect information which is then process by the brain. Second, each sense organ works on a different principle, so concluding that they should work the same way, is wrong from the beginning.

If it was a material organ, it would operate the same way. If it were material, sensory impressions, as they became more sensible, would overwhelm and be less knowable. However, they are not. We know more intelligible things more clearly and easily.

Also, each sensible organ follows this rule. There is no differentiation.

Quote:

 

The brain is very capable of processing information, but I don't see why that means it can't be purely physical. Proof by analogy is very weak.

If it were purely physical, it would not be able to know all physical bodies. No possibility at all. It would act to only know some types.

Quote:
 

 


That's just not true. You can run a program on paper, it's just tedious and time consuming.

You cannot. A program is not run in paper. A program is meant to be run on a computer. Any coding commands would be useless to the paper. It would be the same to run the program in Jello. No way, Jose.

 

Quote:

 


Sounds exactly like the relationship between the brain and the mind. The mind is implemented in the physical medium of the brain.

The object of our knowledge might be in the brain, which is not disputed, but the ability to know is not identical with the brain.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I am not

StMichael wrote:
I am not disputing that the brain is the source of electrical impulses which move the parts of the body. I am disputing that the coordination of the brain and neurons is all that the mind is.

Why would the mind be part physical and part non-physical? Do you have any evidence at all for the non-physical part?

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

The intellect, or the capacity for knowledge, is something that people have percieved to be a property of the mind, however, it is probably actually the result of several different parts of the brain working together.

That is precisely my point. This point is assumed by you. It clearly is not the case that the harmony of parts of the brain is the mind.

Why not?

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

This is obviously wrong. Evolution leads to the creation of a great deal of information, which is nonphysical, by entirely physical mean.

Matter produces merely matter. One cannot get something that was not in the premises. A particular cannot produce a universal.

Evolution by natural selection directly contradicts this. It provides a mechanism for matter to produce increasingly complex information by entirely physical means, and knowledge is just information. If you want anyone to believe your random counter-intuitive claims like "One cannot get something that was not in the premises", you're going to have to show that evolutionary theory is wrong, and I don't think you can do that. It doesn't help to just recite ancient thinking as if knowledge hasn't progressed any further.

As for 'universals' as you call them, you still havn't provided a reason that a complex brain could not evolve the capacity to derive general classes from specific instances of them. I can't see any limitation that would apply.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

Humans recognize not only specific things, like Fido, but also general classes of things, "universals", as Aristotle put it, such as dogs. This is done by recognizing their common traits. I don't see why this would be beyond purely physical things.

But the universal does not exist in physical things. The universal can only exist in the mind, even though it is correlated with real things.

Most physical things don't think. The brain, however, is different. It is a highly complex organ, which allows it to exhibit very complex behavior.

StMichael wrote:
Read more Aristotle.

No thanks. I'd rather read something a little more relevent.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:


A digital counting machine deals with numbers, which seem pretty universal to me, and they are at least abstract. It doesn't have anything to do with the "quantity" of electronic signals.

Yes it does, if it's counting. I think you need to remember how a computer operates. A computer doesn't "know" number; electronic signals are sent into a chip or a transistor, a logical circuit, which turns the signal into something else, which is relayed elsewhere. Electronic signals created by man in a specific order.

I think you need to learn how a computer operates. Digital counters use stateful componants called flip-flops to store information, not some quantity of electrical signals. It's true that the storage may be different from a brain, but that's missing the point. I don't see a significant differance between how a digital circuit "knows" a number and how a brain does. The most significant difference is in how they came to exists, one coming about naturally by evolution, the other by design, but the function is basically the same. It is true that the brain is able to do more with the stored information, but you can put the digital counter into a computer to give it substantially more application.

StMichael wrote:
It is a fundamental error on your part to attribute universal knowledge to something that is basically nothing more than a complex rock.

All knowledge is fundamentally the same thing, there's no such thing as 'universal' knowledge. And all knowledge can be stored in a variety of ways.

StMichael wrote:
You also haven't answered my questions yet. Sidestepping into irrelevancy is not an answer.

What exactly have I not addressed?

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

Sense organs can be damaged or overwhelmed by light, heat, etc, as can the brain. The difference is that the brain is more isolated from these things, so damage to it is less likely.

The mind is never damaged by an object of too much intelligibility.

I've never heard of anything being destroyed or damaged by intelligibility. Things can be destroyed by light, or heat, but not from intelligibility. It just makes no sense.

StMichael wrote:
Show me a case where something more intelligible is less knowable in itself. No such case exists.

That's irrelevent, and nonsensical. I haven't argued that something exists that is more intelligible but less knowable, I've argued that the entire idea of something being destroyed or damaged by intelligibility is nonsense. Don't set up straw men.

StMichael wrote:
If it was a material organ, it would operate the same way. If it were material, sensory impressions, as they became more sensible, would overwhelm and be less knowable. However, they are not. We know more intelligible things more clearly and easily.

Also, each sensible organ follows this rule. There is no differentiation.

The very reason that there are different organs is that they are differentiated, and they do not work in the same way. If there were no differentiation between organs, we would probably be blobs of cells, slithering around. Different organs have different functions, and the brain has a special function as the center of thought. However, that does not mean that it doesn't work on the same physical principles that the rest of the universe uses.

StMichael wrote:
If it were purely physical, it would not be able to know all physical bodies. No possibility at all. It would act to only know some types.

The brain learns to understand new things by examination because it is highly adaptive and capable of learning. But it doesn't know "all physical bodies" as you put it. It only knows the things it has encountered.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
That's just not true. You can run a program on paper, it's just tedious and time consuming.

You cannot. A program is not run in paper. A program is meant to be run on a computer. Any coding commands would be useless to the paper. It would be the same to run the program in Jello. No way, Jose.

I know that it is possible to run a program on paper because I have done it before. I'm afraid you do not know what a program is. It is a set of information, specifically a set of data, and a set of instructions for operating on it. Paper can hold both of these things, and then all you have to do is follow the instructions and keep track of the set of data used during the computation.

Computers are Turing Machines (with a limitation on the amount of storage available), which means that the programs run on computers can be run on any Turing Machine possessing sufficient memory. Many things can be used as Turing Machines, including a peice of paper, a pencil, and someone willing to spend the time at it.

As for running a program in Jello, it would be equally possible as long as you could find a way to use the Jello to store the necessary amount of information, and a way to read and write it.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
MEH wrote: To me it makes

MEH wrote:
To me it makes sense. Im rather sorry i have a problem explaning myself at tiimes.

That's ok. I suggest it is something you can work on, but it's up to you really.

MEH wrote:
The reason i want to know where matter comes from is because im very intrsted in what people belive i like to studie all religions.

I'd like to know too. Noone does however. There are a number of possibilites though. One is that it was always there. That the universe constantly expands and contracts over billions of years. At one edge it is so small that there is too much mass for it's size to sustain, and you get a massive explosion that the debris of which turns into galaxies in the billions of years following. On the other edge, things are too far away for the forces keeping them apart to keep them apart anymore, and they all contract back into the critical mass.
Another possibility is that the sum energy of the universe is 0. That a rupture occurred and spewed positive and negative energy outwards from it. That if you put everything back together, you'd end up with nothing.
Yet another possibility is that the universe as we see it is the result of higher dimensional collisions. But the pysics in this one are even stretching my capabilities of understanding.
There are more than the ones I've mentioned. The basis behind them all is the simple admission that we don't know for sure, it just might be the way it happened. Contrary to the religious, who not only claim that they know, but that they know how. Without any proof at all.

MEH wrote:
I just find it hard people cant belive in a god but yer a bang. I dont think i will ever understand.

We can see light from a massive explosion that happened about 13 billion years ago. But we can't see any god. Maybe that will help.

MEH wrote:
To me my life is presious. I live life to the full. I find my life rather presious knowing god created me and gave me a destany.

That's fine. But I think it's even more precious to have been the result of billions of years of evolutionary progress. And to be able to make your own destiny, instead of having one given to you.

MEH wrote:

I dont think the removel of gods will stop all wars theres still racism countries wanting more land eg that stuff.

I didn't mean to suggest that removing religion would remove war. I agree that it won't. But it would put a hamper on those who want to work war.

MEH wrote:
When i metioned communist i ment not many people heard of jesus. Like china vietnam they have to belive a certain religion or they are killed its hard to share the gosple. Yer there are alot of people that take bibles and throw out tracks but not everyone in  that countrie will hear the gosple. i love to studie communism so intresting.

While I don't agree with the Chinese methodology of removing religion, I should point out that the official religion for China is that there is no official religion for China. It's a Stalinist type regime where belief in gods is condemned in favour of belief in the state(in this case, China).
But my big problem is that if the message from jesus was so important, why was it only delivered to a few people around the outskirts of the Roman Empire? Why weren't there prophets in North America and Europe? Africa and South America? People living in some of these areas could be seen as more sinful in the day than those in the middle east. Also more prone to superstition, and more susceptible to belief in a specific god. But the christian religions arose in one place, and one place alone. It is not logical.

MEH wrote:
the bible was writen along time ago am i right? they wold never know ceaser would be famously studdied today. they did not put it in the bible to be more beliveable.

I doubt that. Every empire has considered itself immortal. The Romans, the British, the French, and now the Americans. People don't tend to assume that everything they know can be or will be wiped out a few years or dozen years down the road. Regardless of the fact that it always happens. If Ceasar was foolish enough to proclaim himself a god, it was likely outside of comprehension for people of the day to think he would one day be forgotten. And sure enough, he hasn't been.

MEH wrote:

i agree many christains havnt read the bible or studies science but there are a lot that have. For me i study the bible and try to understand science to a degre.

I made sure to acknowledge this in my last post.

MEH wrote:
haha ceaser is a fruit loop alexzander was the same he named places after him.

Most dictators are pathologically egotistical in such ways. Some are even without being a dictator.

MEH wrote:
Yep with a healing you need to be there and know the person that is being healed i fuly understand that. its a hard one to belive. by the way thanks for talking to me and not saying im an idiot

No problem. I also thank you for the same. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Why would the mind

Quote:
Why would the mind be part physical and part non-physical? Do you have any evidence at all for the non-physical part?

The mind uses the brain to know, but its power to know is not the same as the brain.

Quote:
 

 


Why not?

I already gave these reasons. "Harmony is a composition of various elements together, so that the mind would not be the things blended (matter), but other from it. Also, harmony cannot be the source of movement, as the soul clearly is the originating force of movement in the body. Also, a harmony is an disposition of various parts. But where can we find parts in the intellect? You can't maintain that the soul is "mixed" together with the elements of the body either, as the consequence of this would be to say that there would be a mixture of souls, differing in every part of the body. Lastly, an material action cannot be the cause of an immaterial result. Matter only leads to matter."

 

Quote:

 


Evolution by natural selection directly contradicts this. It provides a mechanism for matter to produce increasingly complex information by entirely physical means, and knowledge is just information. If you want anyone to believe your random counter-intuitive claims like "One cannot get something that was not in the premises", you're going to have to show that evolutionary theory is wrong, and I don't think you can do that. It doesn't help to just recite ancient thinking as if knowledge hasn't progressed any further.

It has nothing to do with evolution. Matter acts only on matter. Matter might contain information but matter is not identical with it. The only reason evolution can progress is because there was information in the first place. What was not there somehow in the first place cannot be produced.

Quote:
 

As for 'universals' as you call them, you still havn't provided a reason that a complex brain could not evolve the capacity to derive general classes from specific instances of them. I can't see any limitation that would apply.

Because classes and universals are immaterial. Universals cannot exist in matter at all. There is no "horseness" that runs around; there are only horses. 

Quote:
 

 


Most physical things don't think. The brain, however, is different. It is a highly complex organ, which allows it to exhibit very complex behavior.

Complex behavior does not include thinking. Thinking is an action inherently beyond matter.

Quote:
 


I think you need to learn how a computer operates. Digital counters use stateful componants called flip-flops to store information, not some quantity of electrical signals. It's true that the storage may be different from a brain, but that's missing the point. I don't see a significant differance between how a digital circuit "knows" a number and how a brain does. The most significant difference is in how they came to exists, one coming about naturally by evolution, the other by design, but the function is basically the same. It is true that the brain is able to do more with the stored information, but you can put the digital counter into a computer to give it substantially more application.

Yes, flip flops are what is stored in a computer. My point exactly. The computer does not grasp universals. It merely processes the signals given. The computer doesn't know what the number means, nor has it the capacity to do so. No universal can exist in the computer itself; it can exist only in relation to a mind - namely, ours.

Quote:
 

 

StMichael wrote:
It is a fundamental error on your part to attribute universal knowledge to something that is basically nothing more than a complex rock.

All knowledge is fundamentally the same thing, there's no such thing as 'universal' knowledge. And all knowledge can be stored in a variety of ways.

Knowledge has many different forms. I can know, in a certain sense, that Fido the dog exists. I can know what it is to be a dog. I can know that it will rain tomorrow. These are all differing forms of knowledge. Information is not the same as knowing. Knowing involves grasping and possession of the information as one's own. Information cannot be "grasped" in an intelligent manner by a computer.

 

Quote:


I've never heard of anything being destroyed or damaged by intelligibility. Things can be destroyed by light, or heat, but not from intelligibility. It just makes no sense.

Exactly. Which is why the brain is not a material organ. Its object of knowing is immaterial and its nature in itself is immaterial.

Quote:
 


The very reason that there are different organs is that they are differentiated, and they do not work in the same way. If there were no differentiation between organs, we would probably be blobs of cells, slithering around. Different organs have different functions, and the brain has a special function as the center of thought. However, that does not mean that it doesn't work on the same physical principles that the rest of the universe uses.

Every material organ works the same way, according to the "physical principles that the rest of the universe uses." If the brain were a material organ, it would be overwhelmed by its proper object of knowing in the same way any material organ is overwhelmed or its action impeded by an incredibly sensible object. But this is not the case. Our knowing power is increased by intelligibility in things, not decreased. Thus, the mind is not dependent on matter to exist.

 

Quote:

 


The brain learns to understand new things by examination because it is highly adaptive and capable of learning. But it doesn't know "all physical bodies" as you put it. It only knows the things it has encountered.

It has the potential to know, without limit, any body that it can encounter. Hence, it does not exist as dependent upon the material organs of the body.

 

Quote:


I know that it is possible to run a program on paper because I have done it before. I'm afraid you do not know what a program is. It is a set of information, specifically a set of data, and a set of instructions for operating on it. Paper can hold both of these things, and then all you have to do is follow the instructions and keep track of the set of data used during the computation.

Computers are Turing Machines (with a limitation on the amount of storage available), which means that the programs run on computers can be run on any Turing Machine possessing sufficient memory. Many things can be used as Turing Machines, including a peice of paper, a pencil, and someone willing to spend the time at it.

As for running a program in Jello, it would be equally possible as long as you could find a way to use the Jello to store the necessary amount of information, and a way to read and write it.

OK, then we are moving beyond a computer program. In which case a program is an set of instructions. The program itself has parts only in its division as instructions. The instructions have no bearing, however, on "parts" of the concept of the program. No parts exist in something immaterial itself. For example, there are no parts by which the idea of dogness could seperate and cease to exist. Dogness is dogness, without parts. The idea of a program does not cease to exist in the mind when we consider it under different aspects. Immaterial things have no parts, understanding what it is to be incorporeal.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
There is so much wrong with

There is so much wrong with StMMichael's worldview about ontology, metaphysics, and information theory.

But rather than take it apart piece-by-piece, I'll highlight something that really got my sides stitched.

StMichael wrote:

The mind uses the brain to know, but its power to know is not the same as the brain.

...

...Matter acts only on matter. Matter might contain information but matter is not identical with it. The only reason evolution can progress is because there was information in the first place. What was not there somehow in the first place cannot be produced.

...

Because classes and universals are immaterial. Universals cannot exist in matter at all. There is no "horseness" that runs around; there are only horses.

.

I'll say, to start, that I don't agree with this Platonism here. I think that information exists in the world before we get to it, but I don't think that things like universals or generalizations as we think about them in the linguistic sense exist.  We construst these linguistic ideas as we interpret/perceive the world.

But my beef is with the quotes above.  If matter only acts on matter and universals are immaterial...do i even need to finish? How is the bridge gapped? How does the material interact with the immaterial?  Can the immaterial influence the material, but not the other way around?

I think I understand the point; taht as we take in information from the world, we can then pull in the forms and say that "hey, these group of things over here are all horses, because they are liek this universal over here that I have in my soul.

It seems so much more parsimonious that as we experience the world we start to notice patterns and start classifying the world according to things with similar appearance, behavior, etc.  Our brains are pattern-recognizing machines, and we thus create and utilize generalizations in order to be able to think about and talk about the world easier.  This ability of the brain has obvious relationship to evolution, as the ability to recognize categories of beings--predators, food, etc--would have been highly adaptive. 

I'll finish by saying that my MA thesis is on just this topic, so I do like to talk about it.  The title was something liek the following;

Metaphysicalization of the World: The problem of ontological dualism and the Solution of Pluralistic Intersubjective Monism

Basically, I'm a physicalist.  I don't think there is any need to postulate a soul or spirit to explain anything.  In fact, proposing it only creates metaphysical problems. 

I'll stop for now. 

Shaun 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'll say, to start,

Quote:

I'll say, to start, that I don't agree with this Platonism here.

Well, I'm not a Platonist, so wrong guess.

Quote:

I think that information exists in the world before we get to it, but I don't think that things like universals or generalizations as we think about them in the linguistic sense exist.  We construst these linguistic ideas as we interpret/perceive the world.

OK, then your statements are mere constructions which have no real meaning. Ergo: your own statement is meaningless and I have no reason to listen to it.

Quote:
 

But my beef is with the quotes above.  If matter only acts on matter and universals are immaterial...do i even need to finish? How is the bridge gapped? How does the material interact with the immaterial?  Can the immaterial influence the material, but not the other way around?

Universals exist "in" physical things. That is how we can know them. We know the forms of physical things and our minds abstract an universal from the individual.  

Quote:
 

I think I understand the point; taht as we take in information from the world, we can then pull in the forms and say that "hey, these group of things over here are all horses, because they are liek this universal over here that I have in my soul.

Not exactly. That would be Platonic. The forms of things actually exist in the real world, but they are not identical with the mere matter of a thing. This would be Aristotle.

Quote:
 

It seems so much more parsimonious that as we experience the world we start to notice patterns and start classifying the world according to things with similar appearance, behavior, etc.

Party right. But our brains find the patterns and recognize them precisely because the patterns themselves EXIST.

Quote:

Basically, I'm a physicalist.  I don't think there is any need to postulate a soul or spirit to explain anything.  In fact, proposing it only creates metaphysical problems.

Proposing forms of things and the reality of ideas in their relationship to the world is the only way to account for true knowledge. Otherwise, your phrase itself has no meaning and I have no reason to listen to you.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

I'll say, to start, that I don't agree with this Platonism here.

Well, I'm not a Platonist, so wrong guess.

I wasn't guessing. I know you are an Aristotelian. I get amused by people who prefer one to the other and get annoyed when you call them the alternate. To me it makes little practical difference today as neither are philosophically relevant. Yes, I enjoy their writings and appreciate the influence they have had on history, but we've moved on.

Quote:
I wrote:

I think that information exists in the world before we get to it, but I don't think that things like universals or generalizations as we think about them in the linguistic sense exist. We construst these linguistic ideas as we interpret/perceive the world.

OK, then your statements are mere constructions which have no real meaning. Ergo: your own statement is meaningless and I have no reason to listen to it.

The fallacy here is implying that menaing only exists when oulled from universals. This is an obsolete semiological position that would not get much hearing in today's philosophical circles. Have you ever read Wittgenstein, for example? Language is a constructed process that creates meaning. A word means something because we use signs to point to them, not because the meaning is intrinsic to the object. I know this isn't what you said, because the following is what you said;

Quote:

Universals exist "in" physical things. That is how we can know them. We know the forms of physical things and our minds abstract an universal from the individual.

No. This is rediculous. You are projecting the meaning onto the referent. The referent is an independent object that has no meaning or significance in itself (this is one of the many things Nietzsche was ranting about). The fact that we interact with the object means taht it has a function, a use, etc. Thus, we come up with something to refer to it as, usually stemming from how it is constructed, what it is used for, how it relates to things around it, etc. The meaning exists in a process of neurons firing in a certain way that is a thought, and whenever that object is present, talked about, thought of, those same neurons fire (as well as associated pathways), and we think about it. Because you think the thought--the meaning--while either picturing it or seeing it (or whatever), you project the qualia of meaning onto the image. This is a projection.

As for abstract concepts, you are simply projecting it's independent existence altogether, and it exists as a thought, which has ramifications for how it affects behavior thus causes actual affects, but it does not exist in itself. Things liek "freedom," which are abstract concepts that describe how real things inter-relate and behave--don't have independent existence. When you think about the relationship, you are projecting the concept onto the world.

So yes, in a sense we see universals in things, but only because we put them there to see. The information is there, ready to be prehended, we just need to construct the meaning. The meaning you refer to, this absolute or form-like meaning, does not actually exist. Ina sense, it's the arch-concept. The concept of a concept.

This recursive concept was part of what made Plato and his famous student so popular; they were able to articulate the concept of concepts. They just erred in thinking they were real. You have not caught up with intellectual progress to realize the same error. Don't feel bad, it took many people centuries to come around.

Quote:

Not exactly. That would be Platonic. The forms of things actually exist in the real world, but they are not identical with the mere matter of a thing. This would be Aristotle.

I know. But Aristotle is soooo 2400 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I think he was a brilliant thinker. He changed the intellectual landscape and gave the world a lot. It's just that his methods have been improved on, his data was incomplete, and thus his conclusions were often, well, incorrect. I still respect him, because I judge an artist while keeping in mind the material he had to work with. Aristotle did a lot with what he had, but we have a lot more now.

Quote:

Party right. But our brains find the patterns and recognize them precisely because the patterns themselves EXIST.

Yes, they indeed do exist. But this says nothing about the need of a soul, immaterial universals, or god for it to be explained how we have knowledge about them. Our physical brains and perceptive gear are plenty sufficient for that.

Quote:


Proposing forms of things and the reality of ideas in their relationship to the world is the only way to account for true knowledge. Otherwise, your phrase itself has no meaning and I have no reason to listen to you.

OK, then don't listen to me. I realize you are trying to make a cute point, but it falls flat. My phrase does have meaning. How do I know? because despite your smirkish comment, you responded to it in a way that at least shows you understood what I meant.

There are forms to things, it's just that they aren't anything more than the physical shape, size, color, smell, taste, sound, and other material factors in their form. Nothing soul-like, supernatural, etc is needed to explain this.

Yours in a physical body, limited and finite wisdom (and ok with that).

edit

As an addition, I just want to say that your term "true knowledge" is a symptom of the same problem.  You assume that you have knowledge that is true because you interpret the meaning of things coming from the world, not yourself.  This is another form of your question-begging.  

We cannot have certainty with knowledge, we can only have probability based on supporting evidence, argumentation, and experience.  Your standard for knowledge above is impossible, which forces you conclude that without it there is nhilism.  This is simply a false dichotomy. 

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The fallacy here is

Quote:

The fallacy here is implying that menaing only exists when oulled from universals. This is an obsolete semiological position that would not get much hearing in today's philosophical circles. Have you ever read Wittgenstein, for example? Language is a constructed process that creates meaning. A word means something because we use signs to point to them, not because the meaning is intrinsic to the object.

What do we point to if there is nothing to which we refer in the object? I think Wittgenstein is wrong, frankly, but that has nothing to do with my argument directly. I think it is clear that meaning cannot exist without truth in universals. If there is no correspondence between ideas and reality, if the sign cannot really point to something real in the world, then all language is merely chatter and sophistry without any meaning or truth at all. Which is absurd and contrary to fact.

Quote:
 

 


No. This is rediculous. You are projecting the meaning onto the referent. The referent is an independent object that has no meaning or significance in itself (this is one of the many things Nietzsche was ranting about). The fact that we interact with the object means taht it has a function, a use, etc. Thus, we come up with something to refer to it as, usually stemming from how it is constructed, what it is used for, how it relates to things around it, etc.

The meaning exists in relation to a mind, but the meaning must exist in reality if the concept is to have any meaning at all. And if you deny that truth exists, well, good luck in philosophical oblivion.

 

Quote:

The meaning exists in a process of neurons firing in a certain way that is a thought, and whenever that object is present, talked about, thought of, those same neurons fire (as well as associated pathways), and we think about it. Because you think the thought--the meaning--while either picturing it or seeing it (or whatever), you project the qualia of meaning onto the image. This is a projection.

No projection at all. My idea of what a dog is does not arise purely from random interactions in my mind. I know what a dog is based on what dogs are like in reality. Otherwise, my words have no meaning and no truth can exist in propositions. Which is absurd and contrary to fact.

Quote:
 

As for abstract concepts, you are simply projecting it's independent existence altogether, and it exists as a thought, which has ramifications for how it affects behavior thus causes actual affects, but it does not exist in itself. Things liek "freedom," which are abstract concepts that describe how real things inter-relate and behave--don't have independent existence. When you think about the relationship, you are projecting the concept onto the world.

I never claimed an idea existed apart from real things or from the mind. But that does not deny that ideas are true and exist. They merely exist in things and in the mind.

 

Quote:

So yes, in a sense we see universals in things, but only because we put them there to see. The information is there, ready to be prehended, we just need to construct the meaning. The meaning you refer to, this absolute or form-like meaning, does not actually exist. Ina sense, it's the arch-concept. The concept of a concept.

Your concept of a concept of a concept has no referent in reality and is hence meaningless as a bunch of sounds that are coming out of your mouth (or, in this case, you randomly pressing buttons according to whichever way the wind blows). So, I do not need to listen to you. (which, incidentally, in a confused way Sartre and Derrida basically said)

 

Quote:

This recursive concept was part of what made Plato and his famous student so popular; they were able to articulate the concept of concepts. They just erred in thinking they were real. You have not caught up with intellectual progress to realize the same error. Don't feel bad, it took many people centuries to come around.

No, they erred in concieving of them as seperate. But concepts are just as real as things in the world. If they are not, your own statements that they are not are meaningless as well. Again, have fun in philosophical oblivion.

 

Quote:
 

 

I know. But Aristotle is soooo 2400 years ago.

And Wittgenstein is about 100. And the Sun is quite a bit more. Your point? I do not deny errors to Aristotle, but I think he had most things right. It is a perk of philosophy that someone can be right a thousand years ago and is still right today. Just like mathematics. Euclid is no less right than Aristotle.

Quote:
 

 

Don't get me wrong, I think he was a brilliant thinker. He changed the intellectual landscape and gave the world a lot. It's just that his methods have been improved on, his data was incomplete, and thus his conclusions were often, well, incorrect. I still respect him, because I judge an artist while keeping in mind the material he had to work with. Aristotle did a lot with what he had, but we have a lot more now.

And I think we can improve on him. I never said he was inerrant, just mostly and fundamentally right.

Quote:

 


Yes, they indeed do exist. But this says nothing about the need of a soul, immaterial universals, or god for it to be explained how we have knowledge about them. Our physical brains and perceptive gear are plenty sufficient for that.

Patterns are universals. Patterns cannot be known as patterns through matter. A pattern is not identical with matter. It is in matter, but not the same as the matter. Show me the number two. Not two stones, but two itself. This is impossible because it is, in a manner, a pattern, a universal. It is immaterial by nature. Immaterials exist in immaterial modes of knowing.

Quote:
 

 

OK, then don't listen to me. I realize you are trying to make a cute point, but it falls flat. My phrase does have meaning. How do I know? because despite your smirkish comment, you responded to it in a way that at least shows you understood what I meant.

But that does not prove your phrase that meaning doesn't exist is true. It merely proves that your point is wrong by obvious evidence that words do have meaning. Which is why I am able to reply to your comments, erroneous though they may be.

Quote:
 

There are forms to things, it's just that they aren't anything more than the physical shape, size, color, smell, taste, sound, and other material factors in their form. Nothing soul-like, supernatural, etc is needed to explain this.

It is. No getting around it. You can't know pure matter. It is unknowable without a form.  


Quote:

As an addition, I just want to say that your term "true knowledge" is a symptom of the same problem.  You assume that you have knowledge that is true because you interpret the meaning of things coming from the world, not yourself.  This is another form of your question-begging.  

If it does not, we cannot have a conversation, philosophy cannot exist, and you cannot prove the truth of your own proposition. Have fun!

Quote:
 

We cannot have certainty with knowledge, we can only have probability based on supporting evidence, argumentation, and experience.  Your standard for knowledge above is impossible, which forces you conclude that without it there is nhilism.  This is simply a false dichotomy. 

It does not lead to nihilism at all. We can have truly certain knowledge as well as probable knowledge. No reason at all offered as to why that leads to your conclusion. In fact, it is historically your position that lead to nihilism and existentialism, not mine.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael, I find myself

StMichael, I find myself very much agreeing with ShaunPhilly here. I don't see how we are going to make much progress here unless we address these issues.

You seem to be arguing in terms which hark back to medieval times, or even further, to the times of Aristotle and Plato. Our knowledge and insights into Science and Philosophy has advanced so much since those times, that many of the concepts and categories are quite irrelevant to modern understanding of the universe, of life, and especially of the mind and consciousness.

Many of the concepts and assumptions behind your arguments are totally incompatible with modern science and philosophy. Even when we can map them in some way to modern thinking, they are typically flat out wrong.

If you can't express your ideas entirely in modern language, the sort of language myself, ShaunPhilly, zarathustra, etc, have been using, you need to seriously consider whether thinking in terms of those out-of-date concepts has lead you into serious error....



 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
In the interests of moving

In the interests of moving the discussion along, StMichael, lets agree that you have made it tediously and overwhelming clear that you have no damn coherent idea of what the hell lies behind the Big Bang origin of matter/energy in the Universe, any more that anyone else has.

Further you have no way of 'proving' it is has anything remotely corresponding to 'intelligence', but of course you try to conceal both these simple truths about your deep ultimate ignorance of these matters behind an incomprehensible fog of archaic language.

Setting that aside for the moment, can we move on to your reasons for identifying this assumed but incomprehensible abstract principle underlying 'existence', that you happen to label 'God', with the tribal God of the Israelites?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Our knowledge and

Quote:

Our knowledge and insights into Science and Philosophy has advanced so much since those times, that many of the concepts and categories are quite irrelevant to modern understanding of the universe, of life, and especially of the mind and consciousness.

 

Most philosophers would not agree with you. I would disagree that we have made many significant strides in philosophy. Most of modern and contemporary philosophy is merely a rehashing of old philosophy that was around in ancient Greece, with new words.

  

Quote:

Many of the concepts and assumptions behind your arguments are totally incompatible with modern science and philosophy. Even when we can map them in some way to modern thinking, they are typically flat out wrong. If you can't express your ideas entirely in modern language, the sort of language myself, ShaunPhilly, zarathustra, etc, have been using, you need to seriously consider whether thinking in terms of those out-of-date concepts has lead you into serious error....

We have not yet pointed out a single concept that I use that is totally and utterly inapplicable to reality. You just de facto assume this to be the case. A proof from Euclid is still valid today, regardless of the centuries that pass. The same way a logical syllogism by Aristotle is just as valid today as it was then. An argument's age proves nothing of necessity about the truth of the argument.

 

Quote:

In the interests of moving the discussion along, StMichael, lets agree that you have made it tediously and overwhelming clear that you have no damn coherent idea of what the hell lies behind the Big Bang origin of matter/energy in the Universe, any more that anyone else has.

I never claimed to understand what caused the Big Bang. But the ultimate cause of all things' existence (not even in order of time, but just logical priority) must be God, according to the logical necessity that all things in motion must have movers. 

 

Quote:

Further you have no way of 'proving' it is has anything remotely corresponding to 'intelligence', but of course you try to conceal both these simple truths about your deep ultimate ignorance of these matters behind an incomprehensible fog of archaic language.

We haven't even gotten to the point of proving that. We haven't moved past stage one. It would be utterly premature to prove the intelligence of God and His various attributes if we haven't even decided whether or not the initial proof of His existence is valid. If we agree that it is, we can move on. If not, we will focus our attention on the current matter.

Quote:
 

Setting that aside for the moment, can we move on to your reasons for identifying this assumed but incomprehensible abstract principle underlying 'existence', that you happen to label 'God', with the tribal God of the Israelites?

Yes. But that is also a different matter. Before we move on, however, it would suffice to say that "I am who am" is a substantial correspondence to the God we know exists by philosophy. 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.