calvinist wrote:the idea of a universe without a thinking creator is an imaginary idea, it exists, but only in the minds of some... not apart from them.
you sure you didn't mean to write 'with' ?
calvinist wrote:the idea of a universe without a thinking creator is an imaginary idea, it exists, but only in the minds of some... not apart from them.
calvinist wrote:Twpsyn wrote:calvinist wrote:the idea of a universe without a thinking creator is an imaginary idea, it exists, but only in the minds of some... not apart from them.
And what shall I, whose mind contains such an idea, say to this? 'Oh, I see now! I'll just start believing in God, because you say his non-existence is imaginary!'
yes that works!
Twpsyn wrote:
No, it doesn't. What if I say to you, in return, 'the idea of a universe with a thinking creator is an imaginary idea..., etc.'? You can make no better response to that than I can to your version, because in the end each of us can only answer for the perceptions and emotions of our own mind, and anything we say about the outside world is filtered through those perceptions and emotions.
so why are you even arguing with anyone outside of yourself then? those rules don't apply outside of yourself, right? you are making a definite statement that applies to everyone that says in essence "no one can make any definite statement about anything outside of themselves" you're chasing your tail.Twpsyn wrote:
You can make no better response to that than I can to your version, because in the end each of us can only answer for the perceptions and emotions of our own mind
calvinist wrote:Anyway, the proof of God is in the absurdity of reality without Him... you cannot explain ideas such as beauty, love, honor, etc. without a creator. They become just arbitrarily created abstractions of a mind which is in essence only a complex computer....... meaningless. Your "love" for your wife and kids is reduced to a necessary primitive impulse to pass on your genes, of course we won't call it that, but why not? That is what it is essentially, unless there is a creator... it's really that simple. What is electromagnetism? Gravity? why do those forces act that way... "well they just do!" yes but why are there even "laws" in nature at all.. why is anything stable? someone explain why the "laws" of nature are stable other than because a sovereign God is constantly upholding and maintaining them everyday. here's one that is very fitting on this site: how did the complex languages of the world come out of nothing? how did chimps with the most rudimentary forms of communication turn that into languages with thousands of words, different parts of speech, past present future tenses, etc. the atheist world view just fails to explain anything, whether scientific, moral, philosophical, linguistic... anything.
calvinist wrote:Anyway, the proof of God is in the absurdity of reality without Him...
calvinist wrote:you cannot explain ideas such as beauty, love, honor, etc. without a creator.
calvinist wrote:They become just arbitrarily created abstractions of a mind which is in essence only a complex computer....... meaningless. Your "love" for your wife and kids is reduced to a necessary primitive impulse to pass on your genes, of course we won't call it that, but why not? That is what it is essentially, unless there is a creator... it's really that simple.
calvinist wrote:What is electromagnetism? Gravity? why do those forces act that way... "well they just do!" yes but why are there even "laws" in nature at all.. why is anything stable? someone explain why the "laws" of nature are stable other than because a sovereign God is constantly upholding and maintaining them everyday.
calvinist wrote:how did chimps with the most rudimentary forms of communication turn that into languages with thousands of words, different parts of speech, past present future tenses, etc.
calvinist wrote:the atheist world view just fails to explain anything, whether scientific, moral, philosophical, linguistic... anything.
Lex wrote:
After all, Obama may be propelled into the White House by outrage over a financial crisis that was largely made by his party. If that's not absurd, I don't know what is.
Lex wrote:
Whether love is created by God or by an evolutionary strategy to protect your offspring, it still feels the same. That's what's important, not where it came from. I think your argument is some sort of genetic fallacy.
Lex wrote:Ummm, chimps didn't do that. We did. We co-evolved with apes, but we are not apes.
calvinist wrote:yes it does matter, because then love really becomes a complex survival skill, will you admit that?
calvinist wrote:are we distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom?
calvinist wrote:or are we of no more value or worth than a dog, cat, or ape?
calvinist wrote:so how did everything come to exist.... or did it always exist?
calvinist wrote:i'd like an answer that makes sense and not just adds complexity to the problem which is what all science does. science just adds more layers to every problem but they fail to answer the most fundamental question.... why? why any of it? why are there laws? why are they the way they are?
calvinist wrote:why? why any of it? why are there laws? why are they the way they are?
Twpsyn wrote:Science offers an alternative to waving our hand and saying, 'God!' whenever we encounter something we don't understand. That seems a lot more honest, to me, than a model of the universe that unequivocably and rigidly attributes every unexplained phenomenon to a higher power.
Amadeus wrote:This is my final comment in this thread, which is turning ugly very quickly.
Amadeus wrote:It's not as if once science has determined that rain is the immediate effect of condensation in the atmosphere that God is suddenly out of the picture. God is still the ultimate cause of rain, and apples falling from trees, and black holes, and the nuclear force, etc. Science (and by science I mean one specific branch, namely, empirical science)
Amadeus wrote:can only go so far in explaining the immediate physical causes, but it cannot tell us of the ultimate cause of being, a concept which forever will be out of its reach, since it is not physical.
Twpsyn wrote:On the other hand, science by definition has to accept uncertainty, or in other words, accept the fact that it may not have the answers to all the questions yet.
mingshey wrote:What science cannot answer cannot be answered for any certainty.
mingshey wrote:I think that many people are afraid of the abyss of ignorance. They want to give it some level of certainty.
Lex wrote:Why do you say that? Because we are debating religion? I don't think that is ugly, just honest disagreement.
Is there a non-empirical branch of science?![]()
Amadeus wrote:Ok, one last comment.
Amadeus wrote:Is there a non-empirical branch of science?![]()
Yes. Mathematics is one. Metaphysics & Logic are also non-empirical. The tendency nowadays is to restrict science to empirical science, but that is not right.
Lex wrote:After all, Obama may be propelled into the White House by outrage over a financial crisis that was largely made by his party. If that's not absurd, I don't know what is.
PeterD wrote:Lex wrote:After all, Obama may be propelled into the White House by outrage over a financial crisis that was largely made by his party. If that's not absurd, I don't know what is.
Quite true. It was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (which separated commercial banking from investment banking) by the corrupt Clinton administration in 1999. In fairness, though, the Republicans, with Senator Phill Gramm leading the charge, supported it.
Lex wrote:mingshey wrote:What science cannot answer cannot be answered for any certainty.
I don't think that science even gives certainty. I believe, with Popper, that all science can do is come up with falsifiable theories that haven't been falsified yet.
mingshey wrote:Lex wrote:I don't think that science even gives certainty. I believe, with Popper, that all science can do is come up with falsifiable theories that haven't been falsified yet.
[edit]
Yes and no. Philosophically that's no certainty at all (And philosophy itself doesn't get people anywhere). But practically that's the maximum certainty human can get.
Lex wrote:Science works based on methodological naturalism. That is, scientists take for granted that there are natural explanations for phenomena, and try to find them. Whether or not this assumption is valid is the bailiwick of philosophy, not science itself.
Lex wrote:I prefer to simply live with the fact that there are questions with no answers, rather than assume that there is a Big Brother up in the sky that can make all my doubts go away.
Lex wrote:I don't believe that just because love can be explained by evolutionary psychology means that love then "becomes [just] a complex survival skill". It is still love, no matter what caused it.
Lex wrote:I agree, with respect to facts. Science gets us as good as we can get, with respect to facts. With respect to deriving ethical norms, though, science is impotent. Philosophy has done better (although maybe not recently).
bluetech wrote:I'm a solipsist, and it's the best thing ever! I don't know why more people don't take that up.
And as for the "mind is a computer" (that is a Turing machine) possibility that some of you seem to worry about - look for the Chinese Room Argument. It convinced me, at least. Not that the alternatives are much better.
mingshey wrote:bluetech wrote:I'm a solipsist, and it's the best thing ever! I don't know why more people don't take that up.
And as for the "mind is a computer" (that is a Turing machine) possibility that some of you seem to worry about - look for the Chinese Room Argument. It convinced me, at least. Not that the alternatives are much better.
Why would a solipsist bother about other people?
mingshey wrote:I doubt philosophy's role in making the ethical standards.
Lex wrote:mingshey wrote:I doubt philosophy's role in making the ethical standards.
In reality, you may be right that philosophy serves mainly a function of apologetics. But at least theoretically, it can have something to say about ethics. Science, as far as I can tell, cannot.
calvinist wrote:Lex wrote:Science works based on methodological naturalism. That is, scientists take for granted that there are natural explanations for phenomena, and try to find them. Whether or not this assumption is valid is the bailiwick of philosophy, not science itself.
Agreed, my point is that there is no reason to make this assumption in the first place.
calvinist wrote:I'm saying that we all assume the stability and existence of natural laws because we all know deep inside that there is a personal being who has created and controls the universe.
calvinist wrote:Lex wrote:I prefer to simply live with the fact that there are questions with no answers, rather than assume that there is a Big Brother up in the sky that can make all my doubts go away.
... God doesn't answer everything, in fact in today's world we have lots of unanswered questions even with God. Also, God is not antithetical to science.
calvinist wrote:In fact the existence of a God creating and maintaining physical laws creates the possibility of science in the first place.
calvinist wrote:Lex wrote:I don't believe that just because love can be explained by evolutionary psychology means that love then "becomes [just] a complex survival skill". It is still love, no matter what caused it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that these emotions then become individual, not universal... and if universal, only by accident. Love is not then a universal thing... it doesn't exist outside of our minds. To me these emotions are much bigger, they are universal.... similar to the Forms of Plato.
Lex wrote:I can assure you from years of personal introspection (possibly more than you've been alive!) that not all of us "know deep inside that there is a personal being who has created and controls the universe", and I'd appreciate it if you'd not put words in my mouth, or beliefs anywhere else "deep inside" my person, thank you very much. I know what I believe much better than you do. I believe no such thing.
annis wrote:Lex wrote:I can assure you from years of personal introspection (possibly more than you've been alive!) that not all of us "know deep inside that there is a personal being who has created and controls the universe", and I'd appreciate it if you'd not put words in my mouth, or beliefs anywhere else "deep inside" my person, thank you very much. I know what I believe much better than you do. I believe no such thing.
Hear, hear!
Lex wrote:I'd appreciate it if you'd not put words in my mouth, or beliefs anywhere else "deep inside" my person, thank you very much. I know what I believe much better than you do.
Lex wrote:mingshey wrote:... What I deny is that the philosophy and religion has something verifiable....
Or even falsifiable....
calvinist wrote:Well I believe we can deceive ourselves about what we do and do not know, and this is exactly what the Bible says about fallen man. It's why the terms "blind" and "dead" are used very often. Yes, you can disagree with that notion, but you have to admit that it is not impossible for people to deceive themselves about what they know to be true about reality, especially when admitting to the truth has such enormous consequences for everything.
I'm not saying I know this of my own, I'm saying that this is what God says... and you must admit that if the God of the Bible does exist, he would know that. In your worldview I couldn't know such a thing, true. I don't share your worldview though, and in mine I can know such a thing because God knows and can reveal that information and has through the written word. You can deny my worldview and say that you know for absolute certainty that my worldview is wrong, but you can't deny that it is consistent with my worldview to be able to know anything if the God of everything chooses to reveal it. Anyway, let's not forget we're all in the same boat. All of us are passionate about what we believe and feel it can help others to explain it to them. Let's not get too personal about it. I respect that you're intelligent and have positions that are thought through. If my worldview is offensive to you, well I can't apologize for it, it's not the intention.
IreneY wrote:That because in your worldview there is a God who is the creator I must therefore not know my own self well enough to really know the result of a lot of thinking, reading, debating with others and myself and quite a lot introspection?
I hope I didn't get it right.
calvinist wrote:but you haven't given any arguments against the possibility of a person deceiving themselves about what they know to such an extent that they think they do not know it.
, well, in fact, I do believe that, given enough time and nothing better to do I could and I am not an exception. Anyone who, when asked what he/she thinks about A can reply to that question, knows what he/she thinks about that issue. True, I would have to fill the paper with asteriscs after countless variations on the theme of "Sugar! I forgot to write what I believe about the use of discposable paper bags vs. plastic bags in that section about environment" but tmy ideas on the matter are not hidden since I do have perfect access to them.i guarantee you couldn't write down every piece of information or belief you currently hold in your mind, not because of the time it would take, but because it would be difficult for your mind to recall certain things hidden away.
annis wrote:The question is whether or not you have some special access to other people's thoughts and motivations. You do not. No person does, even if you imagine your god does.
IreneY wrote:I found the logic of this argument faulty, verging on circular.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests