Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Flipper
New member
Charisma:
You put together a spirited and nicely worded defense of the biblical description of creation and of God as being scientifically accurate.
I don't know, these references seem pretty tenuous to me compared to the complexity of the events that you suggest they describe.
Your point regarding the invisibility of a hypothetical extra-dimensional or higher dimensional being is probably wrong. A 3D creature could be visible in a 2D universe, but only in cross section - perhaps you've read Flatland?
And although it is next to impossible to visualize a 4D object as a physical one, we can visualize what that object would look like "unrolled" in the same way that we can break a cube down to its 2D flat components (in the same way that boxes flat pack). So, if we can indulge in some utterly silly handwaving, it might be possible to see an interdimensional hell beast, just not in its entirety.
Musing aside, your analogizing of biblical description with scientific theory seemed very familiar.
I remember where I saw it - the Koran and Science web page!
http://members.aol.com/silence004/koran.html
and
And
So we have symmetry, the big bang, *and* string theory all allegorically described in the Koran. Sure, the descriptions are pretty vague and you'd really have to be reaching to shoehorn them into science, but they're still closer to scientific theory than your quotes. They still miss the mark by light-years, but you have to admit that while you're stuck with "hanging the stars", the muslims have "weavings".
So I guess that the Koran must be the more correct, because it can be shoehorned more accurately into more current scientific theories and hypotheses than the bible can be.
In fact, the author of Koran, Islam and Science tags you Christian chaps as anti-science:
Ghastly though it is, there are no vapor canopies or fleet-footed sloths to be found here. I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies.
You put together a spirited and nicely worded defense of the biblical description of creation and of God as being scientifically accurate.
I don't know, these references seem pretty tenuous to me compared to the complexity of the events that you suggest they describe.
Your point regarding the invisibility of a hypothetical extra-dimensional or higher dimensional being is probably wrong. A 3D creature could be visible in a 2D universe, but only in cross section - perhaps you've read Flatland?
And although it is next to impossible to visualize a 4D object as a physical one, we can visualize what that object would look like "unrolled" in the same way that we can break a cube down to its 2D flat components (in the same way that boxes flat pack). So, if we can indulge in some utterly silly handwaving, it might be possible to see an interdimensional hell beast, just not in its entirety.
Musing aside, your analogizing of biblical description with scientific theory seemed very familiar.
I remember where I saw it - the Koran and Science web page!
http://members.aol.com/silence004/koran.html
and
And
So we have symmetry, the big bang, *and* string theory all allegorically described in the Koran. Sure, the descriptions are pretty vague and you'd really have to be reaching to shoehorn them into science, but they're still closer to scientific theory than your quotes. They still miss the mark by light-years, but you have to admit that while you're stuck with "hanging the stars", the muslims have "weavings".
So I guess that the Koran must be the more correct, because it can be shoehorned more accurately into more current scientific theories and hypotheses than the bible can be.
In fact, the author of Koran, Islam and Science tags you Christian chaps as anti-science:
Ghastly though it is, there are no vapor canopies or fleet-footed sloths to be found here. I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies.
Last edited:
Flake, of course all humans have many common threads, but after the Creator calls you, those things don't take priority anymore. Yes, you live in the world, but you are not of the world, this means, that your life is now focused on pleasing God and doing His will and not pleasing man or doing the things you had to do to survive in the world before you calling.
You learn to completely trust and depend on the Lord for your every need. He requires this and it can only be done through the 'faith' that is a gift from Him upon enlightenment. We simply cannot enlighten ourselves to Spiritual things.
You learn to completely trust and depend on the Lord for your every need. He requires this and it can only be done through the 'faith' that is a gift from Him upon enlightenment. We simply cannot enlighten ourselves to Spiritual things.
spackle
New member
What did you expect God would do? Write a dissertation on the nature of quantum physics and then hand it off to a bunch of nomadic shepherds hanging out in mesopotamia?
You know, I have to laugh sometimes at the amount of energy we (Christians) expend trying to put scientific language to the bible. As if that was God's main point. Do you really think that God would want us to uncover Him merely with our minds and leave out our hearts?
I think that's why God won't "prove" Himself to those who don't desire to know Him, but He does reveal Himself to those who earnestly seek. He's much more poet than scientist.
Zakath,
Maybe you've already stated this, and if you have, I apologize for asking again. It's a little difficult to sort through the dross in here, but what specific evidential "proofs" for the existence of God would satisfy you? If God "appeared" to you would you trust (believe) your senses -- or might this revelation only be a bit of undigested potato?
Thanks.
Soulman
Maybe you've already stated this, and if you have, I apologize for asking again. It's a little difficult to sort through the dross in here, but what specific evidential "proofs" for the existence of God would satisfy you? If God "appeared" to you would you trust (believe) your senses -- or might this revelation only be a bit of undigested potato?
Thanks.
Soulman
Comments on "the battle"
Comments on "the battle"
Here are some comment on this debate. I am a newcomer, and interested in the kind of arguments used at either side.
Let me comment first on the issue of the supposed 'origin' of the universe. An important theist argument has been that the universe must have had a "primal cause", which thus requires a "creator".
The argument for the existence of a Deity or Creator, however, can be invalidated, which I will try to explain in this post.
Let us first put the issue on hand here, and explore it. Putting it simply, there are only two options here. Either the universe existed for all of eternity, which is to say, that time did not have a begin, and neither matter ever was created or destroyed, but only is in everlasting change and motion. The other is to assume that time did have a beginning or "primal cause", and thus a "creator" (outside of time, space and matter) must be assumed.
Theist argue from the point of view that there was a "primal cause".
This "prima; cause" is of coure the "creator" or "deity" they have in mind, which is responsible for there being a universe in the first place.
As we know and reasoned the world to be, the world exists in a causal way. Causality means that there exist causal relationships. Cause and effect however just denote a causal relationship, but any event are as well causes and effects, but in different causal relationships. For instance it rains is a cause, and me getting wet is an effect. But the raining is also an effect of atmospheric circumstances, causing the rain, in a different causal relationship. Same me getting wet is the cause for me getting ill and yet another causal relationship. Which means, any event is as well a cause as an effect.
Now the question is basically this: where (when) would this causal chain have begun? The assumption that there was a "first cause" is not making much sense, cause this very event is at the same time an effect. But effects don't exist without a cause, which thus means that the first effect must have been caused by a previous cause. And since also this previous cause is at the same time an effect, this thus means that no begin of the causal chain can be assumed.
So the assumption that causality had a begin, does not make sense, since that assumes that at the start of the causality chain we find an effect (which also and at the same time is a cause), without having a cause, which violates causality, since causality requires that all effects have causes. And for causality itself it can be argued that causality itself can not have a cause, since this cause would have to exist outside of any causal relationship, thus outside of causality.
The error in the reasoning is this. Causality tells us that everything has a cause. But when we apply this to the "whole of things" (the universe) we run into deep trouble. Since the universe defines everything that exists, there can not be any outside cause.
While it is true that for every event IN the universe we can identify a cause, for the universe AS A WHOLE, we can not find a cause.
The problem here is that "everything" can be used in two different ways. First to denote every individual thing, and secondly the whole of every individual things together. And they are not the same.
Let us use another example here. While it is true that for every integer we can add the number one, and the result is another integer, within the set of integers. But while this is true for every member of the set of integers, the same does not apply to the set of integers itself (for the simple reason that addition is not applicable to sets, but only to numbers, or members of the set of integers).
Confusing this two meanings of "everything" can cause many trouble.
For instance we can state that all members of a football team have a parent. But this does not mean that the football team itself must have a parent.
Likewise for the universe, every event we can identify in the universe, is determined by the laws of causality, but for the universe itself, as the whole of all things and all events, causality is not applicable.
Back to this theist assumption of a "primal cause", which as we have seen is a nonsensical concept, and which would neccesitate us to leave the assumption of the "beginning of time"/"primal cause" assumption, the theist way of reasoning tricks us into thinking that a "primal cause" or start of the causality chain itself, must be assumed (the logic being: everything that exists has a cause; the universe exists; hence the universe must have a cause).
Their reasoning continues as follows. Since there is a "primal cause" we are urged to consider this primal cause as "God" (a Deity or Creator of some sorts). And then they continue, that for this God, we do not need to consider any begin in time, since God exists for all of eternity.
So to put in short, they reason from the point of view that for the universe itself, a "first cause" must be assumed, thus denying the only other alternative, that of a universe without a beginning, and then at the conclusion of their argument they put at the begin of the causality chain an eternal being or deity. Which effectively contradicts their initial assumption, that the universe had a beginning (since they put an eternal existing something in front of this begin, theerby effectively removing this begin!).
Then what is this assumption worth if in the end we conclude that still we need to consider existence (wether in the form of an existing deity or an existing universe) to have had no begin? This we could have already concluded in first instance, without the need for introducing a "creator".
This kind of reasoning effectively removes any need for a creator. The world itself does not need a begin in time to exist, and can not have had a "first cause". But the theist will protest against this argument, and argue that the Deity or creator they have in mind, exists outside of space and/or time. This however immediately conflicts with the fact that they claim that the creator exists for all of eternity, since apart from time itself, no eternity can be conceived of. To exist, means to exist in space and in time, and also means that change/motion occurs, and to say that something exists outside of space or time, is nothing more as claiming that it does not exist.
The question to which this issue drops down to is of course, the issue of why at all the universe, or anything at all would need to exist. This raises the question of if it could have been possible for the world to in fact not exist at all.
A theist approach to this peculiar question is of course to say that the universe exists because God choosed to create the world. Or maybe God did not even had a choice in doing so, but nevertheless created the world.
Stating more simple, the fact that the world is existing, according to the theist view is argued from the fact that we need to assume a Deity, that created the world, for the world to exist. Which thus means: God must exist, since the world does exist. Without the existence of God, the world would not exist.
Here we arrive at a peculiar situation. The theist argument is that we could conceive of the possibility (which could have been actualized, if God did not create the world) of a non-existing world.
The logic is however very cripple. Because not only we can not assume the world to ever have been or ever will be non-existing (since it exists now, it has to have been existing for all of time, and time itself has no begin or end), we can simply argue that the option for there being a world, or not being a world, can not have ever occured, because for this option to exist, we need already to assume a world (in whatever form) to exist.
Putting it simply : a non-existing world can not be conceived of as a "possible state" of the world. All possible states of the world are worlds where at least something, in whatever form, must be existing.
Back to the issue of the battle, what does this mean for the question wether or not God exists.
All I tried to reason about is that for the world to exist, we do not need to assume that a Deity has to exist.
Does this proof a Deity does not exist? Not in the least.
We can not proof that something does not exist, if this something lacks existence.
All we can do is invalidate arguments for the existence of such a deity, and show that the world could as well be conceived without such a concept of a deity.
What can one say about something, of which there is no proof nor disproof of existence?
The theist approach in this very issue is, that they try to proof the existence of this deity, by arguing that some phenomena or events, that we assume to have occured, can not yet be rationally and fully explained by science. This approach can be argued to work always, since the only situation in which this approach would fail, is the situation in which mankind would have absolute knowledge about all of existence. But such absolute knowledge to ever be reached, is incomprehensible. Even though our knowledge of natural phenomena increases, there will not be a time in which we have absolute knowledge about everything.
But does this lack of absolute knowledge about everything, mean we therefore have to assume the existence of a deity for which their neither is proof or disproof?
The assumption of materialism and that of (most) sciences, that a material world exists, although we do not have full and absolute knowledge about what matter is, and what material forms existed throughout all of time, has shown us in the past 2000 years or so, to work well. Science was sucessfull in explaining many phenomena of nature, and based their conclusions on the assumptions of materialism. That is: they did not need to assume any deity to exist, or any supernatural to have occured.
But theist, in tyring to overrule the enormous sucesses of science, focus on all the fields in which insufficient explenation exist, and claim that since science has not yet solved those issues, we still need to assume the existence of a deity.
All what can be said about the outcome of arguments and battles like this on this particular issue, is that such an argument never can be concluded with a definite argument.
Comments on "the battle"
Here are some comment on this debate. I am a newcomer, and interested in the kind of arguments used at either side.
Let me comment first on the issue of the supposed 'origin' of the universe. An important theist argument has been that the universe must have had a "primal cause", which thus requires a "creator".
The argument for the existence of a Deity or Creator, however, can be invalidated, which I will try to explain in this post.
Let us first put the issue on hand here, and explore it. Putting it simply, there are only two options here. Either the universe existed for all of eternity, which is to say, that time did not have a begin, and neither matter ever was created or destroyed, but only is in everlasting change and motion. The other is to assume that time did have a beginning or "primal cause", and thus a "creator" (outside of time, space and matter) must be assumed.
Theist argue from the point of view that there was a "primal cause".
This "prima; cause" is of coure the "creator" or "deity" they have in mind, which is responsible for there being a universe in the first place.
As we know and reasoned the world to be, the world exists in a causal way. Causality means that there exist causal relationships. Cause and effect however just denote a causal relationship, but any event are as well causes and effects, but in different causal relationships. For instance it rains is a cause, and me getting wet is an effect. But the raining is also an effect of atmospheric circumstances, causing the rain, in a different causal relationship. Same me getting wet is the cause for me getting ill and yet another causal relationship. Which means, any event is as well a cause as an effect.
Now the question is basically this: where (when) would this causal chain have begun? The assumption that there was a "first cause" is not making much sense, cause this very event is at the same time an effect. But effects don't exist without a cause, which thus means that the first effect must have been caused by a previous cause. And since also this previous cause is at the same time an effect, this thus means that no begin of the causal chain can be assumed.
So the assumption that causality had a begin, does not make sense, since that assumes that at the start of the causality chain we find an effect (which also and at the same time is a cause), without having a cause, which violates causality, since causality requires that all effects have causes. And for causality itself it can be argued that causality itself can not have a cause, since this cause would have to exist outside of any causal relationship, thus outside of causality.
The error in the reasoning is this. Causality tells us that everything has a cause. But when we apply this to the "whole of things" (the universe) we run into deep trouble. Since the universe defines everything that exists, there can not be any outside cause.
While it is true that for every event IN the universe we can identify a cause, for the universe AS A WHOLE, we can not find a cause.
The problem here is that "everything" can be used in two different ways. First to denote every individual thing, and secondly the whole of every individual things together. And they are not the same.
Let us use another example here. While it is true that for every integer we can add the number one, and the result is another integer, within the set of integers. But while this is true for every member of the set of integers, the same does not apply to the set of integers itself (for the simple reason that addition is not applicable to sets, but only to numbers, or members of the set of integers).
Confusing this two meanings of "everything" can cause many trouble.
For instance we can state that all members of a football team have a parent. But this does not mean that the football team itself must have a parent.
Likewise for the universe, every event we can identify in the universe, is determined by the laws of causality, but for the universe itself, as the whole of all things and all events, causality is not applicable.
Back to this theist assumption of a "primal cause", which as we have seen is a nonsensical concept, and which would neccesitate us to leave the assumption of the "beginning of time"/"primal cause" assumption, the theist way of reasoning tricks us into thinking that a "primal cause" or start of the causality chain itself, must be assumed (the logic being: everything that exists has a cause; the universe exists; hence the universe must have a cause).
Their reasoning continues as follows. Since there is a "primal cause" we are urged to consider this primal cause as "God" (a Deity or Creator of some sorts). And then they continue, that for this God, we do not need to consider any begin in time, since God exists for all of eternity.
So to put in short, they reason from the point of view that for the universe itself, a "first cause" must be assumed, thus denying the only other alternative, that of a universe without a beginning, and then at the conclusion of their argument they put at the begin of the causality chain an eternal being or deity. Which effectively contradicts their initial assumption, that the universe had a beginning (since they put an eternal existing something in front of this begin, theerby effectively removing this begin!).
Then what is this assumption worth if in the end we conclude that still we need to consider existence (wether in the form of an existing deity or an existing universe) to have had no begin? This we could have already concluded in first instance, without the need for introducing a "creator".
This kind of reasoning effectively removes any need for a creator. The world itself does not need a begin in time to exist, and can not have had a "first cause". But the theist will protest against this argument, and argue that the Deity or creator they have in mind, exists outside of space and/or time. This however immediately conflicts with the fact that they claim that the creator exists for all of eternity, since apart from time itself, no eternity can be conceived of. To exist, means to exist in space and in time, and also means that change/motion occurs, and to say that something exists outside of space or time, is nothing more as claiming that it does not exist.
The question to which this issue drops down to is of course, the issue of why at all the universe, or anything at all would need to exist. This raises the question of if it could have been possible for the world to in fact not exist at all.
A theist approach to this peculiar question is of course to say that the universe exists because God choosed to create the world. Or maybe God did not even had a choice in doing so, but nevertheless created the world.
Stating more simple, the fact that the world is existing, according to the theist view is argued from the fact that we need to assume a Deity, that created the world, for the world to exist. Which thus means: God must exist, since the world does exist. Without the existence of God, the world would not exist.
Here we arrive at a peculiar situation. The theist argument is that we could conceive of the possibility (which could have been actualized, if God did not create the world) of a non-existing world.
The logic is however very cripple. Because not only we can not assume the world to ever have been or ever will be non-existing (since it exists now, it has to have been existing for all of time, and time itself has no begin or end), we can simply argue that the option for there being a world, or not being a world, can not have ever occured, because for this option to exist, we need already to assume a world (in whatever form) to exist.
Putting it simply : a non-existing world can not be conceived of as a "possible state" of the world. All possible states of the world are worlds where at least something, in whatever form, must be existing.
Back to the issue of the battle, what does this mean for the question wether or not God exists.
All I tried to reason about is that for the world to exist, we do not need to assume that a Deity has to exist.
Does this proof a Deity does not exist? Not in the least.
We can not proof that something does not exist, if this something lacks existence.
All we can do is invalidate arguments for the existence of such a deity, and show that the world could as well be conceived without such a concept of a deity.
What can one say about something, of which there is no proof nor disproof of existence?
The theist approach in this very issue is, that they try to proof the existence of this deity, by arguing that some phenomena or events, that we assume to have occured, can not yet be rationally and fully explained by science. This approach can be argued to work always, since the only situation in which this approach would fail, is the situation in which mankind would have absolute knowledge about all of existence. But such absolute knowledge to ever be reached, is incomprehensible. Even though our knowledge of natural phenomena increases, there will not be a time in which we have absolute knowledge about everything.
But does this lack of absolute knowledge about everything, mean we therefore have to assume the existence of a deity for which their neither is proof or disproof?
The assumption of materialism and that of (most) sciences, that a material world exists, although we do not have full and absolute knowledge about what matter is, and what material forms existed throughout all of time, has shown us in the past 2000 years or so, to work well. Science was sucessfull in explaining many phenomena of nature, and based their conclusions on the assumptions of materialism. That is: they did not need to assume any deity to exist, or any supernatural to have occured.
But theist, in tyring to overrule the enormous sucesses of science, focus on all the fields in which insufficient explenation exist, and claim that since science has not yet solved those issues, we still need to assume the existence of a deity.
All what can be said about the outcome of arguments and battles like this on this particular issue, is that such an argument never can be concluded with a definite argument.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike check...is this thing on?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike check...is this thing on?
--K
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike check...is this thing on?
You are assuming that something can be equal to something else. Heck, even if you had said that "A=A" and left it at that, you would be assuming the law of identity is true. A thing is equal to itself. We say this is true *by definition*. What is a definition, but something that we have stated as being true. This is circular, and is therefore something you are just presupposing. Sure, it makes sense to almost everybody... but that doesn't mean it's provable. We all use presuppositions. You have to. You cannot deduce something from nothing. You cannot infer something from nothing. You must start with something you presuppose to be true.... as simple as that presupposition may seem.Originally posted by quip
Premise1 A = B
Premise2 B = C
Therfore, A = C
Is 'A' unproven? I grant 'A' could be subjective though.
--K
This, my friends, demonstrates that to the extent people rely on faith, it will hinder scientific discovery. "Your life is focused on pleasing" something that you believe to exist. I'm not saying this is bad for an individual to do this... heck, if it makes you happy, go for it. But I thank GOD that there are people that put their belief in any deity on the back shelf while they discover the workings of the universe -- to bring us technological advances in all aspects of our lives. This, to me, is good.
B Enyard post #3
>>Consciousness is an absolute. Here is my third proof for the existence of a supernatural creator: consciousness. Atheists cannot even conceive, theoretically, in the most basic of terms, how self-awareness could develop from atoms and molecules. <<
Actually, we CAN. Consciousness is something that arises from the brain. We can see a HUGE number of possible electronic pathways there. We can see how there pathways react to external stimuli, AND to internal stimuli.
>>So, consciousness, self-awareness, arising from matter - that?s a tough one. Because the molecules have to become aware of themselves. <<
And exactly how AWARE are WE of our own molecules? Simply: we are NOT. We are NOT aware that one molecule isn't functioning the way it should. We are not aware that we shed skin every day, renew cellular membranes every day, renew bloodcells or even produce a vast amount of enzymes to digest our food. We are not even "aware" that the information we are aware of reaches us through our nerve system. We are not even aware when that system starts to break down untill there are serious gaps in the way we get information OR some external source like other humans take some device and actually MEASURE a defect.
So, we do not even have to start with something simple. We start with something complex instead: the human brain. Our brain is incredibly complex, and has a number of possible electric pathways greater than the number of estimated stars in the universe.
So, I can conceive that, since our pathways form because we "learn" and store information, we also "learn" to react to electronic signals in the brain. Science has already determined several parts that have a huge impact on how we perceive the world, and other parts that are integral to the way we react to social circumstances. We have already determined several "carrier signals" that very broadly define the way the brain processes signals. People who are really focussed on their work (through a CONSCIOUS choise) display definite different signals to people who are asleep.
Besides, science has indicated that there are several mammal species that display behavior that suggests they have at least a "self image". An image of self is partly what a consciousness is, and therefore these mammals could be "partially conscious". Ofcourse, since communication between us and these mammals cannot be as abstract as with other people, progress is rather slow. But one thing these animals have in common: a LOT of neural connexions in their brain.
This suggest (but there is no definite proof as yet) that consciousness is caused by the complexity of the brain neural network.
Since B. Enyard has not attacked the Theory of Evolution yet, I therefore suggest that consciousness arises from natural processes.
Now, since I obviously CAN conceive of how a consciousness can be formed (irrespective of wether it is proven) B. Enyards point has been refuted.
>>Theistic Worldview: I have a worldview, described in these TheologyOnline.com posts, consistent within itself regarding origins and with the observable facts and the laws of science.<<
Hardly.
>>There is no fourth alternative to explain the origin of the universe, and the most well-established physical laws indicate the universe could not always have been here, and could not pop into existence on its own from nothing<<
Nonsense. I have already explained that CAUSAL relationships exists IF AND ONLY IF time exists. Since science has not yet PROVEN that time exists apart from our universe, science has in no way "proven" that the universe cannot "pop into existence out of nothing on its own".
>>and so that leaves a supernatural, powerful, pre-existing Creator
as the only other option. The irreducible complexity of biological life indicates that it could not have originated from simpler pre-cell life forms, <<
Irreducable complexity doesn't exist. The arguement from irreducable complexity fails, because it assumes that molecules, atoms and such must ALWAYS have had the same function. However, in biology, the function of a molecule or system can and does change over time. Irreducable complexity states that the system cannot "function" without a single component. Well, maybe it doesn't have the function it has NOW, but it can have a DIFFERENT function. Since biological systems change function when new components are added, irreducable complexity fails as an arguement.
>>and so that leaves a knowledgeable Creator as the only option. And (BA10) the consciousness of human beings could not arise by natural processes from matter<<
Interresting. Do you have proof of that?
>>and so that leaves us with a personal Creator.<<
Since I have already refuted several of your arguements, "that leaves us with a personal Creator" hardly has the evidence you give it.
>>Consciousness is an absolute. Here is my third proof for the existence of a supernatural creator: consciousness. Atheists cannot even conceive, theoretically, in the most basic of terms, how self-awareness could develop from atoms and molecules. <<
Actually, we CAN. Consciousness is something that arises from the brain. We can see a HUGE number of possible electronic pathways there. We can see how there pathways react to external stimuli, AND to internal stimuli.
>>So, consciousness, self-awareness, arising from matter - that?s a tough one. Because the molecules have to become aware of themselves. <<
And exactly how AWARE are WE of our own molecules? Simply: we are NOT. We are NOT aware that one molecule isn't functioning the way it should. We are not aware that we shed skin every day, renew cellular membranes every day, renew bloodcells or even produce a vast amount of enzymes to digest our food. We are not even "aware" that the information we are aware of reaches us through our nerve system. We are not even aware when that system starts to break down untill there are serious gaps in the way we get information OR some external source like other humans take some device and actually MEASURE a defect.
So, we do not even have to start with something simple. We start with something complex instead: the human brain. Our brain is incredibly complex, and has a number of possible electric pathways greater than the number of estimated stars in the universe.
So, I can conceive that, since our pathways form because we "learn" and store information, we also "learn" to react to electronic signals in the brain. Science has already determined several parts that have a huge impact on how we perceive the world, and other parts that are integral to the way we react to social circumstances. We have already determined several "carrier signals" that very broadly define the way the brain processes signals. People who are really focussed on their work (through a CONSCIOUS choise) display definite different signals to people who are asleep.
Besides, science has indicated that there are several mammal species that display behavior that suggests they have at least a "self image". An image of self is partly what a consciousness is, and therefore these mammals could be "partially conscious". Ofcourse, since communication between us and these mammals cannot be as abstract as with other people, progress is rather slow. But one thing these animals have in common: a LOT of neural connexions in their brain.
This suggest (but there is no definite proof as yet) that consciousness is caused by the complexity of the brain neural network.
Since B. Enyard has not attacked the Theory of Evolution yet, I therefore suggest that consciousness arises from natural processes.
Now, since I obviously CAN conceive of how a consciousness can be formed (irrespective of wether it is proven) B. Enyards point has been refuted.
>>Theistic Worldview: I have a worldview, described in these TheologyOnline.com posts, consistent within itself regarding origins and with the observable facts and the laws of science.<<
Hardly.
>>There is no fourth alternative to explain the origin of the universe, and the most well-established physical laws indicate the universe could not always have been here, and could not pop into existence on its own from nothing<<
Nonsense. I have already explained that CAUSAL relationships exists IF AND ONLY IF time exists. Since science has not yet PROVEN that time exists apart from our universe, science has in no way "proven" that the universe cannot "pop into existence out of nothing on its own".
>>and so that leaves a supernatural, powerful, pre-existing Creator
as the only other option. The irreducible complexity of biological life indicates that it could not have originated from simpler pre-cell life forms, <<
Irreducable complexity doesn't exist. The arguement from irreducable complexity fails, because it assumes that molecules, atoms and such must ALWAYS have had the same function. However, in biology, the function of a molecule or system can and does change over time. Irreducable complexity states that the system cannot "function" without a single component. Well, maybe it doesn't have the function it has NOW, but it can have a DIFFERENT function. Since biological systems change function when new components are added, irreducable complexity fails as an arguement.
>>and so that leaves a knowledgeable Creator as the only option. And (BA10) the consciousness of human beings could not arise by natural processes from matter<<
Interresting. Do you have proof of that?
>>and so that leaves us with a personal Creator.<<
Since I have already refuted several of your arguements, "that leaves us with a personal Creator" hardly has the evidence you give it.
And another side comment. Thus far I think Bob Enyart provides the better arguments, esp. on the issue of cosmology and the remarks on this Hawking these about a universe popping out of nothing.
The contradictionary thing here is that, while Hawking has definately atheist viewpoints, in his work a Brief history of Time he nevertheless presents idea which better fit into a theistic worldview then an atheistic viewpoint (perhaps due to influences in his personal life from his wife and/or publisher).
Atheism does not assume the universe to have begun at some time.
The contradictionary thing here is that, while Hawking has definately atheist viewpoints, in his work a Brief history of Time he nevertheless presents idea which better fit into a theistic worldview then an atheistic viewpoint (perhaps due to influences in his personal life from his wife and/or publisher).
Atheism does not assume the universe to have begun at some time.
heusdens:
>>All what can be said about the outcome of arguments and battles like this on this particular issue, is that such an argument never can be concluded with a definite argument.<<
What we can also conclude is that the theist will ALWAYS have a "knowledge gap" to hide behind. The gap will become smaller and smaller and smaller as time continues, but it will never become zero. After all: how would you KNOW that you KNOW everything there is to KNOW?
However, at some point the gap will become so small that a God of the Bible cannot possibly hide there. When we prove out that consciousness stems from the brain, that notions of "right and wrong" are mental constructs, that life indeed is possible to begin due to natural processes, that the universe itself has an identifiable wave function, and that Jezus was NOT resurrected, then the gap will have become so small that a large portion of the "rational" believers today would drop their religion in favour of another, non-diety based philosophy.
>>All what can be said about the outcome of arguments and battles like this on this particular issue, is that such an argument never can be concluded with a definite argument.<<
What we can also conclude is that the theist will ALWAYS have a "knowledge gap" to hide behind. The gap will become smaller and smaller and smaller as time continues, but it will never become zero. After all: how would you KNOW that you KNOW everything there is to KNOW?
However, at some point the gap will become so small that a God of the Bible cannot possibly hide there. When we prove out that consciousness stems from the brain, that notions of "right and wrong" are mental constructs, that life indeed is possible to begin due to natural processes, that the universe itself has an identifiable wave function, and that Jezus was NOT resurrected, then the gap will have become so small that a large portion of the "rational" believers today would drop their religion in favour of another, non-diety based philosophy.
Hey Zakath!!!...
Hey Zakath!!!...
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zakath
Nice ad hominem. I don't have time for this kind of thing. We're done here...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Being new here, I don't know, but is this what you normally do in your debates? You insult the intelligence of the person you are talking to, & then when they call you to the floor on it, you say you don't have time for this & you're done!?!:nono: Must make for very short debates.
Well, regardless, I never pay attention to that kind of thing; so I'm responding anyways & if you care to answer it's up to you.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zakath
But Pastor Enyart's position (and definition of deity) eliminates any other deity from consideration. That's why I'm dealing with the evidence for the existence of his deity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you're not understanding the debate. It doesn't matter what Pastor Enyart's position or definition of God is, because it's not a debate on "Does Pastor Enyart's God Exist?" It's a debate on "Does God Exist?" So you're insistance on only dealing with 'his deity' would be a mark against you by any logical debater. You're putting a limit where there is none:doh:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zakath
The Judeo-Christian idea of a Creator God is not universal. Not all deities are considered creators by their followers, so you wish to limit the debate to the Judeo-Christian deity.
Which will it be, all gods or just YHWH?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, stop with the limits. :help: By you're own words you just said one group has a Creator God & another doesn't; sooo if anyone proves that there was a Creator God then-ding ding ding- they've won the debate because they have proven at least one of the possible Gods!!!:doh:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zakath
For a manufactured item like a mousetrap, this would be true. For the natural universe it could be quite different. You do not need a creator to build a baby, merely two healthy human adults of breeding age. There are many things we have yet to discover about the universe, but I'm reasonably confident that as we will find as we have over the last 5,000 years or so that as we continue to discover more, the need for gods (of any form) become less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2 parents are the Creators in your example. :doh: So you wanna try again, or just admit the truth - it's a fact complexity demands a Creator!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cleohair
The 1st (Law of Thermodynamics) says matter can't create or destroy itself-thus you NEED a Creator of the original matter!!! God is not matter, but spirit; thus He does not violate the Law.
Originally posted by Zakath
Recently at CERN matter has been created. The universe as it exists does not need a creator to build matter. Your positing of a non-material entity creating material things is not testable or explainable in scienctific observation. It is purely the realm of metaphysics. You may assert whatever powers you wish for your deity, but until you can demonstrate them, they remain assertions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, do I even have to explain the obvious in this post??? CERN created the matter, not the matter created the matter!!! :doh: Thus the Law still stands.
And I didn't have to prove anything to answer your original question. You just asked how come the law wouldn't apply to God & I told you why.
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Origanally posted by Zakath
The theory is that the force present at the singularity was sufficiently powerful to push the universe to its present form and beyond. You appear to be merely personalizing the singularity and calling it "God".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And you're calling it what??? Just because you're saying the word 'singularity' instead of 'God' doesn't change the idea behind it-an original Creator!:thumb:
Hope to hear from you again.:jump:
Hey Zakath!!!...
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zakath
Nice ad hominem. I don't have time for this kind of thing. We're done here...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Being new here, I don't know, but is this what you normally do in your debates? You insult the intelligence of the person you are talking to, & then when they call you to the floor on it, you say you don't have time for this & you're done!?!:nono: Must make for very short debates. Well, regardless, I never pay attention to that kind of thing; so I'm responding anyways & if you care to answer it's up to you.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zakath
But Pastor Enyart's position (and definition of deity) eliminates any other deity from consideration. That's why I'm dealing with the evidence for the existence of his deity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you're not understanding the debate. It doesn't matter what Pastor Enyart's position or definition of God is, because it's not a debate on "Does Pastor Enyart's God Exist?" It's a debate on "Does God Exist?" So you're insistance on only dealing with 'his deity' would be a mark against you by any logical debater. You're putting a limit where there is none:doh:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zakath
The Judeo-Christian idea of a Creator God is not universal. Not all deities are considered creators by their followers, so you wish to limit the debate to the Judeo-Christian deity.
Which will it be, all gods or just YHWH?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, stop with the limits. :help: By you're own words you just said one group has a Creator God & another doesn't; sooo if anyone proves that there was a Creator God then-ding ding ding- they've won the debate because they have proven at least one of the possible Gods!!!:doh:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zakath
For a manufactured item like a mousetrap, this would be true. For the natural universe it could be quite different. You do not need a creator to build a baby, merely two healthy human adults of breeding age. There are many things we have yet to discover about the universe, but I'm reasonably confident that as we will find as we have over the last 5,000 years or so that as we continue to discover more, the need for gods (of any form) become less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2 parents are the Creators in your example. :doh: So you wanna try again, or just admit the truth - it's a fact complexity demands a Creator!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cleohair
The 1st (Law of Thermodynamics) says matter can't create or destroy itself-thus you NEED a Creator of the original matter!!! God is not matter, but spirit; thus He does not violate the Law.
Originally posted by Zakath
Recently at CERN matter has been created. The universe as it exists does not need a creator to build matter. Your positing of a non-material entity creating material things is not testable or explainable in scienctific observation. It is purely the realm of metaphysics. You may assert whatever powers you wish for your deity, but until you can demonstrate them, they remain assertions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, do I even have to explain the obvious in this post??? CERN created the matter, not the matter created the matter!!! :doh: Thus the Law still stands.
And I didn't have to prove anything to answer your original question. You just asked how come the law wouldn't apply to God & I told you why.
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Origanally posted by Zakath
The theory is that the force present at the singularity was sufficiently powerful to push the universe to its present form and beyond. You appear to be merely personalizing the singularity and calling it "God".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And you're calling it what??? Just because you're saying the word 'singularity' instead of 'God' doesn't change the idea behind it-an original Creator!:thumb:
Hope to hear from you again.:jump:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike check...is this thing on?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike check...is this thing on?
Even worse! We can fairly easy demonstrate that in this material world, which is in an ever changing state, we can never apply this law of identity.
Is a pound of sugar equal to a pound of sugar?
Is a proton equal to a proton?
The law of identity claims that they are equal, but observing these objects will demonstrate that they are different.
For instance: the pound of sugar will not equal another pound of sugar when inspecting it under the microspcope. The shape of sugar crystals, and their numbers will differ. And even if we inspect just one pound of sugar, we will notice that the pound of sugar will now will not equal the pound of sugar tomorrow.
Is a proton then equal to itself?
Most protons are inside nucleus of an atom, together with other protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons constantly emit and absorb gluons to tie the nucleus together, thus forming the strong nuclear interaction. This causes the proton to change into a neutron and back to a proton again.
A proton only equal a proton, if we inspect it outside of time. But outside of time, protons do not exist!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike check...is this thing on?
Even worse! We can fairly easy demonstrate that in this material world, which is in an ever changing state, we can never apply this law of identity.
Is a pound of sugar equal to a pound of sugar?
Is a proton equal to a proton?
The law of identity claims that they are equal, but observing these objects will demonstrate that they are different.
For instance: the pound of sugar will not equal another pound of sugar when inspecting it under the microspcope. The shape of sugar crystals, and their numbers will differ. And even if we inspect just one pound of sugar, we will notice that the pound of sugar will now will not equal the pound of sugar tomorrow.
Is a proton then equal to itself?
Most protons are inside nucleus of an atom, together with other protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons constantly emit and absorb gluons to tie the nucleus together, thus forming the strong nuclear interaction. This causes the proton to change into a neutron and back to a proton again.
A proton only equal a proton, if we inspect it outside of time. But outside of time, protons do not exist!
1Tim. 6:20,21
O Timothy, keep that which is comitted to your trust, avoiding
profane, vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
Matt. 5:6
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness:
for they shall be filled.
O Timothy, keep that which is comitted to your trust, avoiding
profane, vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
Matt. 5:6
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness:
for they shall be filled.
I don't think so, at least not in this simple way.
Firstly we can not exactly "measure" the amount of knowledge. Knowledge (as far as I understand) isn't "quantified". We have no idea about how much knowledge we have, and how much knowledge there is to know, or do we?
Second, the nature of this game is far beyond current religions, in fact the battle is in primal way a battle between materialism and idealism. Materialism acknowledges that in first instance there is a material world, and that consciousness (mind) is a quality of specific material forms, and thus secondary.
Idealism on the other hand claims that the world in first instance is some principle or absolute idea ("God" is just an example of such a principle or absolute idea) and that we can never know about the existence of the material world itself. Acc. to Idealism, the material world does not exist on itself, independend from our mind.
The increase in scienctific knowledge will change the nature of the battle, but will not provide conclusive evidence for either side.
Religions like for instance the Catholic Church already acknowledged the idea of the Big Bang, since it is compatible with theism. I don't think that scientific evidence for the things you mention, will convince people that their idealist belief is incorrect.
More on an interesting issue, the alternatives for the "origin" of the universe.
As far as i understand it, the "origin" of the universe can only have two forms. Either time had a begin, there was a "first" cause, or time did not have a begin, and hence no "first" cause.
It seems here that people differentiate between one of these options into two different alternatives. One being a universe popping out of nothing "by itself", and the other is that "God created" the universe.
These are presented as two different options. But according to us, here and now, these options can in no way be differentiated. God shows not one bit of proof of it's existence, all forms of "proof" of existence of God are based on arguments like "X is (is not) the case... Therefore God must exist".
To me personally a universe "popping out of nowhere/nothing" is identical with a "creation of the universe", and are both inconceivable.
The ideas are identical in the sense that both portray a universe coming "into existence" from a previously inexisting state. All matter, and as a consequence space and time, were "created" at a moment at which there was no time, and at a place in which there was no space and from literally nothing at all. This event is in it's effect an act of creation of an actor outside of space and time.
The problem with this idea is of course, that the universe as an effect of this creation, needs a cause. And for a cause to exist, it requires time, space and matter to be existing. All attempts to provide for such a "first cause" fail, and hence this invalidates this idea.
The solution to the puzzle is, to assume that no actors outside of time and space exist, and that no first cause can be assumed. Since causality itself is not caused by anything, this means that the causal chain has no begin and no end. All there is is matter in eternal motion, in everlasting change.
For sure the modern vision of cosmology on this issue, even pushed atheist into the realms of idealist ideas, like this Hawking idea of an "instanton pea" existing in a spacelike but timeless way, "causing" all of the material world to come into existence from this "instanton pea". This vision, about a "beginning of time" is however not a general accepted point of view, and is criticized in many ways.
Eternal inflation for instance models the universe coming out of an inflation of a small part of space, in a self-reproducing way, without the need for a begin of the universe.
As a materialist I assume that matter can not be created or destroyed, but only be transformed from one form into another.
Energy can be transformed into (mass having) matter, and vice versa.
We can not assume that we know about all possible forms of matter. It is very well conceivable that the universe existed in a totally different material form prior to the Big bang.
It might even be, we can never model the way the universe looked like before the Big bang, and all we have are guesses, and hypothesis, without any definite answer.
But not being able to determine the way the universe looked like before the Big Bang does not mean we have to assume, the universe did not exist at that time.
Nobody knows how earth looked like exactly before there were humans, but this does not urge us to assume the earth was not existing before there were humans.
As far as i understand it, the "origin" of the universe can only have two forms. Either time had a begin, there was a "first" cause, or time did not have a begin, and hence no "first" cause.
It seems here that people differentiate between one of these options into two different alternatives. One being a universe popping out of nothing "by itself", and the other is that "God created" the universe.
These are presented as two different options. But according to us, here and now, these options can in no way be differentiated. God shows not one bit of proof of it's existence, all forms of "proof" of existence of God are based on arguments like "X is (is not) the case... Therefore God must exist".
To me personally a universe "popping out of nowhere/nothing" is identical with a "creation of the universe", and are both inconceivable.
The ideas are identical in the sense that both portray a universe coming "into existence" from a previously inexisting state. All matter, and as a consequence space and time, were "created" at a moment at which there was no time, and at a place in which there was no space and from literally nothing at all. This event is in it's effect an act of creation of an actor outside of space and time.
The problem with this idea is of course, that the universe as an effect of this creation, needs a cause. And for a cause to exist, it requires time, space and matter to be existing. All attempts to provide for such a "first cause" fail, and hence this invalidates this idea.
The solution to the puzzle is, to assume that no actors outside of time and space exist, and that no first cause can be assumed. Since causality itself is not caused by anything, this means that the causal chain has no begin and no end. All there is is matter in eternal motion, in everlasting change.
For sure the modern vision of cosmology on this issue, even pushed atheist into the realms of idealist ideas, like this Hawking idea of an "instanton pea" existing in a spacelike but timeless way, "causing" all of the material world to come into existence from this "instanton pea". This vision, about a "beginning of time" is however not a general accepted point of view, and is criticized in many ways.
Eternal inflation for instance models the universe coming out of an inflation of a small part of space, in a self-reproducing way, without the need for a begin of the universe.
As a materialist I assume that matter can not be created or destroyed, but only be transformed from one form into another.
Energy can be transformed into (mass having) matter, and vice versa.
We can not assume that we know about all possible forms of matter. It is very well conceivable that the universe existed in a totally different material form prior to the Big bang.
It might even be, we can never model the way the universe looked like before the Big bang, and all we have are guesses, and hypothesis, without any definite answer.
But not being able to determine the way the universe looked like before the Big Bang does not mean we have to assume, the universe did not exist at that time.
Nobody knows how earth looked like exactly before there were humans, but this does not urge us to assume the earth was not existing before there were humans.
- Status