Originally posted by Paul Dirac II"A festive fund-raiser at a Rita's Water Ice turned tragic Saturday afternoon when a security gate detached from the storefront and crushed a 3-year-old girl attending the event with her mother.
If the father of the child had been standing near enough to pull the child to safety, and had enough forewarning of the collapse to do so without putting his own body in jeopardy... but didn't bother to do it-- What would you think of his morality?
Police Sunday morning identified the victim as Wynter Larkin of Yeadon..."
http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-30/news/50949249_1_security-gate-3-year-old-girl-water-ice
Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
If the father of the child had been standing near enough to pull the child to safety, and had enough forewarning of the collapse to do so without putting his own body in jeopardy... but didn't bother to do it-- What would you think of his morality?
"Ethics: The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. It defines how thing are according to the rules. Morals: Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. It defines how things should work according to an individuals' ideals and principles... Morality transcends cultural norms." http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals
If Wynter Larkin's father is alive, not separated or divorced from her mother and was present at this "festive fund-raiser at a Rita's Water Ice for "... the Omega Psi Phi fraternity, which was holding a fund-raiser for scholarships and its other charitable causes in tandem with the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority." "standing near enough to pull the child to safety" and "didn't bother to do so", I'd think he was momentarily distracted of had suffered a serious lapse in both his ethical and moral judgment.
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThank you for that. I gave you a thumbs-up for it, Bob.
... "standing near enough to pull the child to safety" and "didn't bother to do so", I'd think he was momentarily distracted of had suffered a serious lapse in both his ethical and moral judgment..
I'm sure you understand the theological ramifications regarding Father God.
Has anyone formally invited you to leave Christianity behind and become agnostic, Bob? I am doing so right now. The choice is yours.
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IINo action proves nothing about the morality of the father.
Thank you for that. I gave you a thumbs-up for it, Bob.
I'm sure you understand the theological ramifications regarding Father God.
Has anyone formally invited you to leave Christianity behind and become agnostic, Bob? I am doing so right now. The choice is yours.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I think you need to talk to sonhouse about star poop.
Gnorothugs (that is as close to their name as we can get) they
are an eternal race of pink cuboids who have existed since
before time and created everything. Currently they are invisible
and living in a shoe box in my attic. (I think .. no I believe!)
Originally posted by black beetleOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby
Edit: "Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?"
Because of infinite interdependent causes and conditions;
Edit: "Also... matter."
I evaluate consciousness as fundamental, and matter as derivative from consciousness
😵
Sic transit gloria mundi, Mon frère. I'd like to request your comment on Leibniz' provocative question italicized below:
"Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was a German mathematician, logician, and philosopher. Leibniz is well known for his mathematical discoveries, but he’s also recognized as the person who popularized what many say is the single most important question ever asked: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?" (OP/1 of 2)
Also, would you agree that your first sentence: "Mind erected the seemingly objective matter out of its own stuff."
agrees in principle with: "It truly is a question of either matter before mind or mind before matter." (OP/2 of 2)?
Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?"
Because of infinite interdependent causes and conditions;
Edit: "Also... matter."
I evaluate consciousness as fundamental, and matter as derivative from consciousness
😵
Two Questions: 1) How are these "... infinite interdependent causes and conditions" established or set in motion? 2) Does viewing "consciousness as fundamental, and matter as derivative from consciousness" equate with "mind before matter"?
1 edit
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIOriginally posted by Paul Dirac II
Thank you for that. I gave you a thumbs-up for it, Bob.
I'm sure you understand the theological ramifications regarding Father God.
Has anyone formally invited you to leave Christianity behind and become agnostic, Bob? I am doing so right now. The choice is yours.
Thank you for that. I gave you a thumbs-up for it, Bob. [Thanks. they're few and very far between.]
I'm sure you understand the theological ramifications regarding Father God. ["theological ramifications"? Relative to what?]
Has anyone formally invited you to leave Christianity behind and become agnostic, Bob? [No.] I am doing so right now. [What is the temporal and eternal benefit and what is involved?] The choice is yours. [I'm pleased that you publically acknowledge human volition.]
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNo, but then again, "nothing" is not a well-defined concept in the first place. It stands in
Well, in the Standard Model the quantum vacuum has a non-zero vacuum expectation value for the Higgs field. If one of your fields is non-zero in the ground state then there is not "nothing there"...
relation to the topic at hand. For instance, if we're searching for my new blue wooden toy
car, and I ask you if there's anything there, under my bed where you're currently looking,
and you reply: "Nope, nothing here", you're not trying to tell me that there's literally no thing
there (given that it's under my bed there's probably a whole host of things there, just not my
precious car). Maybe I look distant, and you ask me what's on my mind, and I reply:
"Nothing", well, that's not me admitting to a completely vacuous thought process, just that
there's nothing of particular relevance going on in there right now.
So, if Krauss defines nothing as the absence of any kind of matter (as I think most of us
consider a metaphysical nothingness to be), and then builds his argument on top of that,
does that really mean his argument as a whole is flawed?
Granted, this whole physics thing is floating just above jumping range of my head, so if I've
totally misunderstood Krauss' version of nothingness, move on - nothing to see here (or
better yet, explain it to me).
Originally posted by C HessThe point is the standard model vacuum is non-trivial. What's more any argument would have to take quantum gravity effects into account at which point the science it's based on would be quite speculative.
No, but then again, "nothing" is not a well-defined concept in the first place. It stands in
relation to the topic at hand. For instance, if we're searching for my new blue wooden toy
car, and I ask you if there's anything there, under my bed where you're currently looking,
and you reply: "Nope, nothing here", you're not trying to tell me that there's l ...[text shortened]... auss' version of nothingness, move on - nothing to see here (or
better yet, explain it to me).
As an example from condensed matter physics. Imagine a metal, a perfect crystal at absolute zero. None of the atoms are moving, there are no external fields, and the free electrons are all in their ground states. The standard way of approaching this is to call that the vacuum. Let's add some heat. We could have lattice vibrations appear, we call them phonons, and in that case the phonon appears as a particle moving through our vacuum. Suppose we add just enough energy to knock one electron out of its ground state. The electron would be accompanied by a hole in the ground state. So relative to the vacuum as defined by the crystal at absolute zero there is an electron-hole pair. There is no way a vacuum defined in this way could be called nothing. So Krauss's argument seems to me to require a definition of nothing which isn't nothing.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyEdit: 1) How are these "... infinite interdependent causes and conditions" established or set in motion? 2) Does viewing "consciousness as fundamental, and matter as derivative from consciousness" equate with "mind before matter"?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Sic transit gloria mundi, Mon frère. I'd like to request your comment on Leibniz' provocative question italicized below:
"Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was a German mathematician, logician, and philosopher. Leibniz is well known for his mathematical discoveries, but he’s also recognized as the perso ...[text shortened]... s as fundamental, and matter as derivative from consciousness" equate with "mind before matter"?
1. I don’t’ know;
2. The experiential domain of material reality emerges from (the realm of the wavefunction we collapse by means of) our perception; there are as many realities as sentient beings. But, to claim that the material world we observe is created through the perceptual activities of a sentient being, to me is not tenable;
😵
Originally posted by black beetle"1. I don't know." Okay
Edit: 1) How are these "... infinite interdependent causes and conditions" established or set in motion? 2) Does viewing "consciousness as fundamental, and matter as derivative from consciousness" equate with "mind before matter"?
1. I don’t’ know;
2. The experiential domain of material reality emerges from (the realm of the wavefunction we colla ...[text shortened]... erve is created through the perceptual activities of a sentient being, to me is not tenable;
😵
2. bb, how or where does the previous reply: "I evaluate consciousness as fundamental, and matter as derivative from consciousness." fit harmoniously with this one: "2. The experiential domain of material reality emerges from (the realm of the wavefunction we collapse by means of) our perception; there are as many realities as sentient beings. But, to claim that the material world we observe is created through the perceptual activities of a sentient being, to me is not tenable;"?
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI say there is no eternal afterlife for you to lose out on by leaving your beliefs behind.
What is the temporal and eternal benefit and what is involved?]
As far as the here and now, you save time that would be spent reading scripture and biblical commentary and listening to sermons, plus you save money on commuting-to-church costs and you save money dropped into the collection plate. You also cut out the passing-on of false beliefs to your friends and family.
After I wrote my post above I chanced upon this at a different discussion board.
Atheist arguments against religion are invariably intellectual - if you just think about these doctrines, you will realize that they are rubbish. Not only do most people not think, but this does not address the emotional and social support which religious communities provide. That's how Christianity conquered the Roman empire - Christian communities provided mutual support in an otherwise ruthless and unfeeling society, only later, one suspects, did people swallow the idea that some Jewish carpenter was a dying and reborn God.
For some people-- maybe Bob is one of them-- the whole "fellowship" aspect of picking a religion and living it amongst the brothers and the sisters is worth the loss in time and money that has to be put into it. I dunno.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI reject the hypothesis that something comes into being either without causes and conditions, or by means of an external cause. Furthermore, to claim that life is reduced just to material appearances is to me untenable; and to argue that everything arises uncaused through the natural existence of a random spontaneity, it seems to me absurd.
"1. I don't know." Okay
2. bb, how or where does the previous reply: "I evaluate consciousness as fundamental, and matter as derivative from consciousness." fit harmoniously with this one: "2. The experiential domain of material reality emerges from (the realm of the wavefunction we collapse by means of) our perception; there are as many reali ...[text shortened]... bserve is created through the perceptual activities of a sentient being, to me is not tenable;"?
I perceive the Floating World (the physical world we experience) as a nexus of a Heisenberg state and the actual events. In that hologram, in which everything is a part of it, the ultimate categories of reality are not Descartes’ “Matter” and “Consciousness”, but for one the universal wavefunction, and for two the experience within the state of the individual mind of the arising of our illusory, seemingly “material” world. This way, matter and mind are simply aspects of reality that share the same ultimate nature. It follows that I have not a Body and a Mind; instead, I have a BodyMind and I have no self😵
Originally posted by black beetleOriginally posted by black beetle
I reject the hypothesis that something comes into being either without causes and conditions, or by means of an external cause. Furthermore, to claim that life is reduced just to material appearances is to me untenable; and to argue that everything arises uncaused through the natural existence of a random spontaneity, it seems to me absurd.
I perceive t ...[text shortened]... ature. It follows that I have not a Body and a Mind; instead, I have a BodyMind and I have no self😵
"I reject the hypothesis that something comes into being either without causes and conditions, or by means of an external cause..."
What then are those "causes and conditions"?
"This way, matter and mind are simply aspects of reality that share the same ultimate nature. It follows that I have not a Body and a Mind; instead, I have a BodyMind and I have no self😵" -black beetle
May I ask for a description or definition of "BodyMind"? Also, on what authority would you conclude "I have no self."?