Originally posted by FreakyKBHEvolution can create organisms, and organisms have a reason - to reproduce - because this is "fitter" than having no reason. Your argument is both naive and flawed.
I am simply laying bare the anti-theistic stance of origins, and showing how such a stance does not allow for reason. For a more concise and flourished treatment of the topic, try this link.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy mistake, I thought you were still on the evolution stuff.
Well, you're opening more bottles than you can drink with that one. We are considering the actual impetus of the Big Bang, and the agency which drove the energy thusly.
While much ado can be said about mechanisms and whatnot, the consensus among anti-theists is that there were no rules or grand designs inherent within the blast from the past: it was si ...[text shortened]... Big Bang, there were no environmental pressures, as the environment had yet to be self-created.
But thinking about the Big Bang, I can see your perspective and that of many religious (and probably non-religious) people.
How can something be created from nothing?
Not withstanding Scotts arguments about the sense of asking such a question - space and time having both been created in the event - the fact remains that it seems nonsensical to have the reality of the matter and energy of our current universe having originated from nothing.
Science obviously comes at this the perspective of trying to make sense of such a creation (and I use the term in its loosest sense.) There are perhaps two general ways of approaching this:
1. Is our common sense view of events, and cause and effect, somehow not appropriate in this situation? Many scientists take this view and certainly the rise and rise of quantum strangeness has fueled this approach.
2. Is there are scientifically understandable process that might lead to such a creation event? This has mostly taken a backseat in the development of big bang cosmology - many scientists taking the view that it leads to untestable and therefore unscientific assertions. However, there are some dissidents who have suggested some interesting possibilities. Martin Rees, Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, to name a few popularisers of this area.
But the basic position of both approaches, is to view the early universe and its origins from a scientific perspective. This automatically precludes a 'creator', since such a creature must live outside of our natural understandings of the universe.
Now, it might be that such a cretor exists, that the universe was in fact created, and all scientific inquiry into this field will prove fruitless. But, there is no way to prove such a position and this is not a position that scientists would accept.
Originally posted by amannionOnce again, we return to the analogy which plagued Freaky in the other thread.
My mistake, I thought you were still on the evolution stuff.
But thinking about the Big Bang, I can see your perspective and that of many religious (and probably non-religious) people.
How can something be created from nothing?
Not withstanding Scotts arguments about the sense of asking such a question - space and time having both been created in the ...[text shortened]... re is no way to prove such a position and this is not a position that scientists would accept.
There are those in the scientific community that subscribe to a continuity of universes,
that the collapse of one universe (and its consequent demise) leads to the 'Big Bang' of
the next universe. This sort of continuous cycle does not require a creator, as it itself is
infinite.
As to where this cycle came from -- that 'something' needed to get the ball rolling --
science is, rightly, agnostic. Asking such a question to a scientist is precisely like asking
a theologian where God came from. It makes no sense, because, by definition, the
matter/energy ratio within the universe is constant -- it cannot be created, it just is.
That is, the scientist/theologian will answer that there was never a time when matter/God
was not. These are axioms of their particular disciplines. Freaky would like to
assert that the scientist's claim that matter always was is flawed, but he has failed to show
this, because there has never been a time when that matter/energy ratio did not exist.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioTrue to a point, but I disagree on the notion that it is not within the bounds of science to investigate and consider such things. It's perfectly scientific to ask why is there matter instead of being nothing, if the question and its possible answers are pursued in an appropriate way - tested, experimented, falsified, etc.
Once again, we return to the analogy which plagued Freaky in the other thread.
There are those in the scientific community that subscribe to a continuity of universes,
that the collapse of one universe (and its consequent demise) leads to the 'Big Bang' of
the next universe. This sort of continuous cycle does not require a creator, as it itself is
inf ...[text shortened]... because there has never been a time when that matter/energy ratio did not exist.
Nemesio
Originally posted by amannionI firmly believe that any question is within the bounds of science. A good scientist
True to a point, but I disagree on the notion that it is not within the bounds of science to investigate and consider such things. It's perfectly scientific to ask why is there matter instead of being nothing, if the question and its possible answers are pursued in an appropriate way - tested, experimented, falsified, etc.
should always be asking why about everything.
However (and my study is certainly limited), the answer to this particular question seems
to (where did stuff come from) seems unanswerable within the very confines of science. That's
why I believe that scientific agnosticism is the only logical viewpoint.
As a theist, obviously, I fill in the blank with a 'Creator' but such a solution is non-scientific, to be
sure.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NosracYour whole post basically concentrated on the fact that your only purpose in life is to 'save your soul' and that this is entirely for selfish reasons (avoidance of pain and suffering). Now can you explain how this is somehow a 'higher purpose' or measured on some 'absolute measure' and why you claim it has more 'meaning' than an athiests life where he is doing esentially exactly the same thing except without the mistaken belief in heaven and hell.
Yes, there is a difference between whether you go to Heaven or hell:
One is quite hotter than the other.
Is there one single Christian who believes he is going to hell? Do they still try to live a 'Godly' life?
The point I was trying to make to those who claimed that an athiests life had no meaning and that a Christians life was full of meaning was that there is esentially no difference and the existence of God does not somehow magicaly make meaning appear. It is an illusion.
Originally posted by NemesioI'm intrigued as to why the answer "seems" unanswerable.
I firmly believe that [b]any question is within the bounds of science. A good scientist
should always be asking why about everything.
However (and my study is certainly limited), the answer to this particular question seems
to (where did stuff come from) seems unanswerable within the very confines of science. That's
why I believ ...[text shortened]... in the blank with a 'Creator' but such a solution is non-scientific, to be
sure.
Nemesio[/b]
What makes you think that?
Surely if the history of human scientific and technological achievement tells us anything it's that someone will figure out a way to answer pretty much any question you care to ask.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI get your point and I agree with you, There is not such thing as an absolute moral standard and the fact that some people love their neighbours and other people eat them based purely on their own feelings prooves it.
The question was, what is your personal preference?
So how exactly does the TOE explain that some people love their neighbours and other people eat them based purely on their own feelings?
The point you don't seem to get is that when you use feelings to establish what is right and wrong, it all boils down to personal preference. Thus there cannot be any absolute moral standard.
My personal preferance is not to eat my neighbours if they are of the same species. (all other species are fair game though I might think twice about apes).
I did however point out that it goes beyond the common use of the word feelings and 'instinct' would be a better fit.
Your theological knowledge is obviously very rusty.
I dont see where theology comes in to it as it has nothing to do with any hypothetical gods but rather is staight forward animal behaviour and can be understood and explained using the Theory of Evolution.
Originally posted by NemesioOnce again, we return to the analogy which plagued Freaky in the other thread.
Once again, we return to the analogy which plagued Freaky in the other thread.
There are those in the scientific community that subscribe to a continuity of universes,
that the collapse of one universe (and its consequent demise) leads to the 'Big Bang' of
the next universe. This sort of continuous cycle does not require a creator, as it itself is
inf ...[text shortened]... because there has never been a time when that matter/energy ratio did not exist.
Nemesio
Despite your attempts at sleight-of-hand otherwise, the problem 'plauges' the position of the anti-theist, not the theist. The infinite regress simply calls upon the same 'solution' anti-theists have resorted to since this whole absurd argument started back in the late 1800's. Namely, if our timetables don't allow for a reasonable approximation of required time in which these events could take place, why, let's just move the timeframe back a few 'evers' and -presto!- all is well again. That, my friends, is blind faith, unencumbered by the facts or reason.
It makes no sense, because, by definition, the matter/energy ratio within the universe is constant -- it cannot be created, it just is.
Funny, ain't it? In getting rid of God, the anti-theist must create something that looks just like God in order to explain existence. The problem with the anti-theist's formula, however, is that it leaves far too many gaps and cannot account for something as seemingly inoccuous as reason. Go figure.
These are axioms of their particular disciplines. Freaky would like to assert that the scientist's claim that matter always was is flawed, but he has failed to show this, because there has never been a time when that matter/energy ratio did not exist.
In the other thread discussing this same issue, you were given one no-name, no-account source which discusses this issue, affirming the position I have already quoted. You were given that citation because you refused to ferret it out for yourself, despite knowing the position is pretty well accepted in the 'scientific community.' Just another example of the games you like to play. They're so cute and endearing.
But amusingly, you now wish to call upon the theory that this Big Bang came from a previous Big Bang, ad infinitum, like waves on the beach. This is amusing, due to the fact that this position simply puts off to tomorrow what cannot be paid today. It still does not answer the question, "From where did matter come?" Disingenuosly, you foist this flag and demand that no one ask beyond the infinite regress--- even while the question screams to be asked.
As to where this cycle came from -- that 'something' needed to get the ball rolling -- science is, rightly, agnostic.
Sure: science is agnostic about a question that cannot be asked. The fact remains, the anti-theist has no choice but to create something in the image of God, once God is eliminated. The un-caused cause is... matter! Brilliant.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Despite your attempts at sleight-of-hand otherwise, the problem 'plauges' the position of the anti-theist, not the theist....In getting rid of God, the anti-theist must create something that looks just like God in order to explain existence. The problem with the anti-theist's formula, however, is that it leaves far too many gaps and cannot account for something as seemingly inoccuous as reason. ...It still does not answer the question, "From where did matter come?" Disingenuosly, you foist this flag and demand that no one ask beyond the infinite regress--- even while the question screams to be asked...[S]cience is agnostic about a question that cannot be asked. The fact remains, the anti-theist has no choice but to create something in the image of God, once God is eliminated. The un-caused cause is... matter! Brilliant.
You are clearly being obtuse. Your answer to the question 'Where does God come from?' is no
better than the scientist's answer 'Where does matter come from?' You keep saying, 'NO NO NO.
Don't you get it? God is uncreated!' while refusing the scientist the very same axiom.
You are employing the very same sleight of hand.
Let me make this clear: Both you and the scientist are taking the same position, which is,
X is uncreated. This is essential to both disciplines. The only difference is that the
scientist muses about the creation of X, whereas you don't even permit such a question (a
testament to your lack of scientific curiosity).
I have to laugh when you claim that science leaves 'too many gaps.' Please note that the only
gap that scientist has is 'where did matter come from.' You have the very same gap, though
it seems that you are unwilling to admit it. In fact, you have even more gaps, because,
even if the philosopher permitted you to have an uncreated entity while refusing the scientist the
same, this doesn't do anything for proving that your particular God exists. But this is a digression
assuming that the philosopher would do something as illogical as allow one discipline to have an
axiom it refuses in another discipline.
By the way I never said that the question cannot be asked, but that it would seem that the
question cannot be answered. Believe you me, if they find an answer, I will be tickled pink.
I look forward to seeing if this penetrates.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioLet me make this clear: Both you and the scientist are taking the same position, which is, X is uncreated. This is essential to both disciplines. The only difference is that the scientist muses about the creation of X, whereas you don't even permit such a question (a
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Despite your attempts at sleight-of-hand otherwise, the problem 'plauges' the position of the anti-theist, not the theist....In getting rid of God, the anti-theist must create something that looks just like God in order to explain existence. The problem with the anti-theist's formula, however, is that it leaves ...[text shortened]... be tickled pink.
I look forward to seeing if this penetrates.
Nemesio
testament to your lack of scientific curiosity).
What a joke! Gee, since we're being so clear about things, let me make this clear: I have been saying this from the beginning of the conversation. And now you try to characterize my position as something entirely different? Or, richer still, condemn my feeble intellect to a life void of "scientific curiosity?!" If this is the best you can muster, you shouldn't bother turning your computer on in the first place.
Please note that the only gap that scientist has is 'where did matter come from.'
Yeah, that and abstract thought, reason, etc. But, then again, it is just that one particular gap--- reason--- that this current conversation is about, although you continually try to steer away from that inconvenient fact.
You have [i]the very same gap, though it seems that you are unwilling to admit it.[/i]
There is nothing to admit, as the gap is nicely filled by a personal God. Reason cannot spring forth out of physical matter. It is only possible to issue forth from a mind. Surely that is not lost on someone with your analytical abilities.
By the way I never said that the question cannot be asked, but that it would seem that the question cannot be answered.
Another inconsistency in your position emerges. You claim it is disingenuous to allow one school of thought to use an axiom refused to the competing school of thought. Then, you go on to say that the question cannot be answered. So, after the whole dog-and-pony machinations are done, after the infinite regress finally reaches back to its endless-that's-not-really-endless wave's beginning, the scientific, learned man is allowed to say 'we just can't know where matter came from.' Sounds like some kinda miracle.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What a joke!
What's the joke, Freaky? Which of the following premises do you disagree with?
1) The theologian asserts that God is uncreated;
2) The scientist asserts that matter/energy is uncreated;
3) You want the theologian to be able to assert 1) and to deny the scientist the ability to assert 2).
Yeah, that and abstract thought, reason, etc. But, then again, it is just that one particular gap--- reason--- that this current conversation is about, although you continually try to steer away from that inconvenient fact.
When did this conversation turn to the origin of reason? Given that the original topic was
evolution (a scientific topic) and from there we talked about the origin of the universe,
when did the metaphysical topic of reason become the tack?
[iThere is nothing to admit, as the gap is nicely filled by a personal God.[/b]
Um. If God invented reason, He forgot to give you some. Let's make this simple, again, for
you.
The scientist asserts that matter is uncreated. The theologian asserts that God is uncreated.
The gap in question is 'Where did uncreated thing X come from?' The theologian's gap
is just as present as the scientist's; neither has any rational answer for the origin of the uncreated
X.
Reason cannot spring forth out of physical matter. It is only possible to issue forth from a mind. Surely that is not lost on someone with your analytical abilities.
Uh. Are you adopting a Realism position here? (Just want to be clear.)
The ability to reason requires a mind, yes. And, ability to reason did, indeed, arise when
a mind with that capacity evolved. What's so hard to follow about that?
Another inconsistency in your position emerges. You claim it is disingenuous to allow one school of thought to use an axiom refused to the competing school of thought. Then, you go on to say that the question cannot be answered.
You really need to take a course in logic. There are an infinitude of questions that cannot be
answered, in single disciplines and across them. There are an infinitude of questions that don't
make any logical sense that (as a consequence) cannot be answered (like 'Can God make a rock
so big that even He can't lift it?'😉.
Axioms and questions are not interchangeable, in any event. Axioms are the bedrock upon which
disciplines rest. Questions are the ways in which the discipline is explored. Many questions in
one discipline have no meaning in other disciplines, because the topics don't overlap sufficiently.
Lastly, the scientist and theologian both have what I feel to be an answerable question:
Where did X come from? (where X is the uncreated thing). If you feel that this is somehow
disingenuous, then that feeling applies equally to both disciplines. To apply that feeling merely to
the scientist only betrays how your God forgot to give you the reason gene.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhat's the joke, Freaky?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What a joke!
What's the joke, Freaky? Which of the following premises do you disagree with?
1) The theologian asserts that God is uncreated;
2) The scientist asserts that matter/energy is uncreated;
3) You want the theologian to be able to assert 1) and to deny the scientist the ability to assert 2).
Ye e scientist only betrays how your God forgot to give you the reason gene.
Nemesio
The joke, as already indicated in the post of mine which preceded yours, and to which yours was in response, is that you are saying exactly what I have already said... only you're attempting to make it sound as though you are saying it anew.
I have already established that the anti-theist credits to matter (at least some of) the characteristics of God, specifically, eternal existence. Quit trying to make the argument something other than what is clear to the normal reader.
When did this conversation turn to the origin of reason?
About three pages before you jumped into it, feet in mouth first. Just in case your computer is future-only, I have magically devised a time-machine in the form of this link:
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=40560&page=142
If God invented reason, He forgot to give you some.
God, of limited resources, apparently ran out after you clearly received the lion's share. Poor me.
And, ability to reason did, indeed, arise when a mind with that capacity evolved. What's so hard to follow about that?
Other than there is no purpose behind the evolution of reason, none I guess. It's all one cosmic accident, one purely random act of chance. How is value to be determined? One hit, that's it. The cosmos do not care, why should we?
You really need to take a course in logic.
When I have you as a mentor, why waste good money? You, on the other hand, have absolutely no problem following the logic of a system which inexplicably creates the personal from the impersonal, the mind from mindlessness. I sit humbly at your feet, Herr Logic Guru.
then that feeling applies equally to both disciplines.
Thanks again, Captain Obvious. We've covered that ground extensively so further iteration seems so pointless, don't you think? Despite posturing otherwise, matter as the uncaused cause leaves more questions unanswered than it leaves answered. The God of the Bible as the uncaused cause answers more questions than man can think to ask.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I have already established that the anti-theist credits to matter (at least some of) the characteristics of God, specifically, eternal existence.
Your bald ego fails to recognize that while you would phrase it this way,
the scientist would say you, the anti-scientist, credits to God the
characteristic of matter/energy, specifically, eternal existence.
When it finally penetrates your theo-centric skull that your
arguments are no better, no worse, no different than that of the
scientist, you will realize how absurd you are being.
About three pages before you jumped into it, feet in mouth first.
The link you cited makes no comment about the origin of reason;
you were merely blathering that, because the scientist does not
attribute God as the uncaused causer, he does not have purpose.
I jumped in when you were equivocating between natural purpose and
metaphysical purpose.
Other than there is no purpose behind the evolution of reason, none I guess.
Um. Who said there wasn't a purpose behind reason? Reason clearly
evolved because it allowed us to survive better than not having it.
The ability to reason didn't just magically appear -- one day not here,
the next present -- it, too, evolved. 'Lower' animals can reason to a
degree -- we see it all the time in chimps, dogs, even birds (albeit
rudimentarily). To wit, your ability to reason is less evolved than mine
(as painfully and repeatedly evinced in this thread). If we were out in
the jungle like we were 100k years ago, then I'd have a distinct
survival advantage over you. But, who knows, maybe you're big and
strong and would have been able to muscle your way out of situations
where reason wouldn't help as much.
Fortunately, muscle has no currency in this forum.
It's all one cosmic accident, one purely random act of chance. How is value to be determined? One hit, that's it. The cosmos do not care, why should we?
The cosmos don't care because the cosmos lack the capacity for caring.
It's like saying the apples don't care if they are eaten, or the trees
don't care if they are cut down; it makes no sense to personify non-
sentient objects like that.
We, by contrast, are sentient. Therefore to ask why we should or
should not care is a relevant question. But to tie our caring with that
of the non-sentient cosmos is meaningless.
You, on the other hand, have absolutely no problem following the logic of a system which inexplicably creates the personal from the impersonal, the mind from mindlessness.
Well, there are explanations, and I've offered them. The mind
evolved because it was more advantageous to have it than not, where
advantage relates to optimizing the likelihood of procreation.
Despite posturing otherwise, matter as the uncaused cause leaves more questions unanswered than it leaves answered. The God of the Bible as the uncaused cause answers more questions than man can think to ask.
Wrong. It leaves the exact same questions. This is why I keep
itereating it, because it just sink in. In fact, it leaves just one question:
Where did X come from (where X=God or matter/energy)? After that,
things are pretty straight forward.
The problem is, where (I believe) the answer to the scientist's question
is unanswerable, you refuse to even entertain the question as to where
God came from. For you, the axiom is inviolate (and, yet you refuse
the same courtesy for the scientific discipline).
I've tried reason, now I will try prayer. I pray that you will get this
significant point.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhen it [b]finally penetrates your theo-centric skull that your
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I have already established that the anti-theist credits to matter (at least some of) the characteristics of God, specifically, eternal existence.
Your bald ego fails to recognize that while you would phrase it this way,
the scientist would say you, the anti-scientist, credits to God the
characteristic of matt ...[text shortened]... will try prayer. I pray that you will get this
significant point.
Nemesio[/b]
arguments are no better, no worse, no different than that of the
scientist, you will realize how absurd you are being.[/b]
You don't actually think you are saying something different than what I have been saying the entire time, do you? Minus the absurd part, of course. It may be difficult for you to accept, but you haven't said anything in this sentence that I haven't already said. Some scientists (not, incorrectly, the scientist) wish to attribute to matter attributes of God.
In your desperation, you attempt to paint my position as egotistical, when it (matter has always been) is only a recent development for some scientists, owing to their difficulty in dealing with the facts as currently revealed. And, by the way, my ego is in full possession of its natural hair.
The link you cited makes no comment about the origin of reason
You got me there! You would actually have to read it to get that information. Silly me.
Reason clearly evolved because it allowed us to survive better than not having it.
Apparently you are unaware of reason's impact on survival. If TOE (and its attendant timetables) be true, man survived just fine without reason. And there is no 'better,' there can be no 'preferred,' arising out of chance. Must be your clearly superior reasoning abilities which allow you to see what cannot be seen.
And if TOE is correct, in every instance of 'preferred' being 'selected' over and above other choices, the 'preferred' was supposedly superior. Yet somehow evolution used something un-preferred, inferior to further its cause. Wild.
To wit, your ability to reason is less evolved than mine
(as painfully and repeatedly evinced in this thread).
And to what do you attribute your success? Genes? The only art you have perfected is the twisting of clear and self-evident words to suit an otherwise indefensible position.
If we were out in the jungle like we were 100k years ago, then I'd have a distinct survival advantage over you.
Given your penchant for put-downs and self-importance, you likely don't do well anywhere outside of this artificial environment. Were you to conduct yourself outside of the safety of your anonymity in your ususal manner, you'd be at the receiving end of more beatdowns than a month's worth of WWF. But, smart guy that you are, you'd likely evolve enough sense to stop the insults after the first couple of whacks.
I've tried reason, now I will try prayer. I pray that you will get this
significant point.
The ceiling has no response.