Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat’s fair—and I’ll follow along.
I'm going to approach the summit from a different path. If, at the end, my answers are not satisfactory, I'll attempt to answer the questions you raise here separately.
BTW, I am not saying (as I think you know) that the religious attitude is unjustified—I just think the justification lies elsewhere. I am slowly working out the details (which is something that Coletti, in a friendly way, challenged me to do nearly a year ago), and perhaps following your argument will help.
Originally posted by vistesdI just think the justification lies elsewhere.
That’s fair—and I’ll follow along.
BTW, I am not saying (as I think you know) that the religious attitude is unjustified—I just think the justification lies elsewhere. I am slowly working out the details (which is something that Coletti, in a friendly way, challenged me to do nearly a year ago), and perhaps following your argument will help.
Not to be contentious (ha-ha), but I think the best that man can hope for is 'other,' or 'unknown,' with respect to the ability to justify the position, without divine revelation.
But we'll see where this rut takes us.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH🙂 Which is why I used the phrase “religious attitude”—though perhaps “decision” would’ve been a better word—instead of “religious belief.” Though at this point, me best bet is probably just to follow what you lay out, rather than objecting too early...
[b]I just think the justification lies elsewhere.
Not to be contentious (ha-ha), but I think the best that man can hope for is 'other,' or 'unknown,' with respect to the ability to justify the position, without divine revelation.
But we'll see where this rut takes us.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Knowns, and only knowns. Agreed?
I detect entrapment. By knowns, are we referring specifically to those knowns that can be
shown to be true rather than the 'presumes' that we take on faith?
Would you agree that causation of and within the universe is strictly mechanistic?
What do you mean by mechanistic? Do you mean that events in the universe unfold through
a series of linked events, each of which influences the next?
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI would agree that events within the universe must be caused. I would not agree that the universe itself requires a cause. Causality is a property of the universe, only things which can happen inside.
This is precisely where you (and others here) can help me. Perhaps if we remain steadfast with our gaze upon the 'knowns,' that fear and contempt of which you speak will dissapate as the piercing rays of logic come shining into my darkened mind.
Knowns, and only knowns. Agreed?
Would you agree that causation of and within the universe is strictly mechanistic?
Originally posted by NemesioYou stated earlier:
I am afraid I do not understand what you are asking.
Scientists haven't opted to make matter eternal. Scientists have come to the conclusion that such a claim is the only right one, the only one which the evidence supports.
The problem here is that scientists have a different understanding of eternal from theologans. To a scientist, time is a property of the universe. To say matter/energy is eternal is to say that matter and energy exist through out the time line of the universe, this follows directly from the law of conservation of energy.
Theologans tend to have a different meaning for eternal and imagine time to be a property external to the universe (hence the eternal soul).
I'm back. Did you miss me?
I didn't have time to post last week but I did follow the argument (or at least read most of the posts)
The problem here is that scientists have a different understanding of eternal from theologans. To a scientist, time is a property of the universe. To say matter/energy is eternal is to say that matter and energy exist through out the time line of the universe, this follows directly from the law of conservation of energy.
Theologans tend to have a different meaning for eternal and imagine time to be a property external to the universe (hence the eternal soul).
This is an interesting one. So do Christians (or any other faith that includes the concept of eternal souls) believe that our souls existed before our bodies? Have we actually existed for all of time as well as being eternal from birth on? Is our time on Earth just a brief blink in the middle of our actual existance?
Just wondering.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinFor me, two things make the concept of the soul basically untennable.
This is an interesting one. So do Christians (or any other faith that includes the concept of eternal souls) believe that our souls existed before our bodies? Have we actually existed for all of time as well as being eternal from birth on? Is our time on Earth just a brief blink in the middle of our actual existance?
Just wondering.
--- Penguin.
1. divisibility
2. time - the human conciousness is constantly changing hence cannot be eternal.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot sure what you mean by divisibility. I suspect the religious will have some distinction between conciousness and 'soul'.
For me, two things make the concept of the soul basically untennable.
1. divisibility
2. time - the human conciousness is constantly changing hence cannot be eternal.
I see 2 possibilities.
1. Each soul is eternal (has always been and will always be) and our time on Earth is a brief moment in this existance. That implies either that there is a fixed limit to the number of people that can exist, or we re-incarnate and some souls get mutliple lives, or there is an infinite supply of souls and some never get a go.
2. Each soul is created when the 'host' body is conceived or born (or some time over the next months and years as research suggests is the case with conciousness). In which case surely it must cease to exist when the host body dies.
Of course there's always the 3rd possibility: there is no such thing as a 'soul'.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by amannionThere are 2 types of evolution though, microevolution and macroevolution! No one can deny that microevolution takes place but macroevolution is where the debate takes place! Macroevolution is the whole thing about whether we came from a primordial ooze as Darwin stated and evolved to what we are today! Microevolution has to do with the small adaptations that take place! People and things adapt clearly it is whether we evolve ourselves that needs debating!
Why does evolution have to be antagonistic to religion?
There are many scientists, including evolutionary biologists who are religious - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept evolution means rejecting their religious beliefs, and so reject evolution.
Why is this?
Does it have to be the case?
I can't myself see any confl ...[text shortened]... s, other than when the Bible is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
Originally posted by JohnLennonForeverActually, there isn't any debate on the subject within scientific circles (because it is so well accepted), only religious ones, which should tell you something.
There are 2 types of evolution though, microevolution and macroevolution! No one can deny that microevolution takes place but macroevolution is where the debate takes place! Macroevolution is the whole thing about whether we came from a primordial ooze as Darwin stated and evolved to what we are today! Microevolution has to do with the small adapta ...[text shortened]... ke place! People and things adapt clearly it is whether we evolve ourselves that needs debating!
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzAt a certain time it was well accepted in scientific circles that the earth is flat.
Actually, there isn't any debate on the subject within scientific circles (because it is so well accepted), only religious ones, which should tell you something.
And if the scientists had read their Bibles at the time they would have seen that the Bible suggested that the earth was round.
That should tell you something...
Originally posted by dj2beckeroh yeah,, round with 4 corners. lmaoooooooo
At a certain time it was well accepted in scientific circles that the earth is flat.
And if the scientists had read their Bibles at the time they would have seen that the Bible suggested that the earth was round.
That should tell you something...
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe Greeks did not think that the earth was flat. They in fact did geometric measurements
At a certain time it was well accepted in scientific circles that the earth is flat.
(based on shadows) to figure out the radius and diameter of the earth. They were pretty
damn close, too, except that they assumed that the earth (its being a Divine creation) was
a perfect sphere (which, of course, it is not).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI detect entrapment.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Knowns, and only knowns. Agreed?
I detect entrapment. By knowns, are we referring specifically to those knowns that can be
shown to be true rather than the 'presumes' that we take on faith?
Would you agree that causation of and within the universe is strictly mechanistic?
What do you mean by mecha ...[text shortened]... verse unfold through
a series of linked events, each of which influences the next?
Nemesio[/b]
The force within you is strong.
By knowns, are we referring specifically to those knowns that can be shown to be true rather than the 'presumes' that we take on faith?
Yes.
What do you mean by mechanistic?
Relating to the philosophy of mechanism, especially tending to explain phenomena only by reference to physical or biological causes.
Automatic and impersonal; mechanical.
Fair enough?