Page 2 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

drh1138
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 498

17 Jun 2014, 4:17 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
What am I talking about is that a purely humanistic, atheistic, naturalistic viewpoint has no inherent source for anything immaterial.


Sounds to me like you're just moving the goalposts. Every time you bring up this argument, something "clever" about where "traits 'X' and 'Y' come from if they have no materialistic basis", someone points out that, there is indeed a demonstrable naturalistic explanation for them. You never actually do directly confront any of these examples given, instead conveniently ignoring them and repeating your original statement.

That's generally the approach I've seen you use in these threads; you toss out a clichéd dead horse argument that's been beaten to death by philosophers and scientists for some time: decades, sometimes centuries; numerous people point that out, along with your massive deficit in scientific knowledge, and they provide (often with sources) why your assumptions are incorrect. You then conveniently disappear from the thread entirely, or you make a new point completely without acknowledging your previous one being turned to Swiss cheese or answering any counterarguments.

Quote:
We already know natural laws couldn't have formed nature itself,


[Citation needed]

Quote:
because science has proven there was a static beginning for it.


That does not follow from the premises. A static beginning to the universe does not mean anything with regard to the mechanism of its origins.

Quote:
Hence, it becomes a "chicken vs. egg" dilemma. Some try to get around it by citing the possibility of multiple universes, but there is zero evidence for any other than our own.


Isn't that ironic. :roll:

Quote:
By contrast, there's plenty of evidence for the possibility of a supreme intelligence outside of nature;


Then let's have it. Stop alluding to it, and show it directly.



hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,613
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

18 Jun 2014, 7:29 am

drh1138 wrote:
That's generally the approach I've seen you use in these threads; you toss out a clichéd dead horse argument that's been beaten to death by philosophers and scientists for some time: decades, sometimes centuries;


I probaly shouldn't comment on this because I haven't reallly been reading alot of what goes on in this sub-forum, so don't know what comments you're refering to, but this doesn't seem like a fair comment to me. Yes, people have gone over and over the same questions and philosophies, but different people wander upon these ideas at different times in their life. Just because one person has come to a conclusion doesn't mean that another person will come to the same conclusion, and the reason for this is because we are all unique.

but then I'm to much of a crazy liberal to see things as black and white, which is very annoying to some people and I am aware of that.

As Bruce Dickinson says, "everybody has a different way to view the world."



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

18 Jun 2014, 8:25 am

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
We already know natural laws couldn't have formed nature itself, because science has proven there was a static beginning for it.


Not true.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Hence, it becomes a "chicken vs. egg" dilemma.


True.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Some try to get around it by citing the possibility of multiple universes, but there is zero evidence for any other than our own.


Not true.

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
By contrast, there's plenty of evidence for the possibility of a supreme intelligence outside of nature.


Supreme being outside of nature? No.

A more intelligent, advanced, and aware being(s) out there in the universe (or another for that matter)? Quite possibly.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,381
Location: Missouri

18 Jun 2014, 12:23 pm

Sorry. "Hope" and wishful thinking doesn't make something true.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,475
Location: Reading, England

18 Jun 2014, 6:22 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
By contrast, there's plenty of evidence for the possibility of a supreme intelligence outside of nature;

Firstly, I genuinely appreciate you attempting to engage in rational discourse. Often I feel you do not respond to fatal criticism of your arguments, even to admit that you screwed up. Er, I didn't phrase that too well, I just mean I'm glad to see you return to a discussion.

Is there evidence for a possibility of a supreme intelligence outside of material nature? Well, sure - but that's a remarkably low standard. There is evidence for the possibility of almost anything. Narwhal horns are evidence for the possibility of unicorns. The balance of evidence, however, is against both unicorns and a supreme being. That's not to say that unicorns do not exist - they'd just have to be extremely elusive, leave no remains, be difficult to photograph, etc. And why would you believe in a unicorn with the current balance of evidence?

Similarly, perhaps the beauty of nature is, to you, evidence of design. Maybe the structure of neurones strikes you as something that could not have come about without divine guidance. That's a narwhal horn. Now, look at demylinating diseases which make neurones next to useless. That's the discovery of a narwhal, complete with horn. Look at the suffering of the insect infested with parasitoid larvae. Look at earthquakes - couldn't we have a world without continental drift?

Sure, a god could exist, maybe if they were sadistic, or otherwise if they were simply not perfect and did not intervene to correct their mistakes. But why believe in that in the first place?



Shadi2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Nov 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,237

18 Jun 2014, 6:49 pm

Personally I believe in afterlife, and that we our spiritual body lives on. I believe this to be true for every living thing, not just for humans. I have had some personal experiences that also made this pretty obvious (to me). But also one experience that led me to believe that reincarnation is a possibility, but that's another story.

To me, if there was no afterlife (regardless of religion, I am only talking about our "soul" or spiritual body, or whatever you want to call it), it would mean that everything, evolution, and every struggle, ours, and animals' struggle for survival, the pain of those who are on top of the food chain and those at the bottom (they all die eventually whether they are carnivores or herbivores), everything we, and everything else, go through, all this pain and struggles, would be completely useless and meaningless.

I believe that evolution is not only a physical fact, but also a spiritual fact.


_________________
That's the way things come clear. All of a sudden. And then you realize how obvious they've been all along. ~Madeleine L'Engle


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

18 Jun 2014, 6:54 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
What am I talking about is that a purely humanistic, atheistic, naturalistic viewpoint has no inherent source for anything immaterial. We already know natural laws couldn't have formed nature itself, because science has proven there was a static beginning for it. Hence, it becomes a "chicken vs. egg" dilemma. Some try to get around it by citing the possibility of multiple universes, but there is zero evidence for any other than our own. By contrast, there's plenty of evidence for the possibility of a supreme intelligence outside of nature; whether you believe its the God of the Bible is another story.



Moviefan you have this argument back to front, the more we understand about the natural laws on this earth and the universe the less need there is for a creator to explain our existence, this does not mean there is no god it just means that aas our knowledge grows the need for a creator to explain life diminishes. As to the singularity have you looked into Rainbow Gravity or Stephen Hawking's Grand Design. You state there is no evidence for multiverses yet you posit that there's plenty of evidence for the POSSIBILITY of a supreme intelligence. In fact our existence and the existence of the universe gives as much evidence of multiverses as it does for God, and the way research is going, the theoretical models of multiverses and singularities suggest no need for God.

Fundamentally the issue as I see it is this, you desperately want something else to exist, you need for life not to be the only purpose of life, why I dont know. You talk of suicide and faith saving you. BUt whatever you want life to be, whatever you imagine might exist after this life, the fact is you cannot will something to what it is not.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


SinewStew
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 50

19 Jun 2014, 7:31 pm

Why is being religious the default? I really just don't care for it. Why do I need to have a religion just because everyone else does?



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

19 Jun 2014, 7:46 pm

SinewStew wrote:
Why is being religious the default? I really just don't care for it. Why do I need to have a religion just because everyone else does?


I'd say atheism is the default. I don't remember having any notion of gods/religions until other people told me about it. And there are of course places where atheism is the norm. I don't know that many religious people at all.



SinewStew
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 50

19 Jun 2014, 9:30 pm

I was addressing the topic poster.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

20 Jun 2014, 5:05 am

SinewStew wrote:
I was addressing the topic poster.


I think he has gone, he does this often, presents what he thinks is a sensible position then disappears when it gets shot down. Shame really, if he were to stick around and listen he might actually learn something and get his knowledge from the 21st rather than the 1st century, Well maybe earlier, Eratosthenes had discovered the earth a sphere hundreds of years earlier, I don't think the OP has gotten that far yet.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


zkoc2076
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 88
Location: Кострома

23 Jun 2014, 6:51 am

I agree. Very eloquent.

"Science is a belief, belief in only what you can see and touch. I believe in more." (a spiritual patient in Grey'd Anatomy, though below is a more academic point)

I came across a book (on a different topic) where author Bernard Rollins points out that actually, we (even scientists) believe more than what's directly seen: we do not think the world was ?created three seconds ago with fossils and memories created on the spot? and believe a past exists even though the past ?cannot be experienced directly?. I found that point really thought provoking.



SinewStew
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 50

23 Jun 2014, 8:35 am

Science is a method not a belief system. We do not seek to believe , we seek to know.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,714
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

23 Jun 2014, 9:22 am

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
What am I talking about is that a purely humanistic, atheistic, naturalistic viewpoint has no inherent source for anything immaterial. We already know natural laws couldn't have formed nature itself, because science has proven there was a static beginning for it. Hence, it becomes a "chicken vs. egg" dilemma. Some try to get around it by citing the possibility of multiple universes, but there is zero evidence for any other than our own. By contrast, there's plenty of evidence for the possibility of a supreme intelligence outside of nature; whether you believe its the God of the Bible is another story.


And there is also zero evidence that your god exists.

Also I don't see what multiple universes would have to do with the chicken vs. egg dilemma and that one is easy obviously the egg couldn't come first as something needs to lay it....either way there probably are various planes of existence, though not sure about the multiple universes depends on if this one has an end or not I'd imagine but maybe not.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

23 Jun 2014, 9:27 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
the chicken vs. egg dilemma and that one is easy obviously the egg couldn't come first as something needs to lay it....


Uh, no Sweetleaf. The first chicken hatched from an egg that had a mutation in it but that egg was not laid by a chicken but by the immediate ancestral species of bird that was to develop into the chickens of today. So the egg came first logically. Also, eggs are laid by fish which evolved into reptiles which evolved into birds, so eggs came first hundreds of millions of years before there were chickens.

The way one answers this question can almost be used to divide those who accept evolution and those who don't. The people who mistakenly believe that all animals were created separately (in denial of the genetic evidence and the fossil record) would say of course a chicken came first. Those who accept the fact of evolution realize the first chicken came from an egg that was laid by something that was not quite a chicken yet (an almost-chicken).


_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,714
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

23 Jun 2014, 9:45 am

Hmmm never heard of that, but that is intresting...even so that does not count as a chicken egg....so technically chickens would still come before a chicken egg was ever laid....but then it could be said eggs came before chickens.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.