Does science support the existence of God?
- Thread starter DR.D
- Start date
- Status
Nullifidian
Banned
And that my friend is unfortunately the logical fallacy of appeal to consequence.
If 'A' is true, then something good happens, therefore 'A' is true.
Sadly reality does not operate that way.
If 'A' is true, then something good happens, therefore 'A' is true.
Sadly reality does not operate that way.
EESCHMan
Member
The point is that your argument contradicts itself. How can you define something you don't even believe in? How can you say "I don't believe he created anything" when you don't even think he exists? Your statement should only be:
"I don't believe in God", period. No need to give him credit for not creating something if he doesn't even exist, right? Or, maybe this is evidence you actually DO believe in God on some primal, subconscious level.
You got me, I'm secretly starting to believe...
EESCHMan
Member
Look around is the worst argument...
Looking around just shows how awe inspiring NATURE is...
Nullifidian
Banned
Those laws don't apply to "the one who created everything"? Please explain your reasoning as to why anything should be exempt from the first law of thermodynamics? it's mathematically and experimentally proven. We have never witnessed anything that can break that law and we have proven via mathematics and via experiements that to ALL of our knowledge that law cannot be broken. That's why it is a LAW.
Plus, please show me the scientific evidence proving the existance of said "1 who created these laws." Answer: there is none. Meaning: the existance of a creator is irrelevent. The universe has always existed. Always, forever, etc. are words with temporal meaning. That is to say based in time. There is an infinite stretch of time backward and forward. There is no end or beginning of time by the very nature of time itself.
Creation is an event. Events are moments in time. As such it only has meaning with respect to time. Since the universe has no temporal beginning or end it cannot have been created.
Any concept of a being divining the universe into existance outside of time is a completely pointless and irrelevant endevour.
As for your very common fallacious argument along the lines of "but things are so orderly, that's so unlikely! Must be god!". Once again that's an argument from ignorance. Rather than find an actual reason, a "why" for things, you give up and say "god did it." Essentially anytime there is something that science cannot currently explain you say "god must have done it." That argument has been used over the ages for any number of purposes and it's always been wrong.
Plus, please show me the scientific evidence proving the existance of said "1 who created these laws." Answer: there is none. Meaning: the existance of a creator is irrelevent. The universe has always existed. Always, forever, etc. are words with temporal meaning. That is to say based in time. There is an infinite stretch of time backward and forward. There is no end or beginning of time by the very nature of time itself.
Creation is an event. Events are moments in time. As such it only has meaning with respect to time. Since the universe has no temporal beginning or end it cannot have been created.
Any concept of a being divining the universe into existance outside of time is a completely pointless and irrelevant endevour.
As for your very common fallacious argument along the lines of "but things are so orderly, that's so unlikely! Must be god!". Once again that's an argument from ignorance. Rather than find an actual reason, a "why" for things, you give up and say "god did it." Essentially anytime there is something that science cannot currently explain you say "god must have done it." That argument has been used over the ages for any number of purposes and it's always been wrong.
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
You have to keep in mind that it's not a matter of facts in this sense, it's a matter of FAITH.
The thread is called "Does Science Support the Existence of God" and not "Does Science Prove the Existence of God"
Some people can eat the spicy chicken wing, and others can't. If you're not gonna eat it, that's totally fine, but do you mind if I take a bite before you throw it out?
The thread is called "Does Science Support the Existence of God" and not "Does Science Prove the Existence of God"
Some people can eat the spicy chicken wing, and others can't. If you're not gonna eat it, that's totally fine, but do you mind if I take a bite before you throw it out?
peece
Member
Is someone getting tense?
I dont have a problem with what you believe to be truth and Ill not argue this into the ground.You have your opinion and Ive had my experiences.So Its cool ;your uncle can be an orangutan.Ill believe in Jesus and my Heavenly Father.
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.:lol:
DR.D
Well-known member
Not true. Have you ever heard of instinct or intuition? Infants know lots of things, they have to know in order to survive while they are still so vulnerable! They have to be able to read eyes, tone of voice and subtle cues about their environment because they don't understand words yet. In order to recognize God, you must go to him like a little child. We all have a concept of right and wrong ingrained in us from birth, even while we are still too young and self-centered to care.
Last edited:
DR.D
Well-known member
That's the whole thing right there. The Bible says God roams the surface of the earth looking for those that are His and that love Him. He's looking to bless and enable those who are obedient to His calling. Just like good kids get rewarded and bad kids ultimately get punished. He's just looking for a few good men that have heart! Any wanna-be tough guy can go though life with a gun in his hand and no love for the next man, but God is looking for those that do good, even when nobody is watching. Those that diligently seek truth are rewarded. That's how He operates.
Last edited:
DR.D
Well-known member
Because there is a popular misconception that science and God are incompatible. Read the first post, this is not so! Religion and science are at odds, God and religion is even at odds, but not God and science. Science is a way to understand and quantitating God's plan as best we can as humans, but you are right, it is only grace and faith that save. I started this thread to open some peoples eyes and make them accountable. I am a scientist and I had to face it. No more excuses for you! Reject God if you like, it's your choice, but at least face the truth. He is real and science strongly suggests it. Nobody has refuted any of the laws I pointed out yet so they think they don't have to acknowledge God, but ignorance is still a choice and you will be held accountable so please consider it!
DR.D
Well-known member
And want if B turns out to be true, God is real and you didn't even take the time to consider it? Uhh-hoooooo... looks like you screwed the pooch then huh!
You can't go wrong believing because you are not asked to do anything but good, but you can lose it all by not believing. Be smart, at least go with the best odds when eternity is at stake. :thumbsup:
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
I agree with your statement, but Peter does not.
DR.D
Well-known member
YES!! Praise the Lord :head:
Look EE, I'm not asking you to give your house to the poor, or join a church, or believe in some silly museum, or do some crazy weirdo religious ritual in strange tongues! Just entertain the info I've presented because it's sound logic. What have you got against considering it? You have nothing to lose but a little time in thought, and who knows what new insights you may achieve.
DR.D
Well-known member
Thank you !!
People are also confusing this with a "religious" argument. Whether I sold anybody on Christ or not can be debated, but to ignore that fact that science truly does support the existence of at least some god is plain ignorant (root word, to ignore!)
How scared and insecure are these guys that they can't even acknowledge the science and consider the possible implications?
DR.D
Well-known member
If you feel so strongly about the validity of the 1'st Law, then you know it only applies to closed/finite systems, but then you try to make the argument that the universe is infinite and blow your own argument. Dude, choose a lane!
Look, just admit that the probabilities strongly support the existence of a creator, then you can proceed to say you reject God anyway because (fill in the blank) He's mean, or you don't like him, or you don't wanna be held accountable to be a good man, or whatever your excuse is, but don't be silly and ignore the science. You can't even get your argument straight. You know the observed universe does NOT look static at all right? It's clearly in a state of expansion. Good luck with that claim buddy!
And no, the 1'st Law need not apply to He who created it, God is running the whole experiment. He walked on water man, that violates fundamental laws of physics! Only God could do that kind of stuff, he has the administrative password to the whole universe! The things that are impossible with man are possible with God and that should not be some big freakin' shocker. Hellooo, it's GOD we're talking about
Nullifidian
Banned
Dr. D. I'm ashamed. That's an appeal to force fallacy in the rhetorical form. It's not even a logical argument, it's just rhetoric. You should know better.
If x does not accept P as true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, x should accept P to avoid Q.
And I quote:
"The truth of the conclusion, which addresses the benefit of a course of action, cannot be determined from the truth of the premises. Logic does not address subjective concepts such as practicality or ethics."
What you said is tantamount to "If you don't believe in the invisible pink unicorn, Bob is going to beat you with a baseball bat. So you better believe in the invisible pink unicorn."
Heck, your assumption even goes far enough as to assume not only that there is a god but that this god actually gives a crap whether or not we believe in it. You just keep piling on the assumptions there.
As for the orangutan argument, that's an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Also known as reducto ad absurdam. To the point actually where you've actually created a straw man. What's worse is you're completely aware you've created a straw man.
Listen, I'm not asking for much. All I'm asking for right now is that the other side of the argument at least not resort to a bunch of logical fallacies. I'm not seeing a lot of logic or reasoning in this thread so far. Just a whole lot of "I feel this" and "I feel that" and "the idea of Jesus gives me the warm and fuzzies so he has to be true."
As for the 1st law, you're confused. Only the SECOND law talks about closed finite systems. The second law is about entropy of closed systems increasing. Open systems, entropy can decrease. The first law talks about conservation of energy in the UNIVERSE. It specifically states:
"In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant"
Notice UNIVERSE. Not system. UNIVERSE.
Your arguments about infants are nonsense btw. Infants know only instinct. God is a concept not an instinct. Children must be taught about god before they consider the concept. Most primitive cultures start with ancestral worship. They attribute that which they don't understand to their ancestors. Many African cultures have absolutely no concept of a creator in fact. Romans and Greeks did not believe in an omnipotent creator. They didn't believe in a benevolent one either. They believed in many gods all of which had very human characteristics.
Rogue Drone
Well-known member
Raise your hand if 20 pages, and counting, of these God versus Science arguments have convinced you to change sides.
My point? I'm an Agnostic because simply stated, I don't know, and as the man who coined the term, Thomas Huxley, used to often say, neither do you.
I'm actually an Aethistic Agnostic, the weight of the evidence sways me in that direction, conclusion?; not here, not in this lifetime.
My point? I'm an Agnostic because simply stated, I don't know, and as the man who coined the term, Thomas Huxley, used to often say, neither do you.
I'm actually an Aethistic Agnostic, the weight of the evidence sways me in that direction, conclusion?; not here, not in this lifetime.
DR.D
Well-known member
Well I did not mean for it to sound that way honestly, but it indeed was rhetorical. If there is no creator and when you die you just die, then why are you even wasting your time here spreading your knowledge? You, everything you were, all your knowledge, it all dies with you and is lost forever. That begs the question, what's the point? I guess anything goes if there is no standard huh?
And in regard to the first law, it can never apply to an infinite process/system of any kind (universe included) because the energy itself would not be constant, it would be infinite. Internal energy requires definite boundaries! The equation would never equilibrate if the universe was infinite.
DR.D
Well-known member
Aethistic Agnostic! That's a new one. Is that like a conservative liberal?
I'm surprised you have not come to a better conclusion by now RD.
Rogue Drone
Well-known member
I have come to a conclusion, there is none. Some things are unknowable.
I'm a convert to the "F*** All" philosophy, if God Does'nt like that, F*** him too.
I'm a convert to the "F*** All" philosophy, if God Does'nt like that, F*** him too.
Nullifidian
Banned
Aethistic Agnostic! That's a new one. Is that like a conservative liberal?
I'm surprised you have not come to a better conclusion by now RD.
Athiestic agnostic means as follows:
someone who affirms that one cannot know whether or not god exists but admits that there is no evidence to support the existance of god.
Just like me.
As for this argument:
That's an appeal to emotion and another appeal to consequence. One's feelings have nothing to do with the likelihood of something being true or not. Whether or not something is good has nothing to do with the likelihood of it being true or not. And no that doesn't beg the question. Begging the question is a form of a loaded question. Here's an example of begging the question:
Bob: Hi I'm a conservative
Alan: So when did you decide to become a fascist, Bob?
THAT is an example of begging the question. The question is phrased such that there is no correct answer because any direct answer will incriminate the person it was directed at.
As for if you think anything goes, clearly not. We have laws, Dr. D. You break those laws you suffer the consequences. If your wondering why we have laws in the first place the answer is simple: it aids in our survival as a species. Humans are social creatures and our pack mentality has evolved quite profoundly. People as a society tend to try to gravitate towards a system they THINK will achieve the greatest amount of enjoyment for themselves. And yes in most cases joy for themselves can be created by giving joy to their families, friends etc. You see altruism has recently been discovered to have roots in our very DNA. It makes perfect sense afterall since altruism helps in the survival of the species.
as for this:
Well here's the first problem with that statement: you are assuming that the universe has an infinite amount of energy. There is no evidence to support that. In fact, if it is infinite we'll likely never know. What we DO know is that it contains a really large amount of stuff. Lots and lots. We're talking really big numbers. But big numbers doesn't mean infinity it just means big numbers. So perhaps there's actually bigger numbers. Perhaps there's bigger than bigger numbers. Point is, you can't say it's not true for the universe "because the universe is infinite" if you don't even have proof the universe is infinite.
Second problem is you don't know whether or not the universe has boundries.
Lastly and far most importantly the first law says "energy cannot be created or destroyed." Period. End of story. One cannot remove energy from existance. One cannot cause energy to spontaneously exist. No process is capable of this and thus it cannot happen. If matter cannot be created or destroyed that means all the energy that currently exists has always existed in some form or another.
Thus it then follows that in any closed, finite system, of course by nature of energy neither being able to destroyed nor created, the energy of that closed system must remain constant. This is a side effect of the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
DR.D
Well-known member
Then how can you make an argument for inherit altruism if good is not equal to true and evil is not equal to false? What are your standards exactly?
And if it does not beg the question, I still say we may as well all be fascist or anarchist or whatever we want. We live in a decaying society so this already shows the 2nd law in effect. In spite of the gov/laws, in spite of punishment, in spite of your genetic altruism, something is not working. What could that be? This is no appeal to emotion, it is a fact of reality. It is obvious that there is a "little fascist" in all of us. I'd bet you don't have kids if you dare deny it.
If you seriously want to argue that the universe is infinite, then please elaborate. What exactly leads you to endorse this model over others? What observations or evidence led you to favor that conclusion?
Nullifidian
Banned
Wow, where to begin. Dr. D. in that statement you displayed a misunderstanding of virtually every concept you spoke of.
"Good" and "bad" are subjective terms and thus can NEVER have anything to do with true and false. True and false are objective terms. Honestly it jut seems like you're attempting to play some poetic words games that have no intellectual value whatsoever. Examples of Dr. D logic:
Example 1: If I were to win the powerball that would be good. Therefore I have won the powerball.
Example 2: If terrorists were to have destroyed the World Trade Center that would be bad. Therefore terrorists never blew up the World Trade Center.
Please tell me you understand why that kind of reasoning is severely flawed.
As for begging the question, Dr. D. my point was simply that you completely misunderstood the term, "begging the question." It's a common mistake but since we are at least attempting to have a logical debate then the proper use of it should be upheld. Begging the question means the use of a loaded question. Your attempted use of it was actually for something which is merely implication and not the logical use of begging the question.
As for this segment of your argument:
Societal decay is not thermodynamic entropy. Besides the fact that entropy only increases in a closed system. Besides, entropy is not chaos. Entropy merely states that no process is 100% efficient. It simply says that in any thermodynamic process, some energy will be "lost" in the form of heat energy. Obviously this energy isn't destroyed but converted to heat energy. The meaning of terms in thermodynamics rarely equates to their meaning in common use language.
Something is not working? Says who? What defines "working"? In order to determine whether or not something is succeeding or failing, one must first define the success condition. You have not done so, thus I fail to see how you can say something isn't "working." Personally I think everything is working just fine. We've multiplied quite well, and given a hundred years or so, we might even spread to other planets! That sounds like success as a species to me. That however is because I define success in this instance as ensuring the enduring survival of the human race.
And Dr. D., just because you say something isn't an appeal to emotion doesn't mean you're right. You can't counter a claim that you used a logical fallacy by saying "no I didn't." You must explain WHY it isn't a logical fallacy. And sorry "this is reality" is not an argument, it's empty rhetoric.
Nullifidian
Banned
Nothing is intrinsically true if it is subjective. Plus, the phrase you used contains in and of itself several subjective terms which mean different things to different people.
1) child: at what age is someone no longer a child?
2) innocent: how in this case is innocent defined (using OBJECTIVE terms)?
So for instance if you defined child as anyone under 18, and defined innocent as never having committed a crime, I'd answer:
"In my OPINION, it really depends on the situation. Until I know the details of the situation, I cannot for sure say it would be bad or not."
If you defined a child as anyone under the age of 5 and innocent as never harming another verbally, psychologically, or physically, however I might be inclined to answer:
"In my OPINION, that would be a bad thing."
So no, there is never any "instrinsic truth" to any statement which is subjective. By the very nature of subjectivity there can be no absolute true or false, yes or no.
DR.D
Well-known member
Well, you would begin by addressing my questions if you truly had an argument or believed half of what you said! Obviously you have no answers and continue to contradict your own arguments. The way you force associations and twist my points further proves you do not seek truth, you simply want to fence. I appreciate the offer to game, and I could provide you with the appropriate antithesis of "I'm only trying to help you..." and win this contest, but your unsubstantiated antagonism and contradictions only serve to clarify your facade and emphasize my unanswered question.
anabolicrhino
Well-known member
Science and religion are the same thing; getting people to believe in certain theories, that the proponent claims are facts.
Just like investigating anything else you must ask yourself who benefits most if I believe these facts are too be true.
If you are the beneficiary of the "proposed" facts, then it would be silly not to be a believer.
I always am skeptical when the crux points of any argument are based on negative theories about the contrary argument.
Its all good brain exercise, but my beliefs do not allow for an ultimate separation between myself and everything else.
I am one with you as you are with me and everything else,
separation is an illusion created by fear of the unknown!
... maybe?
Just like investigating anything else you must ask yourself who benefits most if I believe these facts are too be true.
If you are the beneficiary of the "proposed" facts, then it would be silly not to be a believer.
I always am skeptical when the crux points of any argument are based on negative theories about the contrary argument.
Its all good brain exercise, but my beliefs do not allow for an ultimate separation between myself and everything else.
I am one with you as you are with me and everything else,
separation is an illusion created by fear of the unknown!
... maybe?
Nullifidian
Banned
Dr. D. why are you giving up? All I've done is ask you abide by the tenates of logical debate. Use only logic and nothing else to prove your points. It's real simple. Take something which is an objective fact. Use logic to then prove other facts based on the original fact. And then you go from there.
This is supposed to be a logical. Logic is the root of science. Science is founded on logic. Therefore you can't say something like "The existence of god is supported by science" and then proceed to NEVER ONCE use logic in any of your arguments. Sorry it doesn't work that way.
So please continue. Do not use subjective words or concepts such as "feelings" or things like "good" and "bad" without giving them a very strict definition first so they are no longe subjective.
First and foremost, keep this at the very front of your mind: Opinions are meaningless in a logical debate.
peece
Member
Nullifidian
Just a quick question:
What in your mind is the most important reality in life to you personally?
Do you believe that logic, reasoning, and facts are most significant?
Are relationships with friends, family, co-workers, and nature of chief importance?
Is achievement and self promotion the key?
Bottom line what in this life do you think is logically enduring?
Thanks ahead of time for your honesty
Just a quick question:
What in your mind is the most important reality in life to you personally?
Do you believe that logic, reasoning, and facts are most significant?
Are relationships with friends, family, co-workers, and nature of chief importance?
Is achievement and self promotion the key?
Bottom line what in this life do you think is logically enduring?
Thanks ahead of time for your honesty
Nullifidian
Banned
What gives me greatest enjoyment in life is my time with my wife.
What my personal opinion holds as most important in life is the collective advancement of knowledge of the human race. Anything which furthers this goal, I personally and subjectively believe to be important.
As far as relationships or self promotion, those are just questions about what brings about my personal enjoyment. Perosnally I like stability. I don't like having to worry about bills and stuff. It feels good to think I'm contributing to something also. It also feels good to think I've accomplished something very difficult; i.e. to test my limits and succeed.
These are however just feelings. They have absolutely nothing to do with logical debate. We're debating here about science. We aren't debating about feelings. We aren't debating about happiness, good, bad, evil, or anything like that. We are debating about science in order to do that we only have 1 permissable tool: logic. There are only 2 "languages" in existance which are truly universal and absolute: mathematics and logic.
As far as what in life is "logically enduring" that question doesn't make any sense. Please elaborate; explain what you mean by that.
What my personal opinion holds as most important in life is the collective advancement of knowledge of the human race. Anything which furthers this goal, I personally and subjectively believe to be important.
As far as relationships or self promotion, those are just questions about what brings about my personal enjoyment. Perosnally I like stability. I don't like having to worry about bills and stuff. It feels good to think I'm contributing to something also. It also feels good to think I've accomplished something very difficult; i.e. to test my limits and succeed.
These are however just feelings. They have absolutely nothing to do with logical debate. We're debating here about science. We aren't debating about feelings. We aren't debating about happiness, good, bad, evil, or anything like that. We are debating about science in order to do that we only have 1 permissable tool: logic. There are only 2 "languages" in existance which are truly universal and absolute: mathematics and logic.
As far as what in life is "logically enduring" that question doesn't make any sense. Please elaborate; explain what you mean by that.
CRUNCH
Registered User
I am so in!! Can start the olive loaf altar right away?
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
Yes.
We will have sabbath services once a week. And will accept bologna on whitebread /w ketchup and juiceboxes as communion.
bitterplacebo
Well-known member
We can include feelings as part of the discussion if we want. I'm not sure if the ideas I had about this are particularly relevant to the original topic, but they should at least be interesting. I'm not sure why I picked to reason about feelings as my ending ideas don't really rely on it, but just to show it's possible.
Let's define feelings as a physical trait. They're particular interactions and balances of chemical neurotransmitters in the brain. This exists in everyone.
Perhaps trying to reason about where the human "feeling" originates from would yield some productive insights that can relate to the original topic of the existance of God?
We know that we have feelings.
We know that we are living, and developed from previous living organisms.
We know that through evolution, organisms carry on useful traits.
So it should be alright to believe from this that the earliest organisms had the capacity to develop feelings OR at some point were altered by an outside source and given this trait (this I guess would be what is referred to as "God")
For the first one we have a logical dilemma (unless you have evidence that life has always existed) because we have said that at some point there were the earliest organisms, but one of our propositions was that life has to be sired from previous life. So where did the first life come from?
From what we know about creating life, it seems to require a system that is self-perpetuating. And the most likely candidates for this in our society are soft artificial life, done through software AI that can reprogram itself. Or wet artificial life, done through auto-catalytic chemical reactions.
It's worth acknowledging that if it's possible for us to someday create life through these soft/hard/wet means, then it's also possible that our existence started the same way (even if logically it's difficult to reason about and don't have the capabilities to go about proving it).
In other matters, I'm confused now about this universe being infinite vs. finite or timeless thing, so I'll need to read more before contributing anything on that.
Let's define feelings as a physical trait. They're particular interactions and balances of chemical neurotransmitters in the brain. This exists in everyone.
Perhaps trying to reason about where the human "feeling" originates from would yield some productive insights that can relate to the original topic of the existance of God?
We know that we have feelings.
We know that we are living, and developed from previous living organisms.
We know that through evolution, organisms carry on useful traits.
So it should be alright to believe from this that the earliest organisms had the capacity to develop feelings OR at some point were altered by an outside source and given this trait (this I guess would be what is referred to as "God")
For the first one we have a logical dilemma (unless you have evidence that life has always existed) because we have said that at some point there were the earliest organisms, but one of our propositions was that life has to be sired from previous life. So where did the first life come from?
From what we know about creating life, it seems to require a system that is self-perpetuating. And the most likely candidates for this in our society are soft artificial life, done through software AI that can reprogram itself. Or wet artificial life, done through auto-catalytic chemical reactions.
It's worth acknowledging that if it's possible for us to someday create life through these soft/hard/wet means, then it's also possible that our existence started the same way (even if logically it's difficult to reason about and don't have the capabilities to go about proving it).
In other matters, I'm confused now about this universe being infinite vs. finite or timeless thing, so I'll need to read more before contributing anything on that.
Nullifidian
Banned
Feelings and the capacity for them are an evolved trait. One must have a brain which processes these feelings in order ot have them. Creatures which have feelings have different feelings based on brain chemistry. Feelings evolve the same way other traits evolve; they increase the ability to produce fertile offspring.
For exmaple, the chemicals responsible for creating a feeling of "love" between a mother and child are extremely beneficial to human survival because human children are relatively helpless. If the mother didn't love the child unconditionally, it might abandon the child and the result would be a dead child. This is one of the earliest developed "emotions" and it is an EXTREMELY strong one because it is such a favorable one. A myriad of mammals exhibit that particular trait.
Other such feelings are also ones which have evolved over time.
As for things like altruism, that is easy to explain. Most people feel good when they commit selfless acts. This is an evolutionary trait because this good feeling they feel gives them incentive to give to others and help others. By being altruistic one aids in the survival of the species.
Yes some people do NOT feel good giving to others. And yes, in fact these people frequently are capable of rising to prominent positions of power because of their extreme selfishness. That seems like a big advantage doesn't it? Ah, but the advantae of being selfish is only in an altruistic society because they only succeed by taking advantage of thye altruistic. Selfish people can't take advantage of other selfish people, because those other selfish people won't help them. As such, the trait ultimately keeps itself in check. The end result is a certain amount of selfishness and a certain amount of altruism in everyone.
Anyway, regarding your stance on feelings, you've created a false dilemma here. There aren't merely 2 positions. There are many. You've attempted to posit that only 2 things are possible:
1) all animals had feelings and they've always existed
or
2) feelings spontaneously came into being
When in fact, evolutionary theory and a vertiable ton of scientific studies show us neither of those statement is likely to be true. The problem is in defining when something qualifies as a "feeling".
For exmaple, the chemicals responsible for creating a feeling of "love" between a mother and child are extremely beneficial to human survival because human children are relatively helpless. If the mother didn't love the child unconditionally, it might abandon the child and the result would be a dead child. This is one of the earliest developed "emotions" and it is an EXTREMELY strong one because it is such a favorable one. A myriad of mammals exhibit that particular trait.
Other such feelings are also ones which have evolved over time.
As for things like altruism, that is easy to explain. Most people feel good when they commit selfless acts. This is an evolutionary trait because this good feeling they feel gives them incentive to give to others and help others. By being altruistic one aids in the survival of the species.
Yes some people do NOT feel good giving to others. And yes, in fact these people frequently are capable of rising to prominent positions of power because of their extreme selfishness. That seems like a big advantage doesn't it? Ah, but the advantae of being selfish is only in an altruistic society because they only succeed by taking advantage of thye altruistic. Selfish people can't take advantage of other selfish people, because those other selfish people won't help them. As such, the trait ultimately keeps itself in check. The end result is a certain amount of selfishness and a certain amount of altruism in everyone.
Anyway, regarding your stance on feelings, you've created a false dilemma here. There aren't merely 2 positions. There are many. You've attempted to posit that only 2 things are possible:
1) all animals had feelings and they've always existed
or
2) feelings spontaneously came into being
When in fact, evolutionary theory and a vertiable ton of scientific studies show us neither of those statement is likely to be true. The problem is in defining when something qualifies as a "feeling".
bitterplacebo
Well-known member
Good explanation. Defining when this feeling trait is classified as such has an unclear distinction. I think I'll concede for now that it's best to leave it out of this logical discussion because it's not clearly defined. Would you say, though, that feelings are the root cause for choosing to engage in logical reasoning?
We use logic to discredit feelings. But it was feelings that made us choose to use logic.
Seems circular, or is it not correct to be able to generalize feelings into a single object?
We use logic to discredit feelings. But it was feelings that made us choose to use logic.
Seems circular, or is it not correct to be able to generalize feelings into a single object?
bitterplacebo
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
I've been reading this for some ideas about the beginning and end state of the universe. I only read the first part, but there was an interesting suggestion.
Our concepts of space and matter may be reversed.
Space is not emptiness, think of it as fullness. If you remove some amount of space from a given space, you just created matter. In this way of thinking, objects don't cause spatial curvature, they are spatial curvature.
We know that the universe is expanding, and at an accelerated rate. That is to say, over time, the universe is approaching a state of being completely space. So if we follow time backwards, we must have begun with a universe where all matter was super-condensed in a single, infinitely dense location. Time may or may not have begun at this point, and we can't reason about anything more that lies before this point.
I'm interested in hearing what some think of this. From this way of thinking and the given reasoning about where this Alpha, or beginning, singularity came from, it seems a creator figure isn't that at all. God would have actually been causing deficiencies in space in order for there to be a singularity composed of all matter. And we're actually on our way to becoming complete as a full-space universe as it expands without bounds.
But what can occur before an Alpha state and after an Omega state, given our current scientific knowledge, can't be predicted or reasoned.
I've been reading this for some ideas about the beginning and end state of the universe. I only read the first part, but there was an interesting suggestion.
Our concepts of space and matter may be reversed.
Space is not emptiness, think of it as fullness. If you remove some amount of space from a given space, you just created matter. In this way of thinking, objects don't cause spatial curvature, they are spatial curvature.
We know that the universe is expanding, and at an accelerated rate. That is to say, over time, the universe is approaching a state of being completely space. So if we follow time backwards, we must have begun with a universe where all matter was super-condensed in a single, infinitely dense location. Time may or may not have begun at this point, and we can't reason about anything more that lies before this point.
I'm interested in hearing what some think of this. From this way of thinking and the given reasoning about where this Alpha, or beginning, singularity came from, it seems a creator figure isn't that at all. God would have actually been causing deficiencies in space in order for there to be a singularity composed of all matter. And we're actually on our way to becoming complete as a full-space universe as it expands without bounds.
But what can occur before an Alpha state and after an Omega state, given our current scientific knowledge, can't be predicted or reasoned.
Nullifidian
Banned
You should definitely read about Hawking Radiation, it's some pretty cool stuff and it actually explains a lot about how the "big bang" may have occurred. It also puts the "big bang" into such a perspective as to make it seem actually rather ordinary.
Hawking Radiation works basiclaly like this.
Quantum Theory shows us that particles are capable of "popping" into existance at for all intents and purposes random locations. However they do this as a particle/anti-particle pair and thus cancel out at the very same moment. When this happens however inside a black hole such that 1 particle is outside the event horizon and the other is inside, the pair split with the half outside shooting away actually at a speed faster than light. It did not accelerate to this speed however which is why it does not violate relativity (relativity doesn't say you can't travel faster than light it only says you can't accelerate up to light speed).
Anyway, first law of thermodynamics tells us thyis matter however has to come from somewhere. Well it does, it comes from the inside of the black hole. Thus over time, black holes actually "bleed" off individual particles. This effect is called Hawking Radiation.
Over time, whenever this event occurs, it causes the likelihood of it occurring again for the same black hole to increase. The increase is exponential. Eventually the increase is so rapid it results in an explosion of Hawking Radiation more forceful and violent than even the largest supernova. Yes that's right, black holes eventually explode.
If before the big bang you had a singularity, there would be a black hole. It would observe the same rules as any other black hole except it would simply be bigger. It would emit Hawking radiation over a long period of time and the rate would increase and increase. At a certain point the rate would have increased to the point where it caused an explosion of hawking radiation. An explosion shooting out nearly all the matter in the observable universe.
I say observable because no scientist makes claims on knowing the nature of that which we have no data or mathematical model for. To do so would be worthless conjecture. Sure it might be entertaining, but it wouldn't be productive.
Anyway, I gave a really dumbed down explaination of the whole thing. But it is really cool stuff. It also makes a lot of sense from an Occam's Razor standpoint because it removes a lot of seemingly unnecessary complexities. i.e. the big bang is just an occurance of a rather common event but simply on a much larger scale.
Hawking Radiation works basiclaly like this.
Quantum Theory shows us that particles are capable of "popping" into existance at for all intents and purposes random locations. However they do this as a particle/anti-particle pair and thus cancel out at the very same moment. When this happens however inside a black hole such that 1 particle is outside the event horizon and the other is inside, the pair split with the half outside shooting away actually at a speed faster than light. It did not accelerate to this speed however which is why it does not violate relativity (relativity doesn't say you can't travel faster than light it only says you can't accelerate up to light speed).
Anyway, first law of thermodynamics tells us thyis matter however has to come from somewhere. Well it does, it comes from the inside of the black hole. Thus over time, black holes actually "bleed" off individual particles. This effect is called Hawking Radiation.
Over time, whenever this event occurs, it causes the likelihood of it occurring again for the same black hole to increase. The increase is exponential. Eventually the increase is so rapid it results in an explosion of Hawking Radiation more forceful and violent than even the largest supernova. Yes that's right, black holes eventually explode.
If before the big bang you had a singularity, there would be a black hole. It would observe the same rules as any other black hole except it would simply be bigger. It would emit Hawking radiation over a long period of time and the rate would increase and increase. At a certain point the rate would have increased to the point where it caused an explosion of hawking radiation. An explosion shooting out nearly all the matter in the observable universe.
I say observable because no scientist makes claims on knowing the nature of that which we have no data or mathematical model for. To do so would be worthless conjecture. Sure it might be entertaining, but it wouldn't be productive.
Anyway, I gave a really dumbed down explaination of the whole thing. But it is really cool stuff. It also makes a lot of sense from an Occam's Razor standpoint because it removes a lot of seemingly unnecessary complexities. i.e. the big bang is just an occurance of a rather common event but simply on a much larger scale.
Rogue Drone
Well-known member
This a serious intellectual challenge and lots of fun.
Sorry, D and others, as my own scorekeeper, Null is kicking the **** out of y'all on reasoned retorts.
And that be why I'm in on his side of the fence.
Sorry, D and others, as my own scorekeeper, Null is kicking the **** out of y'all on reasoned retorts.
And that be why I'm in on his side of the fence.
CRUNCH
Registered User
Bingo!!
bitterplacebo
Well-known member
Why take a side?
Right now, neither side has the knowledge to reach a definite conclusion on the existence of a god. And while it may appear that one side has more reasoned support at a certain time, a single evidence can arise at any time to prove it false. But I know for certain that seeking knowledge and adding support or ideas to either side will be for the benefit of all.
Does there even have to be only two sides?
One can believe in God, but still search for the truths of the universe as revealed by scientific observations, even if it eventually means proving the fact of a god to be impossible. And in the meantime, why be so concerned with being able to explain your beliefs logically? The worst that could come of not being able to correctly reason about this particular belief is that others would think you're irrational or even crazy. I know for me, it's a little late to start being concerned about that.
Nullifidian
Banned
Yes, typically agnostic theists take this approach. They are not sure and many admit they will never be sure whether there is a god or not, but either they feel more comfortable with the idea of a god or believe it to make more sense to them personally.
I know a lot of reformed Catholics and reformed Jews who are actually agnostic theists.
spatch
Registered User
I'm not quite smart enough to understand half the stuff in this thread, but I don’t think we will ever be able to scientifically prove god. I mean, after all, "blessed are those who haven’t seen but still believe."
Its kind of like "if God loves the everyone on earth, why doesn’t he do more for humanity?" That’s because he wants to judge our hearts. Everyone is peaceful if they have everything they need. If God were to give everyone everything they needed, no one would steal. If God were to show scientific proof of his existence, it would do the same thing. That doesn’t give God an opportunity to judge the sheep from the goats.
No matter how much science supports evolution, I will still believe because I am happier and my life is better having faith in Christ, and that is all that matters.
Its kind of like "if God loves the everyone on earth, why doesn’t he do more for humanity?" That’s because he wants to judge our hearts. Everyone is peaceful if they have everything they need. If God were to give everyone everything they needed, no one would steal. If God were to show scientific proof of his existence, it would do the same thing. That doesn’t give God an opportunity to judge the sheep from the goats.
No matter how much science supports evolution, I will still believe because I am happier and my life is better having faith in Christ, and that is all that matters.
Nullifidian
Banned
Do you? I bet not always. Occasionally people think my wife is under 18. I had a friend in middle school who was 13 who got SEVERAL bars in trouble because he looked so old they didn't even card him. He was 13 years old but looked like he was 30. We jokingly called him "the narc."
I've known teenagers who were extremely mature, well aware of their surroundings and quite knowledgeable of the world.
I've also known college friends who had less maturity and more naivety than the average 10 year old.
So yeah, what defines "child"?
I'm doing nothing of the sort. What I AM doing is pointing out your use of subjective terms and mistaking them for absolutes.
My point wasn't about my own opinion. My point was that my opinion doesn't matter because it is an opinion. In that same respect your opinion doesn't matter because it is an opinion.
In that first scenario, the child with his hand in the cookie jar dieing I think would be bad. But that's just my personal opinion. There are plenty of folks who probably wouldn't care either way. There are even some, I'm willing to bet, that would think it would be a good thing for the child to die in that circumstance.
Right or wrong are relative, subjective things as are good and bad.
The second scenario I think would be good if the child was DISABLED before detonating the bomb, I think the child dieing in any way would be bad. Some people might disregard the value of the child's life in that instance and say it would be good if the child were killed before setting off the bomb. And then there are still others who think that the child becoming a martyr and killing people with that bomb would be a good thing.
Right and wrong are relative subjective things. They have absolutely no bearing on a logical argument.
Nullifidian
Banned
Yes, and show me where you have proof that "Jehovah" invented science.
What if someone were to come along and say "The Flying Spaghetti Monster invented science?" What evidence or data would you have to refute that person's claim.
Please stop the ad hominem. It's unnecessary, unprofessional, adds nothing to the debate, and more importantly it doesn't help your arguments.
Like I said, ad hominems don't help your cause, they only serve to demonstrate you've lost other options. If you DO have tool sother than logicla fallacies, use them instead.
I'm calling a breaks to this line here and now:
Logical fallacy: non sequitor
It doesn't follow. It makes no sense. It is completely irrelevent to this topic. I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it: opinions do not matter in a logical debate. This debate is about whether or not sicence supports the existance of god. That has absolutely nothing to do with children stealing cookies. It has nothing to do with crime and punishment. It has nothing to do with any subjective concepts whatsoever.
Please stick to the topic at hand.
I'd also like to say for the record that I find your attempts at poisoning the well to be extremely underhanded and duplicitous. It is neither ethical nor proper for you to attempt to debate by deceiving those reading this thread.
bitterplacebo
Well-known member
Can you be more specific about what he's adding that doesn't amount to anything? I'd agree common sense is a nice in the world we live in everyday, but it's not useful when trying to prove something. If we're proving points, we need clear definitions and to follow a set of rules. That's just how the game works.
Think of yourself as taking a course in logic, and in the middle of an exam. You're given some statements or predicates and some of their truth values and asked to prove validity or something similar of a consequent. Assuming that you are one that is concerned with your grade, how comfortable are you answering "it's common sense"?
I don't know what the original proposal was, as I've been busy the past few days and only skimmed, but I'll try to find time to go back and look and see if I can add anything else.
- Status