|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
posted June 16, 2008 01:48 PM |
|
Edited by Galev at 14:03, 16 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Titaniumalloy, I could not manage to read more than the first 2-3 rows.
Then don't respond to it.
Yeah, I sound a bit stupid, sorry... but those sentences turned me away.
The problem lapsed.
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 01:51 PM |
|
|
Well if you can't be bothered to read it then I can't be bothered to read your response, because it is based on nothing.
It's not sounding stupid as such, you just make false assumptions about an article you haven't read and then go on and rant about them.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 02:01 PM |
|
|
Wuh... I managed to read it. Hmm... I have to say it brings not new "evidence". Let just say I did miss the scientific announce: "The workings of the human brain unqestionably understood and solved". But I'm maybe only cinic or simply under-educated.
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 02:03 PM |
|
|
well... he didn't actually say that and in fact implicitly denied it.
but oh well.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 02:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
well... he didn't actually say that and in fact implicitly denied it.
but oh well.
"But neuroscience has shown that our intelligence and emotions consist of intricate patterns of activity in the trillions of connections in our brain. "
Than misunderstanding is caused because of my developable English. (pitily it can easily happen as I hardly practice it outside here)
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 02:15 PM |
|
|
Yes our thoughts are in our brain, not exactly an outlandish statement
He goes on to explain that this is not entirely understood, however.
It's not really meant to bring new evidence but rather an expository/philosophy piece based on the title.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 02:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not really meant to bring new evidence but rather an expository/philosophy piece based on the title.
Then I missed the reason somewhere. hmpf... Right. Uff.
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 02:38 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:53, 16 Jun 2008.
|
@TA's article:
Quote:
Traditionally, a belief in God was attractive because it promised to explain the deepest puzzles about origins. Where did the world come from? What is the basis of life? How can the mind arise from the body? Why should anyone be moral?
I don't know if this is 'attractive'. For most people, being greedy & evil is much more attractive. Trust me on that matter, 'good' people are rare, rare...
Quote:
Start with the origin of the world. Today no honest and informed person can maintain that the universe came into being a few thousand years ago and assumed its current form in six days
Obviously this guy did not read the other article I linked: Here  .
Quote:
(to say nothing of absurdities like day and night existing before the sun was created)
Sorry but where does this guy get his ideas from? Where 'night' and where 'day'?? Day is meant there obviously, as a 24 hour time period, from a certain frame of reference. Now we all feel 'cool' with new terms like seconds, etc.. back then we didn't have watches, so why would God speak terms that people did not understand? Day meant a 24-hour time period. A unit of measurement. From a certain frame of reference (in my link, it explains it well; if you know the guy that gave you this article, you could point him to that, it also explains the difference between "Day One" and "The first day" which obviously most people take as the same in translations).
Quote:
"Where did the universe come from?" with the equivalent puzzle "Where did God come from?"
I already stated that God created time, and most recent articles emphasize that as well (that I suppose he wrote to do his research), is this guy ignorant or what?
Quote:
What about the fantastic diversity of life and its ubiquitous signs of design? At one time it was understandable to appeal to a divine designer to explain it all.
I like how subjective this guy is, I mean 'it was understandable', and speaks as if all people understand and tolerate things the same as he does.
Quote:
Not withstanding creationist propaganda, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, including our DNA, the fossil record, the distribution of life on earth, and our own anatomy and physiology (such as the goose bumps that try to fluff up long-vanished fur).
Evidence doesn't explain anything at all. What you formulate then, based on it, is 'explaining evolution'. Formulations are not reliable, especially in science (see below on "EDIT" or my previous posts).. they can be used in areas that science agrees on, no problem, but extending them to areas that by definition have different views will only make the argument unreliable.
E.g: "98% of Monkey DNA is in humans!!! That means we evolved from them, obviously. Say that I am right, that you have the same reason and rational thoughts, and that will make it true!" type of discussions.
Quote:
For many people the human soul feels like a divine spark within us.
Since this guy does not (he talks about for many people) then how is he supposed to know?
Quote:
But neuroscience has shown that our intelligence and emotions consist of intricate patterns of activity in the trillions of connections in our brain.
That's like attributing it to God. You see a lot of neurons, you can't understand EXACTLY what each one is gonna do, but you attribute that to them because 'they seem active'...
A nuclear bomb can cause a chain reaction, but that doesn't mean that the 'reaction' happens by itself 
Quote:
True, scholars disagree on how to explain the existence of inner experience - some say it's a pseudo-problem, others believe it's just an open scientific problem, while others think that it shows a limitation of human cognition (like our inability to visualize four-dimensional space-time).
'How to explain'?? How do you explain something? With mathematical formulas? Sure, you do that, in mathematics..
How do you explain the world? With formula and 'how' you do a certain thing? Or with the 'why' questions? I like how this guy thinks that he explains the world with, for example, answers to questions like "What causes the objects to fall?" A: "Gravity".. Is this an 'explanation'? I don't know, it is subjective, so I may be biased, or the guy might be biased.
Besides, why do things always need to have an explanation? At least, an explanation that we, monkeys, can understand? (understanding is also subjective term however). Not to mention the fact that, religion usually defines that God is incomprehensible (it's a reason why religions say that we shall not judge, for God is the judge). Honestly, would you let your pet-monkey be the Judge of what you should do? And further, let it decide that, if you act irrational (from the monkey's POV, since your wisdom is incomprehensible to the monkey) you are an 'evil bastard' and thus proves that you don't exist, since the monkey thinks that what it think "iz ok".
Not to mention that the monkey then suggests that, even though the definition of your existence implies a far greater wisdom than the monkey would ever have, it thinks that whatever you 'advise' it to do must be explainable to the monkey's own corrupted mind/brain?
Quote:
But even here, relabeling the problem with the word "soul" adds nothing to our understanding.
This guy just speaks out too much for others. 'Our' is a pretty dangerous statement, it implies that all people have the same reasoning. Can a monkey agree with a cat? Especially on what is 'understandable' and what is not?
But then, if we are all made of just molecules, how can 'molecules' understand 'molecules'?
Quote:
People used to think that biology could not explain why we have a conscience.
Experiments can't explain anything. People like this guy should learn that there is a difference between understanding something, and observing it.
How can an experiment explain anything? All it does is collect data. How you put it up to be so-called 'reasonable' is then the so-called explanation. But that is completely, and I mean in that sense even scientists disagree with each other, on what is 'explainable'. A prediction coming true does not mean that you have explained the phenomenon. A collected data is not by any definition 'an explanation'. What you 'formulate' then after, is what YOU THINK is a possible explanation. But then again, it's like you expecting a monkey to explain what is nuclear fusion and then you agreeing with it.
So what is then an explanation? Something which people agree on? But then, if all monkeys agree on a certain topic, do you consider than an explanation, even though you, a cat (for example), consider it illogical? I don't know, is explanation like democracy, who votes for something must make it true? Explanation does not come out popularity however.
Quote:
Evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience are showing how our moral intuitions work, why they evolved, and how they are implemented within the brain.
Uhm, what? How can something such as 'neuroscience', without being sentient (or with a conscience) 'show' anything?
I think this guy meant: people that call themselves neuroscientists make formulations and draw conclusions on why THEY THINK that our senses evolved (if they did), etc.. Not only that, are those above authorities that demand unquestionable submission? Much like: "Research has shown that..." which is, obviously, demanding that authority the so-called Churches do/did? Obviously since then, whoever disagrees with it is called a paranoid/delusional/fool or whatever.
Monkey #1: Hey I think that... blablah
Monkey #2: Yeah, it sounds pretty 'sound' and is quite logical, it's surely the explanation, it must be, since it's the only one we can find logical, reasonable and rational.. heck it must be THAT WAY!!
Bear: You two must be joking, right?
Human: Oh boy...
I'm not pointing any fingers, why I have substituted those with 'monkeys' is not to be confused with a silly insult (i hope you already know I'm not that type of guy). It was only meant that popularity of agreement does not make one the truth and only rational explanation. But popularity can INDEED grant unquestionable submission to an authority. Which is how science has been twisted to political levels these days...
Quote:
It is true that science in the narrow sense cannot show us what is right or wrong. But neither can appeals to God.
I think this guy does not even know what he is saying. By the definition (from God obviously since he talks about Him) we are not to judge things, God is.. So, if you take God (as this guy did) in a discussion, how can you say that we can judge whether God can be 'appealing' to say what is right and what is wrong. I mean, if you are going to take an idea into a discussion (God in this case, regardless of whether it's true or not) you should at least take it's definitions into account.
Besides, is this guy, or the popularity, supposed to be the 'judges' of what is appealing and what is not? Sure he can go on, pages of endless text telling that what he does not agree with, or what he thinks is not reasonable, must not be for others either.
But then again, when a scientist or philosopher argues against religion, he almost never has enough information about that religion, and knows little about it. It's no wonder most guys like him take only a fraction of a definition of God and then use that as a sort of argument against. Guys like him simply use science or so-called 'reason' as a sounding board for what he believes is right, and what he believes is rational. Or for that matter, what the majority thinks or not even THAT, perhaps "what those that agree with him think", or simply put, he assumes that others are similar, have similar grasps, etc..
I also remember he once said that we are incapable of visualizing four dimensional worlds or something. That's a pretty big assumption, obviously he drew it from his own experiences (he can't), I can imagine quaternions (I use them at 3D programming) somewhat, only the first quadrant (actually, it is not called a quadrant, as it has much more dimensions, but I hope you get what I mean about it).
I suppose this guy did not have much experience with people that disagree with him, or he must have surely ignored them when he took into account the "our understanding" or "our reason" or "our something".. It's always nice to see people like this guy draw conclusions about others from themselves, see that the others disagree with that, ignore them, and then talk about everyone as you did at the beginning. Simply said, do what you originally did, but let them speak out their disagreement anyway, just to let them know that you are 'open-minded' even though you ignore them and then still claim "our understanding", etc... as if you were speaking on behalf of the whole humanity (and this implies that you at least listened to what others said, even though you didn't).
It's people like this guy that demand authority, telling others how they should think, and what is rational.
Quote:
Why did God deem some acts moral and others immoral?
Why does this guy deem some acts moral and others immoral?
Quote:
If he had no reason but divine whim, why should we take his commandments seriously? If he did have reasons, then why not appeal to those reasons directly?
I assume this guy speaks about the God in the Bible, right? Then he should know at least, God is something with far greater wisdom than him (is is a surprise? I mean, how can someone possibly exist with wisdom greater than ours??!? see where pride leads to?). So why can he even think, again assuming the God in the Bible (since that's what he's speaking about I guess) that he can 'reason' and act as the judge much like God?
Sure you can claim God is not true, but using God in discussions without taking it's definitions (that we are not capable of judging) into account is simply ignorant. It's like modifying and twisting the definitions to your own needs in order to do what you wanted (whatever this guy wanted to do).
Quote:
Those reasons are not to be found in empirical science, but they are to be found in the nature of rationality as it is exercised by any intelligent social species.
WARNING: pride is indeed dangerous and it's possibly why it's called a sin (too much pride will make you ignorant and selfish).
So I guess this guy is either certainly ignorant (e.g: the six day stuff, the "Where did God come from" type of questions that have been debated a million times, and the fact that others disagree with him and he does not give a crap, but still nonetheless speaks on behalf everyone's thoughts).
I have also concluded that this guy just takes too many assumptions, either from his own experience, or only from those that agree with him (e.g atheists). Pride is a dangerous beast when it is not held under control. Being proud is not evil in itself, it's only when you can't hold it under control that it becomes your worst enemy, and it's why it's termed a 'sin' in the Bible. If you can't stand the Bible, I have hopefully given enough reasonable arguments above (if you take them as reasonable).
EDIT: Also
Quote:
Yes our thoughts are in our brain, not exactly an outlandish statement
The same as the Universe had no beginning and a 'Big Bang' was a fairy-tale back in 1950s? That's how sure this guy is, right?
Since I hope my previous posts have not been ignored, I'll only say a brief thing. If science always in on the change, and changes can even represent a total new wave of thought, how can it be reliable so as to use it in arguments that define the very fabric of the Universe, or for that matter, in philosophical arguments? Tests can be done, you believe in induction, you believe they will be true. That is ok, as long as it is not an argument used against a certain philosophical argument. Why? Because, if you gain new data, and change your views, you will most likely change that argument too. However, back there when you haven't done it, you would do it as if it implied the truth. (i.e the Big Bang being a fairy-tale in 1950s).
So not only that fairy tales seem to become realities, and it has been proven time and time again (we don't learn from mistakes it seems), but in the 1950s it seems people trusted science so much they were blind and called a possible beginning a delusional thought, irrational so to speak. This is not Ok, and will never justify the "no observation". If you DO KNOW that it's a very high probability that your views will change, WHY do you rely so much on your 'current' arguments, as if they were the last change ever to be done? You trust them so much and use them in critical outcomes such as morality (i.e killing someone, or judging what is right and wrong, or what the origin of the Universe is).
The guy in the article obviously used 90% science and not philosophy even though he wanted to delude the reader to think that his arguments are philosophical (which would have been fine). He used biology, for example, or neuroscience. If these things are false (because they change) how can you use them to determine that someone else, especially on critical subjects such as morality, is wrong? If you know they are most certainly false at the moment? How can you call whatever you think disagrees with them a fairy-tale for example?
Just because they are useful does not mean that they are true. Like I said, science is always false, but is often useful.
Unreliable arguments (such as those given by scientific views) are harming one's personality, turns him into an arrogant and proud monkey. Why are they unreliable? I'm not going into that again, but suffice it to say that the views change. Something that will change and you know it too well it will, is unreliable. It harms a discussion, when it is aimed at philosophical debates, such as morality, Universe origin.
Besides, not to mention this guy also believes that the Universe is completely mechanistic... why would he otherwise use induction-based mechanistic arguments against a non-induction-based non-mechanistic view such as God? Don't compare oranges to apples.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 03:12 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 15:12, 16 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
I was unclear. It is not right because it leads to good outcome, but it is a better choice, at least for me.
If peace cannot be gained in other way (i.e. war is inevitable or we must have submitted to enemy's rule in order to maintain peace), war is the lesser evil in my opinion.
Of course the harm done should not exceed that which is meant to be prevented, otherwise it would make no sense at all, and if there are peaceful means of achieving the same outcome, they should be chosen.
What I mean is that you should not allow whole town to be destroyed for sake of one house, while it makes sense to sacrifice a single house to save the town.
Sometimes you have only bad choices to make...
I just have to say that I completely agree with you here.
Sometimes sacrifices have to be made...
____________
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 03:19 PM |
|
|
@TheDeath
"(to say nothing of absurdities like day and night existing before the sun was created)"
I think he refers to the Genesis: light was brought to existence before the Sun: (King James)
"
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. "
For the rest of your post my react is a smile  [not a grin, a smile!]
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 03:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For most people, being greedy & evil is much more attractive.
No. For many people, the emotional benefit of being "good" far outweighs the benefit from being greedy.
Quote:
Bear: You two must be joking, right?
I can't bear any more analogies. Let's take a break from them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 03:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't bear any more analogies. Let's take a break from them.
Haha LOL  
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 03:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes our thoughts are in our brain, not exactly an outlandish statement
Actually, the ancient greeks thought that our thoughts were governed by our hearts and that our brain was some sort of garbage disposal (explaining snot at the same time)
Quote:
No. For many people, the emotional benefit of being "good" far outweighs the benefit from being greedy.
situations may vary
Btw, @ shareesza and executor: thx for clarifying and it does seem logical/ very good polacy, but I, personally, would doubt, even with the mere choice of the lesser of two evils... Ow, well
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 03:40 PM |
|
Edited by Galev at 15:40, 16 Jun 2008.
|
OFF
Sorry, but I just misread DagothGares' post. It confused and amused me much: "ancient geeks"
Okay, I go to some rest for the good of humanity, HC at least. ^^"
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 03:48 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:51, 16 Jun 2008.
|
@TA (and others)
Just in case you did not know, the essay by Steven Pinker (he's a pretty famous psychologist holding a distinguished professorship at Harvard University) is part of a dialogue between scientists, philosophers and theologists sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation. There are a lot of interesting essays on the matter of science and religion at the website that you might find interesting, and they're written from many different viewpoints. Particularly, there are some essays there by Christian scientists, that theDeath might be interested in reading. Specifically pertaining to this matter, the website is:
Does Science Make Belief in God Obselete?
I've actually seen Prof. Steven Pinker speak in person on the topic of language use. It was very interesting.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 03:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Particularly, there are some essays there by Christian scientists, that theDeath might be interested in reading.
Thanks I will, and I would read even non-Christian scientists' arguments if I have time, I don't favor one over the other just because they agree/disagree with what I have in mind
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 04:02 PM |
|
|
Of course not - I just thought, based on our recent conversation, that you might find the essays by Christian scientists particularly interesting. They're all very good reads, even if I don't agree with a lot of them, because they show the diversity of beliefs - even among scientists - held on the question of god and the philosophy of science.
(Actually, the whole site is kind of cool - there are other dialogues on "big questions" that you can access if you go to the main webpage.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 04:25 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 16:30, 16 Jun 2008.
|
The Death reads the article like Devil reads the Bible. You complelety twist the meanings, and most of the time you are talking about different things. I'll put a few quotes, but it is difficult to manage such loads of text.
Quote:
Quote:
Traditionally, a belief in God was attractive because it promised to explain the deepest puzzles about origins. Where did the world come from? What is the basis of life? How can the mind arise from the body? Why should anyone be moral?
I don't know if this is 'attractive'. For most people, being greedy & evil is much more attractive. Trust me on that matter, 'good' people are rare, rare...
He was talking about the traditional people, time when there were no alternative hypothesis for God. You are speaking of different things... As a sidenote I am amazed at this fantasy world division pf humans where there are evil people and good people. Most people are something in between, and there is a term for it – it is human. Seriously.
Quote:
Quote:
What about the fantastic diversity of life and its ubiquitous signs of design? At one time it was understandable to appeal to a divine designer to explain it all.
I like how subjective this guy is, I mean 'it was understandable', and speaks as if all people understand and tolerate things the same as he does.
No, what he means is that back then when there was no other (reasonable) explanation available that God.
As for God and time, really the notion of God living without time is absurd and paradoxal. From a scientific point of view. We all know that, and the discussion of science vs. religion has been fruitless for a long time. Maybe there is hope though
Quote:
E.g: "98% of Monkey DNA is in humans!!! That means we evolved from them, obviously. Say that I am right, that you have the same reason and rational thoughts, and that will make it true!" type of discussions.
*sigh* No wrong, we didn’t evolve from monkeys… We had a common ancestor. According to the theory.
Quote:
Quote:
For many people the human soul feels like a divine spark within us.
Since this guy does not (he talks about for many people) then how is he supposed to know?
He isn’t allowed to speak in general of peoples confessions on the matter? Would it be wrong for him to say that many of us believe in God? I can’t understand where you are going at, probably no other point than bashing? Sorry.
Quote:
Quote:
But neuroscience has shown that our intelligence and emotions consist of intricate patterns of activity in the trillions of connections in our brain.
That's like attributing it to God. You see a lot of neurons, you can't understand EXACTLY what each one is gonna do, but you attribute that to them because 'they seem active'...
A nuclear bomb can cause a chain reaction, but that doesn't mean that the 'reaction' happens by itself
That is nothing like attributing it to God. If everytime you get emotional, certain areas of brain are activated, it means they most likely are connected. You insist on talking about religion on its own terms, yet you can’t talk about science on its.
Quote:
Quote:
People used to think that biology could not explain why we have a conscience.
Experiments can't explain anything. People like this guy should learn that there is a difference between understanding something, and observing it.
So what is then an explanation? Something which people agree on? But then, if all monkeys agree on a certain topic, do you consider than an explanation, even though you, a cat (for example), consider it illogical? I don't know, is explanation like democracy, who votes for something must make it true? Explanation does not come out popularity however.
True, understanding is different, I believe it is possible on personal level. But he was talking about explaining something, NOT understanding. You go on about what this guy should learn and yada yada yada. Well here is something you should learn. 
To explain something
2: to give the reason for or cause of
3: to show the logical development or relationships
Quote:
Quote:
Evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience are showing how our moral intuitions work, why they evolved, and how they are implemented within the brain.
Uhm, what? How can something such as 'neuroscience', without being sentient (or with a conscience) 'show' anything?
This paper is showing... this example is showing… this procedure will show… You do know how that word is used? You keep on twisting everything he says.
Quote:
[It is true that science in the narrow sense cannot show us what is right or wrong. But neither can appeals to God.
I think this guy does not even know what he is saying. By the definition (from God obviously since he talks about Him) we are not to judge things, God is.. So, if you take God (as this guy did) in a discussion, how can you say that we can judge whether God can be 'appealing' to say what is right and what is wrong. I mean, if you are going to take an idea into a discussion (God in this case, regardless of whether it's true or not) you should at least take it's definitions into account./quote]
I am of the opinion that God should be discussed by theologists, not by scientists. However you missed the appeal… What is it that God truly said and what is just made up by people? If God has spoken to you the morals that need to be followed, then please share them. To me God has not spoken, so why should I follow "his" morals (that were written down by someone else)
Quote:
It's people like this guy that demand authority, telling others how they should think, and what is rational.
Wow wow... So you know what this guy is like from the article? I think that is rather arrogant, maybe even pride rears its head You are being the prosecutor... I don’t believe it is your place to tell what this guy is demanding or telling. 
Quote:
Quote:
Why did God deem some acts moral and others immoral?
Why does this guy deem some acts moral and others immoral?
His morals may come from personal experience and moral philosophers for example. Where Gods morals come from is a whole different matter, and in my opinion, should rather be discussed by theologians. Scientist can talk about these matters too, but on a different level. You yourself would nullify it at an instant, that we can't understand as inferior beings and must continue submission to His will.
Lastly I comment on you accusing him of pride, selfishness and what ever. Indeed pride in excess is a negative trait, and I believe you ought to take a good look into the mirror my friend You are yourself doing most the stuff you accuse him of, for example twisting his words. Not to meantion the accusations of totalitarianism and all that, jeez.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 04:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
He was talking about the traditional people, time when there were no alternative hypothesis for God. You are speaking of different things... As a sidenote I am amazed at this fantasy world division pf humans where there are evil people and good people. Most people are something in between, and there is a term for it – it is human. Seriously.
Uhm, really I have explained countless times in this thread that 'good' and 'evil' have precise definitions, and somewhere in between means you are not good. Besides you also seem to imply that the traditional people were worse than us in some ways. Because they did not have science? Well, what makes you think in 500 years we will not have a new and better system? It's all nice to consider ourselves 'the best that can understand the truth' but only if we do not learn from mistakes...
Quote:
No, what he means is that back then when there was no other (reasonable) explanation available that God.
What makes something reasonable? Something that is defined by mathematics? Something that is written down as an equation? Something that is reproducible? Something that makes something under our control, in the sense that we understand how it works and we can control it since it will always obey?
Wasn't that my point in the previous post, that such words are not precise, even LESS precise than 'good' and 'evil'
Quote:
As for God and time, really the notion of God living without time is absurd and paradoxal. From a scientific point of view.
I don't know what means 'from a scientific point of view' but it's not paradoxal at all. Would you consider black holes paradoxal as well? What about the Big Bang? Even that, the Big Bang is known to have created the three dimensions that you worship as being "the only logical and not absurd possible view, because I can experience it" (because matter was concentrated infinitely thus a dimensionless space before the Big Bang).
I'm not saying that I do understand how a world without time works. Heck, how can we know if we are living in a one with time? It may seem paradoxal to you, and in fact to every human (including me), but like I said, relativity seems paradoxal to monkeys as well. Even more to creatures that live in a different Universe with different laws.
Quote:
He isn’t allowed to speak in general of peoples confessions on the matter? Would it be wrong for him to say that many of us believe in God? I can’t understand where you are going at, probably no other point than bashing? Sorry.
Nope, I said that he implied "for many people, the soul is blabla", and then he KNOWS those people disagree with him, but he ignores them anyway, heck people that do not feel the soul act like judges on those that do feel, for example.. that was my point.
Quote:
That is nothing like attributing it to God. If everytime you get emotional, certain areas of brain are activated, it means they most likely are connected.
If a neutron enters a nuclear bomb's fuel (Uranium), certain atoms are excited and a chain reaction begins. So is it ok to attribute it to the atoms instead of the initial neutron?
Quote:
True, understanding is different, I believe it is possible on personal level. But he was talking about explaining something, NOT understanding.
And what is an explanation? God did it is not while a mathematical formula or a reproducible 'argument' is?
Quote:
You go on about what this guy should learn and yada yada yada. Well here is something you should learn.
To explain something
2: to give the reason for or cause of
What if we can't give the reason as the reason is beyond our understanding? Can monkeys give a reason as to why bananas taste so good?
Quote:
3: to show the logical development or relationships
Exactly what I said in my previous post. What makes God illogical? The fact that he doesn't obey laws of physics as we call them? The fact that we can't reproduce it? The fact that he is not under our control? The fact that he does not obey mathematical formulas or we can't find a formula for Him?
And like I said, yes this guy demands authority in the sense that he defines what is logical and what is not, as if he thinks through everyone's minds
Quote:
This paper is showing... this example is showing… this procedure will show… You do know how that word is used? You keep on twisting everything he says.
lol that was a joke, you should have read the next paragraph, because yes the paper is NOT showing. People are, that was my intent along with this joke.
Quote:
I am of the opinion that God should be discussed by theologists, not by scientists.
And who said I am of different opinion?
Quote:
However you missed the appeal… What is it that God truly said and what is just made up by people? If God has spoken to you the morals that need to be followed, then please share them. To me God has not spoken, so why should I follow "his" morals (that were written down by someone else)
How many times? I mean, it is about faith. And Jesus did spoken. Put yourself up in a situation. Say someone comes at you, and you prove him something really hard... he believes you, but does he do it because he believes in you or because he believed his eyes? Next, someone else comes, are you supposed to repeat that hard experiment for every single human out there?
(experiment = spoken in this analogy).
When will it end? People will always demand it.
Quote:
Wow wow... So you know what this guy is like from the article? I think that is rather arrogant, maybe even pride rears its head
Of course I meant the article, sorry if I judged him too quickly
Quote:
You are being the prosecutor... I don’t believe it is your place to tell what this guy is demanding or telling.
At least I am not using "our" speaking on behalf of everyone. (like "our reason tells us that God is illogical" for example).
Quote:
His morals may come from personal experience and moral philosophers for example. Where Gods morals come from is a whole different matter, and in my opinion, again should not be the subject of scientific discussion. You yourself would nullify it at an instant, that we can't understand as inferior beings and must continue submission to His will.
You did not get what I meant. I said, if this guy accuses God of judging morals, etc.. why does he give himself more credit? Isn't that JUST A BIASED opinion.. then why does he imply that he is any better? I mean, otherwise he wouldn't have put up that question.
Quote:
Lastly I comment on you accusing him of pride, selfishness and what ever. Indeed pride in excess is a negative trait, and I believe you ought to take a good look into the mirror my friend You are yourself doing most the stuff you accuse him of, for example twisting his words. Not to meantion the accusations of totalitarianism and all that, jeez.
When did I say this guy is a totalitarian? I only said that he spoke on behalf of everyone. He defines what is 'sound' and what is 'reasonable' and all that, and I meant the question: are they defined from popularity?
Also I never said that the guy is selfish!! This guy only says that HUMANS, ALL HUMANS (well at least those that agree with him) have the capacity to understand and reason the world -- if something is paradoxal to our monkey-minds then it doesn't exist, right? That is why I called it pride, pride in human abilities, so to speak, not in himself and only himself.
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted June 16, 2008 09:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
let him die, whether man or woman.
Wait, what?
Quote:
It's only natural for a Christian to be against capitalism and it's greed.
Wait, what?
Quote:
no one should be forced to convert to catholicism.
Wait, what?
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
