General Discussions

For all those who believe in Christianity or Some form of it...

POSTED BY: RiveR6213
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:10
VIEWED: 25834
PAGE 9 of 16

MAL4PREZ

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
#1) O boy, now I'm in trouble... By which I mean, this may take a really long reply because my own thoughts are pretty scattered about it. ...

I want you to know that I respect your choices--I hope that nobody's read me as trying to force anything on anyone. But it strikes me that whereas you originally started off talking about evidence, you've wound up talking about your feelings about things. Is that what you meant when you said "evidence"?

I did explain what seems evidential to me - but not in scientific terms, which seems to be what you expect. I explicitly said that I'm not talking hard science, I'm talking about my observations of the rules of religion, as relates to the psychology of the human mind - and I do not consider psychology a hard science. Not at all!

I stress - none of what I described in my post as "evidence" (and you are absolutely right, evidence the way I'm using the word is in the eye of the beholder) has anything to do with hard science. My "evidence" is in the workings of religion itself. What I was doing (in a very general, poorly described way) was looking at the rules of religion and asking if they really seem to suggest a Higher Power, or if the human psyche is another option for what's behind it.

That's not a scientific question. It's a philosophical debate.

Your post is breaking down science, saying it can't possibly be applied to religion. Um... yeah. Of course it can't! See? You and I agree!!

Quote:
Now, many people think that they will be more secure if the restrict evidentiary support to what can be demonstrated by the physical sciences.

OK, you really missed what I was saying. Not blaming you - I warned you that I would be unclear!

But I did explicitly say that I wasn't referring to the hard (meaning: physical) sciences.

But I'll take the bait, a little anyway...

One problem with the science/religion debate is that people think science is trying to tell them what to believe. It's not! It's really not! Science merely attempts to collect what we observe into one place in order to be useful.

Science does not say "This is RIGHT" It only says "This is what we see, today." Science may - no, it certainly will change it's conclusions tomorrow, because we'll observe new things, and science, being the collection of human observation, is obviously imperfect. Anyone who uses science beyond this descriptive sense is abusing it (which certainly happens!) or confusing it with religion. (which I think you're doing.) Science is not religion, and it doesn't try to be.

(BYW, I note that science allows - no, depends on - questions, and it allows itself to be wrong. On the other hand, religion is not fond of being questioned. We're talking two completely different critters here.)

Quote:
The sciences by definition deal only with what is materially observable and non-material things would be by definition not materially observable. So even if there is non-physical stuff, the physical sciences will never be able to examine it.

No argument here! But... did you really think I was suggesting differently? Really?

Quote:
So we can't say that God doesn't have the property of existence, because existence isn't a property that can be predicated. So any claim about God's existence will have the following form: there is no X such that X is God. Or put another way: given any X, X is not God. In more plain language, this makes the claim that no matter what thing you pick out in the entire universe, that thing is not God. Can you see the difficulty in proving that?

Whoa, dude, I'm not trying to prove anything! And I never once applied the scientific process to proving/disproving religion. Where did you get this?

Quote:
A second problem with the notion that only the physical sciences can provide evidentiary support is this:

Sorry, I just can't respond to any more. This "notion" you mention here

CAUSAL

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:55 PM

So sorry for the confusion. The bit after #1 was my response to your post. The bit after #2 was an extended meditation on the notion of evidentiary support. You'd said that you didn't understand what I meant with the technical terms, so I was trying to flesh that out. I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer on that. I was just trying to explain what I meant when I said that claims about what constitutes evidentiary support are often beyond evidentiary support themselves. So that long ramble wasn't a response to your assertions so much as it was just me trying to explain what I meant.

By the way, as to the claim that I'm arguing not against you, but against someone else, that's certainly true. Being a theist will do that to you. I'm surrounded by philosophical peers who disagree with me, so I often try to forestall objections by raising and answering them myself.

And just a general observation for the edification of everybody: nobody owns a thread--including the person who started it. It's been my experience that threads go where they want, so insisting that people give simple heaven/hell answers might not really work.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

JONNYQUEST

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
But there's a difference between a thing's describing reality and a thing's being a reality. Take the law of contradiction, the foundation of logical thinking: no thing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. You seem to think that this is just a description of reality--a description that might be more or less flawed. But I take this to be a reality itself. That is, not only do I think that that statement is true, I think that it has to be true, I think that it's impossible for it to be false. I think that it is a necessary truth--that is, it is true in any possible world. It isn't that the law of contradiction is a convenient description of a reality we observe (this presupposes a pretty radical form of empiricism). Rather, the law of contradiction is part of the foundation of reality--true everywhere, and impossible to be false. The crucial thing is to note that the law of contradiction isn't a human invention--it would still be true even in the possible worlds where human beings don't exist. So it's not that we've just invented the law of contradiction to describe our reality--in the law of contradiction we've discovered one of the foundations of reality itself. And if that's the case--and I believe that it is--then it's possible to talk about God using logic (given that the law of of contradiction is the foundation of logical thought). I know this is the minority opinion on the board, that most people think that God is beyond "our" logic. But on my view, it's not "our logic"--it's God's logic. And in virtue of this, we can use it to talk about God.

Only I would be dumb enough to go head to head about philosophy with a philosopher by trade. If you can't do something smart, do something...else.

No thing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

Hmmm. How does this apply to Schroedinger's cat? Is it really just our not knowing the outcome before we see it or is there actually a temporal ambiguity involved? (Not my main argument but I like tangents like that.)
In my reality (my view of reality) I don't need to recognize "laws" at all, be it of contradiction or uniformity. The law of contradiction may be a (the?) cornerstone of logic, but of the universe? Is time truly linear? If it wasn't does that necessarily upset cause and effect? (Similarly we based "uniformity" on observation enhanced by mathematics. All that means is our field of view is limited and math is filling the gap. We observe the sun to rise and set and yet we "know" that isn't true because our data increased beyond our own powers of observation. Math helped with that. The scientific community is now arguing about the existence of Dark Matter. Or is it the non-existence of Dark Matter? Does it matter? One day we might know, but the math can go either way.)

I can use logic (I can use logic), but my contention is that perhaps reality is not logical and therefore might best not be viewed as such.

It's not "our logic"--it's God's logic.

Nicely echoing "MY WAYS ARE NOT THY WAYS". All we know of reality is what we make of it in our own heads. I think you are real therefore you are real to me. Tomorrow I might realize my schizophrenia and stop posting messages to my favorite imaginary philosopher. (I happen to believe that solipsism is one of the more sophististicated and therefore appealing theories of reality. I do not believe it however. Except when I watch the Matrix...) Everything we know comes our perception (or imagination) of what we believe to be reality. If I may set aside logic when it has stretched to its limit, I isn't because I do not subscribe to its principles within its limits; I "know" that the infinite cannot be quantified, except by artifice, and so in the absence of logic, there is no paradox in denying the law of contradiction.

(I happen to agree, I think, with many of your conclusions but I am not

CONSTANCE

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by raidok:
Constance, as a Christian, I am not to Judge or condemn another human being, nor to say whether or not a person is going to hell, but I am simply to tell you the truth as I understand it according to my faith in Christ...

what I write is with the utmost respect and sincerity.

About your post: if an apology is sincere and born out of love, then it means very much, but if there is no God, hence no life after physical death, and no Supreme rule of conduct on how we are to treat each other and live our lives with the corresponding consequences if we break these rules, what does it matter if you apologize or not as an Atheist? Is it to simply mend bridges and keep things flowing smoothly?

The very act of apology is to seek recompense...a desire to correct an error made by one's self. If there is no ultimate lawgiver, no divine God who enforces a set rule of behavior and the consequences for breaking those laws, then the only other authority to deal with is human, and human authority is all too easily defeated by rule breakers on every level from lying to murder to genocide. Without God, there will be no justice every single time a criminal escapes human law enforcement, is not witnessed committing a crime, or is not caught red handed. The same goes for breakers of every rule and every code of conduct from calling names to gossiping behind someone's back that would require an apology to be given in the first place. The if nobody sees it, then it didn't happen mentality will prevail, along with the shades of criminality as with illegal music downloads or speeding in a car...if no one sees you do you stop? Or if you catch yourself speeding do you go apologize to a police officer for breaking the law?

If you wrong a specific individual and your conscience gets the better of you and you feel bad and are prompted or compelled by it to apologize, what is the true motivation for an Atheist in offering an apology if not because it is inherently the right thing to do? (Mind you, an inherent right implies that there is an Ultimate right and wrong) If it's because you don't want to feel bad, it's selfish. If it's because you want another person to feel better towards you, it's selfish. If it is for any reason other than the fact that it is the right thing to do, it is selfish. My point is that if there is no God, then everything we do is based on how it makes us feel, not for any love of doing right for the sake of right...if it was for the love of doing right for the simple sake of doing right, then you would apologize to every single person who you have ever wronged in any way shape or form, whether they know about it or not, and more importantly, whether you know them or even like them at all.

Yes, there is a reason for everything we choose to do, no matter what it may be. Atheist reasoning for doing good not surprisingly is based on the golden rule when it comes to treating others they way you want to be treated, but the motivation must certainly be different by definition. If you hurt people who will ultimately hurt you back it is very dangerous to be an Atheist with no life expectancy beyond the physical, and with every part of their being wrapped up in the human body, they cling to it very tenaciously because once lost it's lost forever...or so they believe. The reasoning for doing good for an Atheist is wrapped around either an arrogance that they are the ultimate intelligence of creation (which is the case if there is no God) and thereby must act the part, or simply the fear of experiencing or causing oblivion in someone else if you cross the wrong person, or choose the wrong reaction to any given situation...it is in any case a fear bound to the human body and anything that can affect the body, whereas Christians fear God, and rightly so, but that fear is born out of love, a fear of disappointing a Father/a cherished loved one...not a fear of dying or penalty. Christ paid the debt for our sins, and we are under Grace as Christians, so our sins are paid for, but we must live

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I do NOT believe in ORGANIZED religion. As far as I am concerned ALL the problems in this world are a direct result of organized religion.

I don't disagree with you that people have done a lot of horrendous things in the name of religion. But all the world's problems? Maybe you were being hyperbolic--do you seriously think that every single problem everywhere in the world is attributable to religion?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html]

Yes

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JONNYQUEST

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Constance:
I see the need to find an answer to where we come from, why were here and all the other big questions. I am content with my answer. Were here by chance, the only reason and meaning in,life is what we ourself find.

I do not believe that humans are the ultimate being. It is scary and potentially dangerous to be an atheist. But for me its the only honest position I can take.

Constance

I said solipsism is one of the most sophisticated theories. TRUE atheism is another. By "true" I mean those that have come about their conclusion as you say "the only honest position" they can take. Implied herein is the concept then of "false" atheism which in my definition is that which has all the hallmarks of radical fundamentalist extremism without the benefit of God's authority. Perhaps the better description is the Arrogant Atheist who has no greater delight in life than to belittle those with a dissenting view, which brings to my mind our good friends the Puritans who coming to America to escape religious persecution, immediately started out instituting their own. I love that kinda stuff! Unfortunately, these loudmouths are usually the ones I notice. Just like the Fundies seem to be the voice of Christianity, and are not.

I applaude the honest atheist. You may be wrong--(And I'm not saying you are; I'm not saying it here anyway: that's not my point.)--you may be wrong, but you do so with dignity.

And Constance? It's so nice to see the brains behind the beauty. It's of course nice to see the beauty, too; keep posting pix!)

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw

JONNYQUEST

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I do NOT believe in ORGANIZED religion. As far as I am concerned ALL the problems in this world are a direct result of organized religion.

I don't disagree with you that people have done a lot of horrendous things in the name of religion. But all the world's problems? Maybe you were being hyperbolic--do you seriously think that every single problem everywhere in the world is attributable to religion?

Yes

Okay, that was him. What about me? What about me? What about me? What about me? What about me?

Quote:
Originally posted by JonnyQuest:
Well, here it is: if it weren't organized religion, it would be organized something else: politics or corporations, which have at their heart the same evils that religion unfortunately frequently deteriorates into. It's not the organization or society; it's the corrupt membership.

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw

MAL4PREZ

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So sorry for the confusion. The bit after #1 was my response to your post. The bit after #2 was an extended meditation on the notion of evidentiary support.

And was an excellent point. As a scientist, I should know better than to throw the more "evidence" out there like that.

Quote:
By the way, as to the claim that I'm arguing not against you, but against someone else, that's certainly true. Being a theist will do that to you. I'm surrounded by philosophical peers who disagree with me, so I often try to forestall objections by raising and answering them myself.
Hee-hee! Your post had the feel of an old argument happy to have the chance to break free! I totally understand.

Quote:
And just a general observation for the edification of everybody: nobody owns a thread--including the person who started it. It's been my experience that threads go where they want, so insisting that people give simple heaven/hell answers might not really work.
True - and I've certainly contributed to the tangent! It was more my point to say that I don't meant to try and change anyone's mind, therefore I'm not going for solid logic in my ramblings. The rather intense logic of your post, and the stress on proving/disproving, kind of set my head to spinning. I wasn't expecting it to go there!

Really, too much heavy thinking for a Friday LOL!

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

PIRATECAT

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:59 PM

I've never been to Heaven but I been to Oklahoma. Jedi means Jesus disciple. I follow Barabas.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

ZOID

Friday, May 18, 2007 6:27 PM

Ummm... First thing, I'm still reading this thread, as I promised. Secondly, I'm posting this, thereby 'breaking' my second promise. Ooops! But I figure, since RiveR6213 'officially' closed the Heaven and Hell thread, and now we've (with the notable exception of heaven-bound Kaneman) all 'devolved' into a philosophical discussion which seems to center around the definitions of 'evidence' and logic, as opposed to the more-appropriate-but-despised phrase, "I feel", I figure it may be possible for me to reenter the thread without feeling like I'm necessarily monopolizing the conversation...

JonnyQuest wrote:

Quote:
...No thing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

Hmmm. How does this apply to Schroedinger's cat? Is it really just our not knowing the outcome before we see it or is there actually a temporal ambiguity involved? ...

The cat exists. The box exists. The lump of uranium exists. The cyanide capsule exists. The particle-diverting apparatus exists. What remains at question is which way the particle will go: will it trigger the poison and kill the cat or will it take the non-feline-lethal path?

To my knowledge, no scientist has ever tried the experiment exactly as posed (i.e., I believe no actual cats have been harmed, but I'm probably wrong on this one). The fact is that this was only a thought experiment, intended not so much to prove, but to solidify the notion that a cognizant observer is required to collapse the probability wave involved. The cat is neither dead nor alive until a cognizant human (or other intelligent?) observer opens the box and discovers it either dead or alive. I'll say it again: Until the box is opened and a definitive observation is made, the cat is in an indeterminate state of aliveness/deadness, according to the 'Copenhagen' interpretation of quantum mechanics. Interestingly, this interpretation also answers the well-known Zen koan: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to (observe) it, does the falling tree make a sound?" According to Bohr, Schroedinger, et al, the answer is a resounding 'No! It does not!'

As wacky as that may sound to many, I like it a lot, because it provides a possible motivation and role for God, and for Humanity within His creation. If nothing exists without Observation by an intelligent being, is it possible that the universe itself -- and everything in it -- would not, could not exist unless there was some all-powerful, all-knowing, 'all-observing' Being to bring it into actual existence (instead of just potential existence)?

As to Humanity's possible role: What if God the Creator (by Observation) decided to increase the complexity within his Creation by bringing into being a creature made in the image of His mentality, with His ability to collapse probability into reality by cognizant Observation? It would be a great design feature to thus make Creation a continuing process by having present within its confines a means (Humanity) to continue creating by means of intelligent/cognizant Observation.

Another feature of quantum mechanics that I find very appealing as a believer in God, is that it features a 'law' of probability that is virtually 100% accurate at predicting the distribution of photons striking a photo-sensitive medium (for example), without ever being able to say precisely where any single particle will land. This featured 'law' has been described as the most successful theory ever found by Man, in terms of its predictive powers. So...

...If, by analogy, God were the scientist Observer and we individual humans the individual photons, God could predict with 100% accuracy the pattern we would make on His screen, but He could not predict how any individual human would act. Ergo, there would be predetermination for the entirety of Humanity and the outcome of the 'experimental run' of the Universe, but indeterminability of any single Human being ('free will').

This indeterminability of an