Knowledge originates in science and science deals with facts, and I love it—but only a fool does not recognize its limitations. And though you might disagree, I am not a fool. Religion—real religion—is not a primitive belief in something imaginary followed by corresponding values that end up being borrowed by secularists, but emerges from experiences alluded to in my first posting: the early realization that things are caused and need a sufficient cause. When any normal, rational human being couples that with the appearance of everything from the finely tuned universe to the complexity of a living cell, awe and reverence toward the underlying Cause is to be expected; and “God” is the ideal toward which the awe and reverence is directed. The idealization of the things themselves or the science that comprehends them is, to use a Zen saying, mistaking the finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself. Newton and Galileo did not make that mistake, nor do I. To them, science and mathematics were a ways of communing with God.

All I ask is that people talk intelligibly about religion or not at all—to learn something about the centuries-old premise of self-existent reality as opposed to emergent properties before likening belief in God to belief in fairies or Zeus; to learn the difference between contingent things and non-contingent conditions before speaking out against concepts that take them into consideration.

I am afraid, however, that this is asking too much. Atheist Bertrand Russell said, “Someone living comfortably in a make-believe world has neither reason nor desire to escape.” This is true no matter what the person’s worldview—atheist or religious. When a person’s comfort zone is threatened, they tend to erect defensive barriers rather than taking up the challenge to adapt or create an entirely new worldview. Confronted with unfamiliar and radically different modes of thought, such as “evolution” or a distinction being made between “emergent properties” and “self-existent reality,” the immediate response is a retreat into the world with which they are most familiar. The reaction is like pulling one’s hand away from a fire before recognizing its usefulness. If they cannot defend their world from the message, the message will be ignored and the messenger put on trial. They will attack the messenger’s character, question his motives, try to damage his credibility, or make the messenger spoon-feed information that can be gleaned from the words themselves or easily acquired.

Thus, it has always been, and thus it is likely to always be.

The quote you posted is in direct contradiction to the rationale of posting this.
If atheists are comfortable with their limited world view, let them continue: you have no reason to write this post other than to rant.

The quote you posted is in direct contradiction to the rationale of posting this.
If atheists are comfortable with their limited world view, let them continue: you have no reason to write this post other than to rant.

theists are also "comfortable with their limited world view".

You are correct that people tend to get defensive when their deeply held views are questioned. In light of this, let us consider what you are saying.

I agree that real religion, AKA spirituality, is not simple belief in fairly tales or Gods or supreme beings. However, to symbolize the various causes of things into one thing is not a full appreciation of reality, but a simplification of it. It replaces natural wonder and curiosity with a symbol as if to place it beyond consideration. Awe directed towards this symbol is misdirected. It can be more comfortable to do so, since people evolved as social animals, but it does not reflect reality. Personification of reality is a reflection of ourselves.

Being in awe of the symbol for everything is exactly the finger pointing, not the moon itself. By definition we can't know the true nature of God. Therefore believing in it is believing in the finger, not what it points to.

this double posting an opening thread, you must delete one of them, or it will be done for you. I know you think you've got a point to make, but please do try and save some band-width, don't double post an opening thread!

I'll respond when i get home. I'm at work now.

Religion—real religion

For clarification purposes please cite an example of a "real religion" and a not-real religion. Thank you.

the early realization that things are caused and need a sufficient cause.

The dilemma of which is that, if we take your statement as true, what caused the one that caused us? This invariably continues down the line forever - and the only current 'excuse' is that "well, everything else was caused but not 'he'". In saying that, why go to 'he' in the first place? Can 'he' not simply be the universe itself?

rational human being couples that with the appearance of everything from the finely tuned universe

Kindly provide a bit more detail concerning "finely tuned"..

to the complexity of a living cell

Something seeming "complex" to us doesn't really mean much at the end of the day or point to sky beings. What you are doing here is saying "god did it" merely because you don't have an answer yet, which isn't of any worth at the end of the day.

awe and reverence toward the underlying Cause is to be expected; and “God” is the ideal toward which the awe and reverence is directed.

For the sake of discussion I shall agree with you and state that this universe and everything in it was 'created' by some god thingy. But that is not where awe and reverence is being directed. Awe and reverence is being directed at beings 'created' by an unknown ancient person purely on the basis that they said so. You must surely see the worthlessness of that?

All I ask is that people talk intelligibly about religion or not at all—to learn something about the centuries-old premise of self-existent reality as opposed to emergent properties before likening belief in God to belief in fairies or Zeus

While I accept that you're new here, what you really need to understand is that people here have been talking "intelligibly" about religion since long before you showed up, and undoubtedly will continue to do so long after you have vanished. What you need to do is debate an issue, (not the person). They might not understand your statements, they might understand those statements but not agree with them - and ask you to state the case from your own perspective. That is just as important a part of discussion. You cannot in all honesty expect everyone to go out and get a degree in religious education just to be able to discuss religious matters on a religious subforum. You go on to say that you're "spoon feeding information".. which is quite naive. If people asks things from you it is generally because they want your opinion concerning the issue - not that they're a blithering uneducated halfwit. We can also add to that: claims. If you make a claim people will naturally ask you to support those claims. It is not upto the person questioning you to go off searching round the entire internet just to support a claim that you make. That is your job.

I hope that helps.

The dilemma of which is that, if we take your statement as true, what caused the one that caused us? This invariably continues down the line forever - and the only current 'excuse' is that "well, everything else was caused but not 'he'". In saying that, why go to 'he' in the first place? Can 'he' not simply be the universe itself?



.

Nicely put.
I remember at about aged 13 askINg these Johavas that turned up at the door "If god created us, who created him?". I got the old crap "he was always there!". My logic to think while shutting the door was "why couldnt the molecules that we evolved from have always been there?".
Theists seem to be under the illusion that atheism is taught in 'the school for atheism for the prevention of the spread of the word god' or some stupid shit like that, instead of being a result of using ones education to come to a logical conclusion.

If I understand you correctly, Spidergoat, I absolutely agree. Hence, there is a distinction to be made between an ideal and the interpretative idea.

Most of what passes for religon, SnakeLord, is theology-dominated...it's a doctrine rather than a way of life. It isolates a part of life and calls it religion when in fact it is nothing more than a body of ideas.

As for the rest...well, no comment.

Most of what passes for religon, SnakeLord, is theology-dominated...it's a doctrine rather than a way of life. It isolates a part of life and calls it religion when in fact it is nothing more than a body of ideas.

.

Thats a first! In my entire life I dont think I've ever heard someone talk so modestly and rationally about their religion.

It isolates a part of life and calls it religion when in fact it is nothing more than a body of ideas.

Ok, thank you. However I would still be interested in an example of a "real" religion and a non-real one if you would care to do so.

As for the rest...well, no comment

That's a shame. I was especially looking forward to details concerning your claim that the universe is "finely tuned". I guess it's all subjective but I wouldn't personally consider giant chunks of rock and ice whizzing round the cosmos smack, banging into planets as an example of something being "finely tuned". Neither for that matter would I consider those billions upon billions of planets doing bugger all as an example of "finely tuned", indeed I would class it as an 'extreme waste of space'.

My questions and statements were not particularly challenging. Please, I urge you to try.

Ok, thank you. However I would still be interested in an example of a "real" religion and a non-real one if you would care to do so.

seems like you are only prepared to listen to answers that don't contradict what you already know


That's a shame. I was especially looking forward to details concerning your claim that the universe is "finely tuned". I guess it's all subjective but I wouldn't personally consider giant chunks of rock and ice whizzing round the cosmos smack, banging into planets as an example of something being "finely tuned". Neither for that matter would I consider those billions upon billions of planets doing bugger all as an example of "finely tuned", indeed I would class it as an 'extreme waste of space'.
all that you have established is that you don't know how the universe is operating - it may appear that its just smashing and crashing all over the place but nonetheless when the sun goes down this afternoon you make plans for the next day rather than thinking that the sun has just disappeared and life as we know it on earthg will disappear as temperatures drop - in other words to rationally apply your view of an "untuned universe" would be lunacy

seems like you are only prepared to listen to answers that don't contradict what you already know

Uh.. lack of sleep last night? I merely asked for an example of each for clarification purposes. Seemingly that's too much to ask. Why is that exactly?

all that you have established is that you don't know how the universe is operating - it may appear that its just smashing and crashing all over the place but nonetheless when the sun goes down this afternoon you make plans for the next day rather than thinking that the sun has just disappeared and life as we know it on earthg will disappear as temperatures drop

Well, life as we know it on earth might very well disappear due to temperatures.. Such is life. Anyway, it seems you missed the point. A claim was made, I offered some alternatives and wanted him, (not you), to explain how he considered everything "finely tuned". Hell, even you will do, but instead you seem more content to just tell people what they do or do not know, and while that's your right, it's not very helpful.

in other words to rationally apply your view of an "untuned universe" would be lunacy

This is why I'd rather you stay out of it, (put me back on ignore or something). You don't seem to read posts before you jump in on them telling people what they do or do not know. Needless to say I want Rolling Stone, (not you), to explain why he considers this universe "finely tuned".

Well, life as we know it on earth might very well disappear due to temperatures.. Such is life. Anyway, it seems you missed the point. A claim was made, I offered some alternatives and wanted him, (not you), to explain how he considered everything "finely tuned". Hell, even you will do, but instead you seem more content to just tell people what they do or do not know, and while that's your right, it's not very helpful.

my point was to claim that the universe is not finely tuned based on what one can know about it, is absurd, since its not clear how our empirical perception of it can be anything but metonymic

my point was to claim that the universe is not finely tuned based on what one can know about it, is absurd, since its not clear how our empirical perception of it can be anything but metonymic

My 'point' was to try and get Rolling Stone to explain how he considers the universe to be "finely tuned", because the claim by itself does not really say much.

As you seemingly want to get involved, perhaps you'd like to speak for Rolling Stone and explain to me how you consider the universe finely tuned.

Now please, pay attention.. Me asking you to explain how you consider the universe finely tuned is not me saying it isn't. For some reason you constantly fail to grasp that. Me asking a question of someone is not me instantly believing the exact opposite to be true. Remember, Rolling Stone made the claim.. I need to know more details concerning why he thinks the universe is finely tuned before I can really comment on it. Again, if you would like to answer for him, feel free..

My 'point' was to try and get Rolling Stone to explain how he considers the universe to be "finely tuned", because the claim by itself does not really say much.

As you seemingly want to get involved, perhaps you'd like to speak for Rolling Stone and explain to me how you consider the universe finely tuned.

Now please, pay attention.. Me asking you to explain how you consider the universe finely tuned is not me saying it isn't. For some reason you constantly fail to grasp that. Me asking a question of someone is not me instantly believing the exact opposite to be true. Remember, Rolling Stone made the claim.. I need to know more details concerning why he thinks the universe is finely tuned before I can really comment on it. Again, if you would like to answer for him, feel free..

In short, the universe, from the macro to the micro, displays systems of order that are beyond the systems of order we rack our brains to produce.
For instance we would hardly accept a plastic model of the solar system as not being "finely tuned" (we accept instantlythat someone had constructed it with intention) so it s not logical to accept the thing it is based on as having manifested in the absence of fine tuning (since its complexity is incalculably many more times complex and advanced than the plastic one)

the standard response to this is that since the universe is incalcuably many times more complex than what we can understand is an indication it is not fine tuned. This falls back on my original point, taht such a view point is absurd becasue one wouldn't expect our perception of the universe by empiricism to be anything but metonymic

the standard response to this is that since the universe is incalcuably many times more complex than what we can understand is an indication it is not fine tuned. This falls back on my original point, taht such a view point is absurd becasue one wouldn't expect our perception of the universe by empiricism to be anything but metonymic

We're all agreed then, the universe is and isn't finely tuned.

In short, the universe, from the macro to the micro, displays systems of order that are beyond the systems of order we rack our brains to produce.
You could point to examples of order, but you could also point to examples of disorder. That we don't yet understand it all completely is no argument for a designer.

Any life form that exists will tend to find itself in an environment suitable for that life, otherwise there would be no life to observe it. This is called the anthropic principle, or anthropic bias.

In short, the universe, from the macro to the micro, displays systems of order that are beyond the systems of order we rack our brains to produce.


As Spidergoat has pointed out, there's little room to neglect to also mention the disorder. Would you concur that any system given a lot of time will eventually display some level of order? As an example: Our universe contains trillions upon trillions of planets, suns, and whatever else. Would it be dishonest to state that you wouldn't expect to find any order in something as vast given enough time? (the old monkey/Shakespeare debate).

In a system like this you would expect to find not only some "order", but also disorder - the same does not really apply to a 'designed' system, (a system purportedly designed by the greatest intellect in the universe no less). Can you explain why you would find disorder in a designed system?

We're all agreed then, the universe is and isn't finely tuned.

assuming that our intelligence represents the pinnacle of fine tuning, yes (would a jungle tribe be justified in saying that a television is not fine tuned because it is beyond their ability to determine how it was manufactured and how it functions?)

You could point to examples of order, but you could also point to examples of disorder.

what process would you apply to distinguish between disorder and something that has an order beyond our capacity to comprehend?

That we don't yet understand it all completely is no argument for a designer.
therefore we have the added element of its function or end cause- for instance the fact that we don't experience elephants suddenly flying off into the sky despite our determining that the laws of gravity keep them earth bound only due to high ratios of probability is hardly a cause for thinking the universe is designerless either.

for instance, depsite lacking the direct perception (and complete understanding) of how and when a european sports car was manufactured, why is considering a european sportscar as having spontaneously appeared without a designer absurd?

Any life form that exists will tend to find itself in an environment suitable for that life, otherwise there would be no life to observe it. This is called the anthropic principle, or anthropic bias.[/QUOTE]

I’m a bit surprised that the anthropic principle or universal constants haven't been mentioned. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the universe appears to be designed and resorts to multiverse theory to explain it away—not exactly science but maybe he’s trying to be a philosopher or just miffed that there’s no rational reason for the laws of physics to be what they are. Change any one of a number of constants just a little and pffft….no universe, no life, and no Dawkins.

Any life form that exists will tend to find itself in an environment suitable for that life, otherwise there would be no life to observe it. This is called the anthropic principle, or anthropic bias.
I just did.

Something that has an order beyond our ability to comprehend is called chaos. Chaos is unpredictable order.

A sportscar can be made of, say 13,566 parts one year, and 14,500 parts the next year. Parts can not only appear in one year that didn't appear in another, the entire design can change. It can suddenly get full-wheel independent suspension.

Living things only change proceeding from previous stages. Animals do not suddenly grow different numbers of bones, and eyes don't suddenly appear in a species that had no eyes. This tells us that there is a different kind of design process going on. Never entire design concepts rethought, but gradual improvement. When examined, such improvements are seen to emerge from selection of advantageous traits from a body of variations through environmental and other factors.

Someday, we may design products such as sportcars using the same method, simulated on computers, something that is already done with software.

I agree that science alone cannot explain everything we experience, infact all the great scientists through the ages have pointed this out.
What i dont understand however is why you believe religion should take the default position in balancing science out.
Why not philosophy? it makes much more sense to embrace philosophy as a paradigm to my mind as it isnt a closed-system (unlike religion).
Its an open-system which runs along side and occasionally merges with scientific thought, im not quite sure what we actually need religion *for* anymore to be quite honest.
If the only thing religion has going for it is as a moral guidance system then again i would state that as a closed-system its hopeless at delving into modern ethical problems such as ecology, animal rights, euthenasia.
Religion simply doesnt tell us anything about these things as it pre-dates these moral problems, and even if religion was upto date enough to incorporate them we wouldnt be permitted to play around with the moral framework since it would be offered up as the final word of god.
I personally see ethical philosophy as being the most relevant and Malleable system to deal with morality, and again this being the case i really find it hard to see what exactly we still need religion for.

helio, I mistakingly posted this somewhere else, but was as appropriate there as it is here:

I should have made it clear from the first that even though I’m a theist, I greatly resent the traditionalized and institutionalized dogma that organized religion is rightly associated with. While I’m sure there are exceptions, going to church has more to do with community than worship. Faith, to me, is the living of a supreme ideal that is only represented by ideas. I mean, how does a temporal and finite being fully and completely get their mind wrapped around what is, by definition, infinite and self-existing? Our concept of God never be more than relative to the actual. If I may, let me quote from one of the books in my library: religion “would rehabilitate itself if, in addition to its moral mandates, it would give equal consideration to the truths of science, philosophy, and spiritual experience, and to the beauties of the physical creation, the charm of intellectual art, and the grandeur of genuine character achievement.” (I never, ever, quote something as an appeal to authority, but only because it actually reflects my own beliefs.)


Religion does 3 things an ethcal philosophy does not: it unifies the religionist with the cosmos; corroborates his moral values rather than rationalizes personal likes and dislikes; privides him with an experience of companionship with the Divine (however it is conceived).

Something that has an order beyond our ability to comprehend is called chaos. Chaos is unpredictable order.

actually something beyond our ability to comprehend is called something beyond our ability to comprehend - something that ultimately (as opposed to 'apparently') has no order is called chaos.

For instance I think you would be hard pressed to accept that a television is chaos (of course a television tends to screen chaos, but thats a seperate issue) simply because a jungle tribe doesn't know how they are constructed

My original point was to ilustrate that there is a secular equivilent of everything religion claims to do along with the added bonus of being about to work within an open framework that fosters evolution of attitudes and ideas. I wasnt *just* talking about ethical philosophy per se. :p
Anyway i'll address some points you raised.


Religion does 3 things an ethcal philosophy does not: it unifies the religionist with the cosmos; corroborates his moral values rather than rationalizes personal likes and dislikes; privides him with an experience of companionship with the Divine (however it is conceived).
I believe there are a variety of means to experience unification of the cosmos, in fact ive experienced it first hand myself and i didnt even have to attend church to get there. It is quite possible to experience a more holistic universal vantage point without bringing religion into the equation.
In terms of morality im not quite sure why you believe religion puts forward a non-personal value system, all value systems are by their nature personal. Again the problem with religious value systems is that beyond the golden rule theyre bound up in tradition and local custom. Offen what is put forward as moral in religious works is simply what passed as moral in the time and place that is was written.
Check out God's attitude to slavery and the place of women in society in the old testament if you dont believe me!
This is where we need modern ethical dialouge since antiquated religious texts dont help us in working out what is and isnt moral in a world of animal experimention, genetics and euthenasia.
It seems to me that we have a greater diversity of availale systems today to deal with all the moral and intellectual problems that life throws at us.
I would put forward that there is greater potential to learn about ourselves and others using these open systems than the closed systems of religion in which we are bound from meddling with the core ingredients since they are 'divine' and therefore cannot be modified or played around with.

Knowledge originates in science and science deals with facts, and I love it—but only a fool does not recognize its limitations.

Yes we know the limitations of science, however if you are talking supernaturalism, then that's not science, that's superstition!

I am not a fool. Religion—real religion—is not a primitive belief in something imaginary followed by corresponding values that end up being borrowed by secularists, but emerges from experiences alluded to in my first posting: the early realization that things are caused and need a sufficient cause.

No but your an arrogant know it all who still doesn't answer simple questions! ;)

All I ask is that people talk intelligibly about religion or not at all—to learn something about the centuries-old premise of self-existent reality as opposed to emergent properties before likening belief in God to belief in fairies or Zeus

See we all ready hear this BS, what I want to know, however is how the hell can you explain a self manifested entity? That you have failed to answer several times, and how the hell is it not different then Zeus? If the Greek religion would have survived till today, you be plainly explaining here, that Zeus is a self manifested entity!

I am afraid, however, that this is asking too much. Atheist Bertrand Russell said, “Someone living comfortably in a make-believe world has neither reason nor desire to escape.” This is true no matter what the person’s worldview—atheist or religious. When a person’s comfort zone is threatened, they tend to erect defensive barriers rather than taking up the challenge to adapt or create an entirely new worldview.

Actually you had a new world view when you changed from theistic dogma, to objective secularism, however you claim that you changed your mind and reverted back to theistic dogma, sounds to me you were, are simply confused! :rolleyes:

I should have made it clear from the first that even though I’m a theist, I greatly resent the traditionalized and institutionalized dogma that organized religion is rightly associated with.

Oh! I see so we are now a deist! got ya!

I mean, how does a temporal and finite being fully and completely get their mind wrapped around what is, by definition, infinite and self-existing? Our concept of God never be more than relative to the actual.

With that said, how does a mere finite being come up with scriptures mandated by certain gods? Like I said, if Greek mythology would have survived till today, most would be praying to Zeus still!

religion “would rehabilitate itself if, in addition to its moral mandates, it would give equal consideration to the truths of science, philosophy, and spiritual experience, and to the beauties of the physical creation, the charm of intellectual art, and the grandeur of genuine character achievement.”

Nice quote, however reality has shown us that the above has not been the case! Religion was and is nothing more than a tool to control the masses. The shamans, witch doctors, oracles, popes, etc... leaders of these religions found a simple way to make a living, off the backs of who believed their BS, if one was not to believe, they pulled out the unknown to manipulate.

In the past, those who did not believe, were killed, jailed, maned, ridiculed, or burned! and today it happens in Islam.

With a past like that, there's very little religion can do rehabilitate, the damage done to humanity, is incomprehensible, an undeniable that religion has stagnated humanity, as it's still doing today!

Godless

Self-manifested deity? Where did I say that? Deliberately misconstruing what a person says is a sure sign of a lack of a cogent argument.

Self-manifested deity? Where did I say that? Deliberately misconstruing what a person says is a sure sign of a lack of a cogent argument.

It would stand to reason that he is referring to your "self existant reality" statement that you made in your opening post. I am quite sure you already knew that though.

As far as arguments go, I am still waiting for you to return a debate from some points I raised/questions I asked on this thread, (and others for that matter). Of course it's your choice, you could just spend all your time telling people what constitutes a decent argument, while not making a decent argument.

When any normal, rational human being couples that with the appearance of everything from the finely tuned universe to the complexity of a living cell, awe and reverence toward the underlying Cause is to be expected;Fine tuned?

Please explain how this Universe is "fine-tuned" - and for what purpose?

And then please prove it.:rolleyes:


...and “God” is the ideal toward which the awe and reverence is directed.Really? :eek:
By whom?

My awe and reverence is directed the universe itself, merely for being what it is - no more, no less.

... before likening belief in God to belief in fairies or Zeus;Excuse me, but wasn't Zeus considered a deity for a thousand years or so? And it was only the fact that an unprovable deity came along (in many guises, including Christianity) that put an end to it before science could.

So you are saying it is ok to jump onboard any scientifically unprovables as truth?

I like your ideas Rolling stone. :D

Self-manifested deity? Where did I say that? Deliberately misconstruing what a person says is a sure sign of a lack of a cogent argument.

It was not said directly but certainly implied.

i.e.
Religion—real religion—is not a primitive belief in something imaginary followed by corresponding values that end up being borrowed by secularists, but emerges from experiences alluded to in my first posting: the early realization that things are caused and need a sufficient cause. When any normal, rational human being couples that with the appearance of everything from the finely tuned universe to the complexity of a living cell, awe and reverence toward the underlying Cause is to be expected; and “God” is the ideal toward which the awe and reverence is directed.

This in essence is the first cause argument. Hence a self manifested deity/entity, caused the first cause, and the first cause was to create the universe. My question as it still remains unanswered: How can a deity self manifest it self out of nothing? Hence theist claim a superior consciousness, this superior consciousness supposedly is eternal, my query is; how that they observe this superior consciousness? I'm prepared to show you, that it was imagined! They wrote down what they imagined, and called it the word of god.

I'm not going to waste time showing that the universe is finely tuned. It is so well-documented and so well known that anyone interested in science should be aware it.

And godless, there is no implication at all. There is a difference between "self-existent'" and "self-manifested." You habitually underestimate my arguments and my logic.

Linguistically, "First Cause" is not necessarily "first" in the sense of a long series of event. It can also be "First" in the sense that there is nothing more fundamental. You are indeed correct to state that "self-manifested" is illogical...it is as illogical for God to self-manifest as it is for the universe to self-manifest. Self-existent, however, is not illogical. And that's the problem: how do you get order, consciousness and the like unless it was already present in some state, potential or otherwise?

And Sarkus...please. You are falling into the same trap as a lot of others, like Godless. Equating a self-existent Deity with a deity? An infinite God, by definition, is not a being at all, but being itself.

The Hindus have a saying that goes something like this: In the beginning God was one; being one he became lonely and so he became many. The notion that God is a self-differentiating One in which consciousness is predominant is a lot older than 19th century science and allowable in 20th century science.

I'm not going to waste time showing that the universe is finely tuned. It is so well-documented and so well known that anyone interested in science should be aware it.



Too bad, I could have used some of this info, cause the way I see it the universe is quite a chaotic place, unless you would call thousands of asteroids hitting earth "finely tuned" tuned for what? When life on earth nearly got destroyed by a comet 65 million years ago, there's quite lots of evidence of debris falling to earth from space, is this finely tuned to happen in a place that supports life? Finely tuned for whom? It certainly couldn't be for life on earth, since it has been battered so often! :rolleyes:

Linguistically, "First Cause" is not necessarily "first" in the sense of a long series of event.

Well then you better inform just about every damn theist out there! As they all point out the first cause to be god!

The first cause argument tells us that the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence.

Buy from Amazon UK

This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html

*Now, it is not possible that in this finite world this pattern of cause and effect should have no limit and should be infinite. We are compelled to acknowledge that it must terminate with some ultimate cause. The ultimate cause is God. These verses set forth this argument very concisely and affirm that the system of cause and effect terminates in God. One may ask that if this the case, then what is the cause of God? Well, asking this question would be illogical and would nullify the very meaning of First or Ultimate cause. Ultimate cause means that a cause which was caused independently and it was not the effect of another cause. In a logical sense, we can say;
a. Every created thing has a cause
b. Every effect is the indication of a former cause.
c. All causes finally indicate a single cause
d. This ultimate single cause is the act of God.
Speaking in scientific terms, we know that our whole phenomenal Universe is an effect of a cause. The creation of Erath is the effect of Sun, the cause of Sun is the effect of Galaxies, the cause of Galaxies is the effect of Nebulae, the cause of Nebulae is the effect of Big Bang, the cause of Big Bang is the effect of a single Nebula and the cause of single Nebula is the effect of act of a Unified force (i.e. God). http://www.skepticatheist.com/articles/firstcause.php *

You are indeed correct to state that "self-manifested" is illogical...it is as illogical for God to self-manifest as it is for the universe to self-manifest. Self-existent, however, is not illogical. And that's the problem: how do you get order, consciousness and the like unless it was already present in some state, potential or otherwise?


Oh! I disagree that the universe didn't manifest itself, why would this be illogical? When you have particles that manifest into existence and then out of existence in an instance, then why would it be illogical to have a universe self manifest?

Atomic particles such as electrons can spontaneously form within space and then dissolve back into space being annihilated by anti electrons (positrons) http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/DPSpacetimesuperstring.htm

Didn't these atomic particles self manifest?

Self-existent, however, is not illogical. And that's the problem: how do you get order, consciousness and the like unless it was already present in some state, potential or otherwise?

I suppose it's all on perspective, while our brains are naturally designed to see order, it's easier for us to determine order in the universe, however it's not entirely true, as shown by some physicists the universe is quite a chaotic place. Consciousness exists in every living species on earth, however only humans can reason, and also "human consciousness" is an invention of human initiative towards survival.

Going back to the the earliest writings and studying particularly the many early civilizations of the Near East, Jaynes came to the conclusion that most of the people in these archaic cultures were *not* subjectively conscious as we understand it today.

Jaynes provides extensive illustrations--ranging from Sumer, Ur, Babylon, Egyptian, Early Mycenean, Hebrew, and even Mayan and Asian cultures--that support his theory of the bicameral mind. But he mainly focuses on Mycenean (Greek) material--and it is this material which we will examine mostly in this post.

Jaynes bluntly declares "There is in general no consciousness in the ILIAD." Analyzing Homer's great epic, Jaynes came to the conclusion that the characters of the Trojan siege did not have conscious minds, no introspection, as we know it in the modern human. [Julian Jaynes, THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976, p. 69]

http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html

I suggested once to you, however I suppose your arrogance impeded to even take a look at it! :(

Congratulations Godless!
Too bad, I could have used some of this info, cause the way I see it the universe is quite a chaotic place, unless you would call thousands of asteroids hitting earth "finely tuned" tuned for what? When life on earth nearly got destroyed by a comet 65 million years ago, there's quite lots of evidence of debris falling to earth from space, is this finely tuned to happen in a place that supports life? Finely tuned for whom? It certainly couldn't be for life on earth, since it has been battered so often!
You have single-handedly destroyed your credibility as a science-minded person!

You better take some lessons in logic, Godless, "particles that manifest into existence and then out of existence" is a self-existing state.

You are quickly becoming irrelevant to any discussion

Congratulations Godless!

You have single-handedly destroyed your credibility as a science-minded person!enlighten us as to how he has, or shut the f**k up. You better take some lessons in logic, Godless, "particles that manifest into existence and then out of existence" is a self-existing state.

You are quickly becoming irrelevant to any discussion this is a discussion forum, so enlighten us as to how he's wrong, let's hear you side of the arguement, instead of saying he's illogical, show how he is, or shut the f**k up.

I'm not going to waste time showing that the universe is finely tuned. It is so well-documented and so well known that anyone interested in science should be aware it. I repeat...

Finely tuned BY WHOM?
Finely tuned FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

If it is so well documented, please put forward, in easy-to-understand terms, how you have come to the conclusion that it is finely tuned.

If you can not support even this supposedly simple claim then maybe you better revisit your thinking.

So please, just answer the question. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to waste time showing that the universe is finely tuned. It is so well-documented and so well known that anyone interested in science should be aware it.

I believe I was the first to ask you concerning your claim that the universe is fine tuned. You said: "no comment". Since that time several other people have asked and you consistently show that you simply cannot support your claims. You then seemingly get frustrated and start taking it out on others while claiming there is some logic in that head of yours.

Now, pay attention:

I have asked
Godless has asked
Sarkus has asked
I even ended up asking Lightgigantic who has now seemingly vanished into a puff of smoke.

Support your statement or please stop posting on this forum because all you're doing is wasting people's time.

Answer the question.

Snake, if you think what we see in nature is pure chaos, then you go man, many of us see that the rythms and forms in nature are of a magnificent order, but you and Satan want to deny the obvious, for obvious reasons.

Snake, if you think what we see in nature is pure chaos, then you go man, many of us see that the rythms and forms in nature are of a magnificent order, but you and Satan want to deny the obvious, for obvious reasons.It might well depend on the understanding of the word "chaos".

In laymens terms it has come to meen "without order" - but scientifically it means "unpredictable".

So if you still wish to argue that the universe is not chaos - feel free to predict away. And I expect 100% accuracy. :D

But then I'm guessing you can't even predict the questions on your exam papers?

I'm guessing you can predict the questions on your exam papers because you already have them.

You have single-handedly destroyed your credibility as a science-minded person!

It appears that you still show us your arrogance, but yet fail to back up any fucking claim you make!

Now I've been reading your "Integrated Theory of Intelligence" and again thanks for bringing it up to our attention, it makes quite good light reading, thank goodness I could get it for free, I've downloaded and printed it. It's good to read it while I take a shit, any page that I may disagree with, I just toss down the toilet with the rest of the shit. :bugeye:

Snake, if you think what we see in nature is pure chaos, then you go man

If you take a little bit of time away from your satan speeches, you'll see all I've been asking for are people to support their assertion that the universe is "finely tuned". Two theists have currently ran away from the question, and the third, (you), seems to try and lump it on me when I did not make the assertion in the first place.

Your forum record speaks for itself so I know no answer shall be forthcoming. However, I'm a sucker for punishment so...

Can you kindly explain what you consider "finely tuned"?

many of us see that the rythms and forms in nature are of a magnificent order

Please explain and cite examples of that "magnificent order".

but you and Satan want to deny the obvious

Can you support your claim that satan thinks nature is pure chaos?

Satan loves that millions of people believe that life morphed from non-life in a random manner, and that syngameons of animals morphed randomly (from mutations) into new syngameons, because such takes the Creator and His creation out of their equations, quite obvious.

Philocrazy is that you? No! I don't think so, but he surely acts like him, the only difference is that this one tries to make coherent senteces, with no basis in reality!

Sure Godless.

Godless, assume for the moment that the Bible is true, then don't you think Satan would love people to think that the universe, Earth, and its syngameons, all developed without a creator God?

Godless, assume for the moment that the Bible is true, then don't you think Satan would love people to think that the universe, Earth, and its syngameons, all developed without a creator God?

That's a rather tall order there philocrazy! I can't assume the bible is true when it contradicts itself almost in every chapter. ;) Is your god not coherent in writing a manual without contradictions? God claims to be the only super power, but yet explain what the hell is Satan? is he not also a superpower above humans? :rolleyes:

Satan is a created being who has been allowed to do his thing for awhile, those who have been born again see him is a nuisance who will eventually be done away with, and those who aren't born again either follow him or think he doesn't exist.

Did lucifer fall before or after creation of man?

I don't know, could have been either way, but Satan could have thought that to rule those who were created in God's image, humans, would have been pretty cool, along with the other angels who he figured would follow him.

Satan loves that millions of people believe that life morphed from non-life in a random manner, and that syngameons of animals morphed randomly (from mutations) into new syngameons, because such takes the Creator and His creation out of their equations, quite obvious.

I'll take that as a "no" shall I? No, you can't support your assertions and can't provide any examples of how the universe is "finely tuned". To be honest with you your satan speeches are really quite boring so kindly don't waste my time with it. Either concentrate on the discussion or say nothing.

Did lucifer fall before or after creation of man?*************
M*W: That doesn't really matter. If you and IAC had done your homework, which I know is categorically impossible, you would understand that "Lucifer" was simply a star formation in the night sky who appeared to early man that he "fell" as in a "meteor shower." Lucifer was never a "created being" of anything other than a star or stars. The formations of the stars, then, were created into
myths about human or angelic beings. Anytime you read in the bible about a "star," it refers to "angels." Anything you read in the bible about "angels," refers to "stars." They may have "fallen," but they never "rebelled." That's just the mythos of it. When you understand the misinterpretation of the bible, you will be better able to understand its true meaning.

Oh, so Med Woman thinks she understands the "true meaning" of the Bible? Hey Med Woman why don't you start a Bible College to straighten us out?

If any probability in the quantum sea is a statistical certainty, the state prior to the Big Bang is the sufficient cause of the Big Bang itself. Consciousness and will must have existed in some form from the very beginning—even if only as a potential—as an integral part of the whole. I contend that if consciousness and will are at all determining factors in the part, in the universe of space and time, it must be the result of consciousness and will existing in the aggregate of Ultimate Reality’s acting nature prior to the Big Bang, and from which they cannot be separated except by ignorance.

The aggregate bears all the characteristics of what we call “God.” “The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence.” In him we live, move and have our being. God is not an emergent property. It is not a personality as we understand personality, but personality itself and the source of personality. It does not have consciousness and will as we posses them; it is consciousness and will and their source. God is, as theism postulates, “the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.” The moment we depart from the concept of undifferentiated reality, however, we must postulate Mind as its technique of unifying the ever-widening divergence if we are at all to account for the evolution of the material universe and the emergence of consciousness and will—human mind—in it.

I’ve never just sat back waiting for the world to give me evidence of what is true. This is something I have believed for many years now as the result of being an active participant in my personal evolution longer than many who read this have been alive. It is still being refined. The Integrated Theory of Intelligence, something that has just recently come to my attention, uses current scientific information in a way that serves to validate my own analysis and conclusions while adding to that refinement, and this because even though it doesn’t point to God’s existence as I understand it, it does posit a reasonable description of how my conception of God manifests in the universe.

There is no rational reason to dismantle my ship without a compelling reason to do so. Nothing here or anywhere else in the Sciforum has even come even close to giving me one. Most of what I’ve seen is what one might expect from ill-informed teenyboppers (like asking for proof that the universe is finely tuned or the insisting that God is an emergent property). The fact that I made some posts here therefore proves something with which many of you will agree: I’m REALLY pathetic!!!

Oh, so Med Woman thinks she understands the "true meaning" of the Bible? Hey Med Woman why don't you start a Bible College to straighten us out?

*************
M*W: And you laugh! I've certainly studied the bible enough. I don't need to start a "bible college." I'm happy to post here on sciforums without charging you tuition, but since you don't pay attention to what I (or others) write, I don't expect you to learn anything new.

Oh I've learned alot, but not much from you.

I'm not going to waste time showing that the universe is finely tuned. It is so well-documented and so well known that anyone interested in science should be aware it.
It may be that if the gravitational force was just a tad bit weaker, our whole existence would have never came to be.

It, however, may very well be that, in such a case, other beings could have pondered that same question. Beings whose structure may be entirely unimaginable, as our brain is completely adapted to the rules of our universe. On the other hand, it also may very well be that in that universe there would be no life at all. In short, I think that we don't know what the potential of an universe with slightly different rules might be.

That alone could give us some hesitation in speculating that the particular favourable properties of our universe, for our own existence, must have been the result of an intelligent effort. If anything, it makes it the situation rather more complicated: why introduce an extra intelligence of a high degree of complexity, if it's just not necessary.

Self-existent, however, is not illogical. And that's the problem: how do you get order, consciousness and the like unless it was already present in some state, potential or otherwise?
If your argument is that the potential for intelligent life to develop has to be there, then I will agree with you. The origin of that potential can be as mundane as the laws and constants our universe just happens to abide by.

The notion that God is a self-differentiating One in which consciousness is predominant is a lot older than 19th century science and allowable in 20th century science.
Nature seems to work in the opposite direction: start with little building blocks and, given time and selective pressure, you may end up with something more complex. For me, it seems therefore odd to assume that it happened, more or less, the other way around.

Nothing here or anywhere else in the Sciforum has even come even close to giving me one. Most of what I’ve seen is what one might expect from ill-informed teenyboppers (like asking for proof that the universe is finely tuned or the insisting that God is an emergent property)

A couple of things..

1) Nobody here has asked you for "proof" of anything. Instead they have continued to ask you to cite some examples - which is not much to ask of a 'self declared' refined adult such as yourself. You consistently fail to do so, instead reeling off ad hom as a substitute for your failures.

2) Seemingly 'e-penis' is your thing. If you want we could just compare qualifications and get it over with.

I would ask that you refrain from your pointless ad-homs. That which you accuse others of is exactly how you happen to portray yourself with everything you write. You clearly don't understand what is asked of you, what a discussion is all about or the polite way to behave in front of other people. That is quite typical for an "ill-informed teenybopper".

One last time: Please show something to support your claim that the universe is "finely tuned". Any example will do.

If any probability in the quantum sea is a statistical certainty, the state prior to the Big Bang is the sufficient cause of the Big Bang itself.

Oh! yes, I know, we did this way back, you weren't here. Sorry you missed it, the BBT is debatable, I'm not going to waste my time here with it, cause we have rehashed this here several times. Just look here:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51188

Of course, I know your style, your arrogance is apparent, you probably claim I'm loony tunes or what not, but objectively. There is evidence that the BBT is falling apart as type this! :p

Consciousness and will must have existed in some form from the very beginning

(Against the backdrop of our immense scientific knowledge of the physical world, and the corresponding widespread desire to explain everything ultimately in physical terms, panpsychism has come to seem an implausible view.)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

Like I said before, consciousness is an evolutionary process of our minds, to reason did not come automatically it was a learned process, our ancestors invented human like consciousness out of chaotic behavior. Break down of the gods..Julian Jaynes theory of consciousness. You really need to take a look at this. http://www.julianjaynes.org/

Oh! I forget, your damn arrogance impedes you!

The aggregate bears all the characteristics of what we call “God.” “The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence.” In him we live, move and have our being. God is not an emergent property.

If then god is not an emergent entity, why should the universe be so? How could an non-emergent entity create anything? why would it need to?

I’ve never just sat back waiting for the world to give me evidence of what is true. This is something I have believed for many years now as the result of being an active participant in my personal evolution longer than many who read this have been alive. It is still being refined. The Integrated Theory of Intelligence, something that has just recently come to my attention, uses current scientific information in a way that serves to validate my own analysis and conclusions while adding to that refinement, and this because even though it doesn’t point to God’s existence as I understand it, it does posit a reasonable description of how my conception of God manifests in the universe.


If you are here, what are you seeking? or are you just trying to compel us to trust your intuitions, and assertions without giving any thought that we just may not believe you? It sounds unique what you are saying, it really does, lots of us here have been at cross roads, were decisions of our world view was changed, but I at least question, and don't give in to just one theory cause it sounds good, or one philosophy or ideology. As shown above panpsychism is been around for quite some time. *One of the first presocratic philosophers of ancient Greece, Thales (c. 624-545 B.C.E.) deployed an analogical argument for the attribution of mind that tends towards panpsychism.* from the link above.

There is no rational reason to dismantle my ship without a compelling reason to do so. Nothing here or anywhere else in the Sciforum has even come even close to giving me one. Most of what I’ve seen is what one might expect from ill-informed teenyboppers (like asking for proof that the universe is finely tuned or the insisting that God is an emergent property). The fact that I made some posts here therefore proves something with which many of you will agree: I’m REALLY pathetic!!!

What ship? Hey every loon has there day, so welcome to sciforums, your arguments here will or will not stand up to scrutiny, however do us a favor, when eve you ranting your rhetoric, at least give some supporting evidence of your claims, or else your arguments will be scrutinised as the rest of the loons we have here! ;) I'll informed teenyboppers? LOL...Must you be looking in the mirror as you type your non-serquitus drivel?

Most of what I’ve seen is what one might expect from ill-informed teenyboppers...I would suggest that, unless you know your audience personally, you refrain from such generalisations that do nothing other than expose your gross arrogance and your inability to enter proper debate.

Your arrogance stems from... what, exactly? The fact that you consider yourself older than some others on this site? And of course you know how old everyone else is? Me, for example? Or Godless, or SnakeLord?

Grow up.

(like asking for proof that the universe is finely tuned or the insisting that God is an emergent property).And I note that you STILL haven't provided any arguments to support this claim of the universe being finely tuned.

Does your statement stem from the "Intelligent Design" stable of thought, perchance?

(Against the backdrop of our immense scientific knowledge of the physical world, and the corresponding widespread desire to explain everything ultimately in physical terms, panpsychism has come to seem an implausible view.)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

Like I said before, consciousness is an evolutionary process of our minds, to reason did not come automatically it was a learned process, our ancestors invented human like consciousness out of chaotic behavior. Break down of the gods..Julian Jaynes theory of consciousness. You really need to take a look at this. http://www.julianjaynes.org/

First consciousness isnt a specifically human process/attribute *atall*, second of all i think youre getting dangerously close to being rather dogmatic in stating your opinions on this as fact.
Julian Jaynes remember has alot of critics and as with the bulk of sociological/anthrological study it all boils down to subjective opinion and interpretation.
By all means entertain Bicameral Mind Theory, but just remember it is a theory based entirely in personal opinion.

By all means entertain Bicameral Mind Theory, but just remember it is a theory based entirely in personal opinion.


As is "Intergrated theory of Intelligence" ;)

First consciousness isnt a specifically human process/attribute *atall*, second of all i think youre getting dangerously close to being rather dogmatic in stating your opinions on this as fact.


Hellio, perhaps you need to take a look at what I've stated:

I suppose it's all on perspective, while our brains are naturally designed to see order, it's easier for us to determine order in the universe, however it's not entirely true, as shown by some physicists the universe is quite a chaotic place. Consciousness exists in every living species on earth, however only humans can reason Post#36

Is it not a fact, that every living species on earth has some form of consciousness? Is it not a FACT that only humans in this planet can reason?

Isn't evolution an accepted factual theory? If it is, the mind also had to "evolve" from a primitive survival mode mind, to one that can reason, grasp metaphor concepts, and use those concepts in context.

Nope, youre right of course, it just came across in that one post as if you were stating an opinion/theory as fact, apolagies since it seems i mis-read you. ;)

No problem lad, it gets to be confusing at times when threads go off topic so often ;)