Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 63

Thread: Take the atheist challenge

  1. #41
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    191
    Originally posted by Flores
    I have a free will to call you an idiot and type my words or pay attention to my work. I choose to call you an idiot. Is this enough of a free will demonstration, or would you like me to show you more.

    Plus, is this physics of yours so damn stupid that it can't begin to understand the human brain and how it functions.
    No, that's not a demonstration.

    If you just want physics to explain the bare hypothesis of free will, then it is trivial to do so. Free will reduces to electrical impulses of the brain. It obeys all natural laws.

    There, see how easy that is? It's even compatible with certain theories of free will.

    Now I don't pretend you will accept that explanation, and you shouldn't. But neither need physics accept a challenge to explain a process that is defined solely by how it's not obeying physics. Your challenge is a sham until you can spell out enough about free will, from plausible premises, so that it can be studied. You haven't done that. You've merely asserted that there is free will and that whatever it is, it doesn't ovey physics. THen you challenge physics to prove you wrong. It can't of course, because your challenge is bogus.

    You can call me names and curse all you want. Perhaps that's what your religion teaches you to do. But it doesn't change the logic of the situation nor bolster your position. It just makes you look petulant.

  2. #42
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    2,245
    Originally posted by drnihili
    No, that's not a demonstration.
    If you just want physics to explain the bare hypothesis of free will, then it is trivial to do so. Free will reduces to electrical impulses of the brain. It obeys all natural laws.

    How easy is it to change your standards, if you have any. You went from there is no free will to free will is electrical impulses of the brain....You're pretty fast with your bull shit, but when it comes to understanding religion, you're quite slow and stupid. Anyways, so what are these impulses, aren't they energy, what moves the impulses across my body, and is this energy lost since I chose not to excute my impluses. Physics wouldn't agree that energy could be lost or destroyed, but I simply can loose an idea whether your physics agrees or not, it's not going to tell me how to behave.


    Originally posted by drnihili
    There, see how easy that is? It's even compatible with certain theories of free will.
    Easy??? As easy as brain surgeries, but I don't recommend that career of study for you, you're a bit rash with your conclusions.

    Originally posted by drnihili
    Now I don't pretend you will accept that explanation, and you shouldn't. But neither need physics accept a challenge to explain a process that is defined solely by how it's not obeying physics. Your challenge is a sham until you can spell out enough about free will, from plausible premises, so that it can be studied. You haven't done that. You've merely asserted that there is free will and that whatever it is, it doesn't ovey physics. THen you challenge physics to prove you wrong. It can't of course, because your challenge is bogus.
    Bogus idiots take bogus challenges. So why do you, is your free will weak minded or somthing. Plus, I'm not about to give you an idea for a PHD, you wouldn't know what to do with an idea if it hit you upside the head.

    Originally posted by drnihili
    You can call me names and curse all you want. Perhaps that's what your religion teaches you to do. But it doesn't change the logic of the situation nor bolster your position. It just makes you look petulant.
    Lalalalallalala, your Atheist tune is way off, go and tune your song little boy, before you serinade us with your nonesense....

  3. #43
    Valued Senior Member Jan Ardena's Avatar
    Posts
    7,299
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
    Most of your statements seem to reflect a need to revise basic physics.
    Such as?

    But lack of proof does mean they are fictional.
    No it doesn't, it means "lack of proof."

    It is not intuitive that combining certain gasses produces a liquid, it is not intuitive that combining certain toxic substances results in something edible.
    Not from our perspective, but it is not unreasonable to assume that these combinations weren't originally made and combined by an intelligent being, and if so, maybe intuitevly.

    It is because most things in reality are not intuitive that we developed the scientific method.
    What do you regard as reality, and is your reality standard??
    You say "most things," so i assume "some things" in your reality are intuitive, what are they?
    Scientific method is being developed, it is by no means perfect.

    What do you find intuitive that leads you to believe that in some cases physics does not work?
    What i mean by "it doesn't work," is that the laws of physics do not apply to certain things.
    Intuition itself cannot be understood by the laws of physics.

    Love

    Jan Ardena.

  4. #44
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    191
    Originally posted by Flores
    How easy is it to change your standards, if you have any. You went from there is no free will to free will is electrical impulses of the brain....You're pretty fast with your bull shit, but when it comes to understanding religion, you're quite slow and stupid.
    Actually, if you would learn to read, you would see that I didn't deny the existence of free will. I merely asked for evidence of it. However, you seem to prefer name calling to discussion. I hope you're happy when your children learn that from you. As for my understanding of religion, it's certainly not something you would have any idea about. If you think your way of dealing with other people is pleasing to your God, and if you would be happy to see your children follow suit, then by all means continue. Otherwise you're just a petty hypocrite.

    Anyways, so what are these impulses, aren't they energy, what moves the impulses across my body, and is this energy lost since I chose not to excute my impluses. Physics wouldn't agree that energy could be lost or destroyed, but I simply can loose an idea whether your physics agrees or not, it's not going to tell me how to behave.
    As stated, energy is neither lost nor destroyed. The impluses constitute both your action and your will. But the point again is that your challenge is bogus. I notice you have yet to address anything of substance.

    Easy??? As easy as brain surgeries, but I don't recommend that career of study for you, you're a bit rash with your conclusions

    Bogus idiots take bogus challenges. So why do you, is your free will weak minded or somthing. Plus, I'm not about to give you an idea for a PHD, you wouldn't know what to do with an idea if it hit you upside the head.
    Again, try reading. And when you've learned that art, try thinking about what you read. As for a PhD, I have no plans to get any more of them, thank you.

  5. #45
    Originally posted by drnihili
    However, you seem to prefer name calling to discussion.
    Then...
    Otherwise you're just a petty hypocrite.
    Jesus once said you should make sure you don't have a fault before you go accusing others of it... in seeming disgust... maybe we should have a read of what He reportedly said... obviously, as illustrated, some of it makes sense.

  6. #46
    Speak of Ideas, not of things Prisme's Avatar
    Posts
    464

    Angry Order!! *Waving shotgun and pumping a shell into chamber* Order in the court!

    I think it is clear that a point was struck when it was shown that physics cannot easily take into account our volition or free will.
    I mean, does physic see us as enrgizer batteries that are born with a certain charge and then eventually die out?... or our we more like duracell to their eyes?

    In any case, the point is made: free will is problematic, eventhough evident that we have it.


    Free will reduces to electrical impulses of the brain. It obeys all natural laws.
    This is false. Hard sciences study what is constant. Soft sciences study what is hypothetical and not so constant.

    Although biology is a hard science, psychology is a social science (<-- polite word for soft science)
    So sure, you could reduce free will to brain electrodes. But you would be then missing the whole picture of humans: they are fundementally irrational and more complex than electric laws.
    If it were true that only electricity within neurones would dictate our behavior, then our behavior would be perfect... for the balance of the brain would respect the laws of energy flawlessly.

    Of course, we all know this is false. We interveen in our thought process. We ask ourselves questions, we hesitate, we feel, we record events and sometimes we don't even know why we do what we do.

    When a bad psychiatrist meets a depressive patient, he gives him dope to reajust his brain biology. When a good psychologist meets a depressed patient, he will dig up what caused the depressive state, thus inbalance, and try to resolve it cognitively.
    Ex: Father dies, become depressed.

    -One will only see brain cells which need drugs
    -The other see's a psyche that needs to be cognitively\behaviorily 'reajusted'

    I think it is sad that people really reduce themselves to being somekind of complicated Atari ping-pong game... a sort of automotic response device that reacts to a moving ball.

    Of course, most of us appreciate the complexity of our existence and do not wish to over-simplify in order to get fast and easy answers.

    Prisme




    Last edited by Prisme; 06-30-03 at 09:36 PM.

  7. #47
    Registered Senior Member doom's Avatar
    Posts
    513
    Originally posted by Prisme
    Cheap shot... merely dodging the real question at hand .

    I think it is clear that a point was struck when it was shown that physics cannot easily take into account our volition or free will.
    I mean, does physic see us as enrgizer batteries that are born with a certain charge and then eventually die out?... or our we more like duracell to their eyes?

    In any case, the point is made: free will is problematic, eventhough evident that we have it.

    Feel no shame to be replied this way with an insult, it means you have won.


    Prisme
    Not physically impossible to say that the electrical impulse in my brain is one of many,scientists cannot debunk the idea of a multiverse where more than one action is taken,theres a version of me not writing this,theres versions of me with worse and/or better grammer and spelling,hell theres even a version of me where im telling you theres a god and you are an atheist.

    In this case free will is seemingly existent from our point of view,but the electical impulse in the brain that makes the decision is just one of many at the same time,but if you were standing from the outside looking into this multiverse it would look like there were no free will,just everybody doing everything,the world trade center is still standing from an outside point of view but not from ours,that kind of thing.

  8. #48
    Speak of Ideas, not of things Prisme's Avatar
    Posts
    464
    No doom, electrical cells don't decide you do, THEN the cells move.

    It's like when you're walking in a dark alley and then you asshole friend jumps out of the dark and gives you the fright of your life.

    You have a scare and then realize everything is o.k.
    But then you notice your heart is racing, your pupils are dialated, your muscles are contracted, your mouth is dry and you are sweating... these are all survival instincts made by the brain.

    However! What made the brain react????
    Your false sense that danger was present. Your psychological interpretation of the event! Not a bunch of brain cells that cannot know the difference between night and day.

    As Leibniz once said:

    "If it were true that the body was nothing more than cells, then one could enter it like they enter a cathedral."

    His point is that we are not cathedrals, we are not built as objects. We are fundementally different from other objects, for we have an invisible conscience: something that lives in us and shows that we are not only our bodies.


    Prisme

  9. #49
    Registered Senior Member doom's Avatar
    Posts
    513
    Originally posted by Prisme
    No doom, electrical cells don't decide you do, THEN the cells move.

    It's like when you're walking in a dark alley and then you asshole friend jumps out of the dark and gives you the fright of your life.

    You have a scare and then realize everything is o.k.
    But then you notice your heart is racing, your pupils are dialated, your muscles are contracted, your mouth is dry and you are sweating... these are all survival instincts made by the brain.

    However! What made the brain react????
    Your false sense that danger was present. Your psychological interpretation of the event! Not a bunch of brain cells that cannot know the difference between night and day.

    As Leibniz once said:

    "If it were true that the body was nothing more than cells, then one could enter it like they enter a cathedral."

    His point is that we are not cathedrals, we are not built as objects. We are fundementally different from other objects, for we have an invisible conscience: something that lives in us and shows that we are not only our bodies.


    Prisme
    I think youll find the electrical impulses do change reactions,your brain is a chemical machine,the electrical impulses come from chemical reactions,in fact thats where the electricity comes from,the chemicals,changing the chemistry technically changes free will,theres areas of the brain that can be manipulated so that your personality changes.

    This means the YOU isnt you its a quantum decisive event according to the brain chemistry and condition at the current time.

    The brain is in two sections,what happens when i cut the contact between the two?
    you become two people but the same brain,one side of your body does one thing,while the other side might do another,you would still be you not actually two people,however drugs can change you.

    Conciousness is just the self awareness that exists from complexity,animals have varying degrees of conciousness also and intelligence,our brain is an evolution over them and hence more complex.

    We could probably make a computer aware of itself eventually a quantum computer would make this more likely,and if you made a system a cross between electronic/chemical mechanical you might get it complex enough to act human and possibly even aware of itself.

  10. #50
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    191
    Originally posted by MarcAC
    Then... Jesus once said you should make sure you don't have a fault before you go accusing others of it... in seeming disgust... maybe we should have a read of what He reportedly said... obviously, as illustrated, some of it makes sense.
    Too bad Jesus didn't say anything about not taking quotes out of context. You'll notice I did not say she was a hypocrite. I said:

    If you think your way of dealing with other people is pleasing to your God, and if you would be happy to see your children follow suit, then by all means continue. Otherwise you're just a petty hypocrite.
    My favorite out of context quote, comes from the bible. It is

    Judas went out and hanged himself [...] go ye therefore and do likewise.
    This is not intended, btw, and an admonition that you or anyone else hang themselves, it is merely a demonstration of how far afield out of context quotes can take you. This is why careful reading is such an important skill. Lack of that skill is what makes most of this thread pretty close to gibberish.

  11. #51
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    191

    Re: Order!! *Waving shotgun and pumping a shell into chamber* Order in the court!

    Originally posted by Prisme
    I think it is clear that a point was struck when it was shown that physics cannot easily take into account our volition or free will.
    Then once again you have failed to read.

    I mean, does physic see us as enrgizer batteries that are born with a certain charge and then eventually die out?... or our we more like duracell to their eyes?

    In any case, the point is made: free will is problematic, eventhough evident that we have it.
    No, begging the question is problematic. Free will has logical problems not physical problems. You spell out what you mean by free will in a way that is relatively cogent, and I'll tell you how physics can deal with it in as much detail as you define it. Providing of course that you don't beg the question against physics by presupposing supernatural entities. Clearly that wouldn't be legitimate debate.

    The rest of your post bears so little resemblance to reality as to not warrant a detailed response. I recommend studying the sciences, both soft and hard, a bit more. You clearly don't have the distinctions down. Also, you should take a look at the free will literature from both the psychological and brain science perspectives. A basic overview of philosophical positions with respect to it would also be in order, as would a review of the wide variety of religious perspectives on the subject. WHat you claim to be obvious and well known is anything but. It may indded be apparent to you that that is how the world is, but it's not apparent to the people who make their life's work studying the issue.

  12. #52
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    191
    Originally posted by Prisme
    No doom, electrical cells don't decide you do, THEN the cells move.

    This is indeed how it appears from the inside. However, if you'll take the time to read the research on the subject, you'll find it somewhat less cut and dried.

  13. #53
    plagued by infinities Raithere's Avatar
    Posts
    3,328

    Nature, the supernatural, and a primary cause.

    Originally posted by Jan Ardena
    That is because they constitute nature, wouldn't you say? The question is; Is nature eternal?
    It’s hard to say, there are various arguments either way but none of them are decisive.

    That depends on what you term as "super-natural."
    In this case, “not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material”. While I realize this introduces certain circular references, the concept of the supernatural (magical or miraculous if you prefer) is not very well defined.

    What is the use of hypothesis in direct knowledge?
    Wow, that’s a big question. I hope you don’t mind if I try to synthesize a brief answer rather than go into a full justification. A hypothesis, conceptually, is a method for deriving meaning from the raw datum of experience. While specifically I am referring to the rather formal method of explanation and testing used in science generally it is a method that we all use.

    What do you mean?
    If we could prove, scientifically, that nature/the Universe is not sufficient cause for its own existence and thereby demonstrate the necessity of a preceding cause it reveals nothing aside from that fact. Nothing further can be attributed to it besides the principle of primary cause. One cannot make a leap to Yahweh, Gaia, or whomever. At best you have Aristotle’s ‘Unmoved Mover’ a principle of perfection that creates without action or volition.

    Where did the energy come from in the first place?
    Is it safe to assume that wherever there is energy, there must be an energetic principle? If you don't think so, please state why?
    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘energetic principle’ but observation seems to indicate that what we tend to think of as nothing is actually roiling with activity. The ground state of the Universe contains an intrinsic potential for existence.

    Maybe energy goes back to its original source.
    If we were able to provide "a mechanism," to measure where the energy goes, that mechanism would also be part of the said energy and is in no position to go outside of itself, therefore all calculations would be, in part, speculation. So in effect physical science has no jurisdiction.
    No, that wouldn’t be the case, ideally. If energy were leaving the Universe we could quite easily measure its loss as long as we were in a position to do so. One might, for instance, posit that energy ‘boils off’ of the ‘surface’ of the Universe. We could measure that, provided we could reach the ‘surface’ of the Universe. Of course, until we could get there and measure the loss the hypothesis would remain only a hypothesis. Meanwhile every experiment thus far has only shown that energy is always conserved.

    Prisme’s adopted argument is that the Universe is ‘winding down’, that it contains less energy than it once did which necessitates that he provide someplace for this energy to go. I’ve already mentioned the prime possibilities… I’m willing to consider others but they must be posited. In any case, his assertion has most definitely not been ‘demonstrated’.

    Where do these various particles/quantum fluctuation come from?
    The background potential sometimes called ‘vacuum energy’ which is somewhat misleading. In an attempt to explain what I should probably leave to the professionals; Quantum physics seems to show us that, quite contrary to our classical perspective, nothing smaller than an atom (and even maybe including atoms) is really static, there is a level of indeterminacy that cannot be reduced. This even includes what we conventionally thing of as nothing or a vacuum. This indeterminate state allows for the spontaneous occurrence of particles from nothing as long as those particles eventually return to ‘nothing’. That this occurs has been demonstrated by experiment.

    Then what you mean is "something" as opposed to "nothing," because surely "nothing" means "nothing" including energy.
    Nope, I mean nothing, see above paragraph. I realize it is a difficult concept. I certainly do not understand it fully.

    Is this a general, across-the-board claim, or is it a personal claim?
    If the former, then please explain to me how you can speak for everybody (all species) living, or have lived, on this planet?
    I’m speaking of, as I believe I indicated, absolute truth. There are all sorts of truths but most of them are relative, dependant upon definition and various frames of reference. For instance: 1+1=2 is only true if we agree upon what 1, 2, and = mean as well as the function of +.

    Having faith doesn't mean your certain, it means you believe something based on some kind of authority, in the hope that you will become certain in due course of time. When certainty is reached, there is no need of faith. The reality is dependant on the authority.
    Faith means many things, not excluding my use of it, which is why I tend to use it less and less. But even using your definition I find it a poor replacement for independent rational thought and even personal experience (as you mention).

    Nothing (including ourselves), is static, everything is changing
    That is what I said.

    which is one of the basic laws of the matter.
    1) comes into being
    2) develops/grows
    3) produces by-product
    4) dwindles
    5) vanishes
    While this seems apparent on a macroscopic level, we have found that this is not actually what happens. Matter changes form but (aside from the temporary virtual particles I mentioned before, which is why they’re called virtual) never seems to come into being or vanish. There are some hypothetical situations whereby the Universe as a whole may do this and whereby virtual particles may be able to do this on an individual basis but neither has been demonstrated.

    When someone is possessed by a demon, do you check the gas or battery in your car, or do you go to someone who knows the art of exorcism.
    The first person I would have them see is a doctor, failing that a psychiatrist, then maybe if all else fails I would take them to an exorcist in the hopes that the psychology of the delusional person might respond to a ‘remedy’ that fit the theme of their experience.

    But not with everything.
    Agreed. I would not take the above person to see a physicist.

    ~Raithere

  14. #54
    plagued by infinities Raithere's Avatar
    Posts
    3,328
    Originally posted by Prisme
    If we are unable to define how we know, then we cannot speak of what is 'scientifiaclly demonstrable'.
    In which case we might as well throw all of the arguments out the window until the question of epistemology is answered.
    Just remember, I’m not the one who started this argument by stating my position was scientifically demonstrable.

    I maintain that Quine's epirtemology can be used to criticize applicable\theoretical science.
    To a degree, yes. Although, if I recall correctly ‘any fact’ may regarded as true or false by adjusting the overall background of assumptions. This is not something you see science doing everyday. Paradigmatic shifts come about somewhat rarely and even then the total background does not shift. In part, this is related to my evaluation of how successful a particular paradigm is. For instance, one will note historically how often the Christian paradigm has had to shift radically due to rather simple scientific facts. Science on the other hand not only seems to shift less often (although I will grant that it has a much shorter history) in its fundamental principles and beliefs but is methodologically ‘aware’ of this.

    I apologize too raithere, for I sometimes have spills also. I can take this whole debating business too seriously sometimes.
    It wouldn’t be so much fun if it weren’t so emotionally evocative. But earnestly, I feel a kinship with most of the people here. After all, we’re all in the same boat (although maybe not on the same deck) and many of us are on the same quest as well.
    If it would please you for me to find such a theory, I will try to find one and post it here. I'll type: proton decay.
    I’m only vaguely familiar with it but I’ll look it up.

    ~Raithere

  15. #55
    Registered Senior Member doom's Avatar
    Posts
    513
    yeah the proton will decay,not for trillions of years though,not worth worrying about,we just know the universe is in the order of decay and its doomed and christians dont like it.

    I wouldnt be surprised if they all lobbied together to ban the second law of thermodynamics.

    Ahhh no entropy,we dont want it!

  16. #56
    Speak of Ideas, not of things Prisme's Avatar
    Posts
    464

    Doom

    Conciousness is just the self awareness that exists from complexity,animals have varying degrees of conciousness also and intelligence,our brain is an evolution over them and hence more complex.
    Your use (and sciences) use of the word complex, is just another word for "we don't know what the hell we are talking about."

    You call 'complex' what is evident: the subjective consciousness that has yet to be physically explained.

    I think youll find the electrical impulses do change reactions,your brain is a chemical machine,the electrical impulses come from chemical reactions,in fact thats where the electricity comes from,the chemicals,changing the chemistry technically changes free will,theres areas of the brain that can be manipulated so that your personality changes
    Again you look at the phenomenon backwards.
    Of course a brain surgeon that lobotomize a brain will alter its personality\brain activity.

    But the fact of the matter ism this is not how the world and our brains interact. Our brains are carefully out of reach of outside interference.. it is operating independantly and most likely, the way it should operate.
    The brain surgeon is not 'changing me', he is sabotaging circuits. He is merely preventing the natural order and circulation of energy that my personality\inttelect has formed over the years that I have observed and manipulated the world.

    Ever heard that every brain has its own circuitry? Kind of like a fingerprint or DNA?
    Now if our brains were made all the same like hearts or livers, maybe I could believe that the brain is only a piece of mechanical machinery. But this is not the case. The brain is unique, its neurones, synapses and patterns are all made involuntarily (like breathing) while on the other hand our volition is clearly voluntary.

    We could probably make a computer aware of itself eventually a quantum computer would make this more likely,and if you made a system a cross between electronic/chemical mechanical you might get it complex enough to act human and possibly even aware of itself.
    This is besides the point. We are talking of how the human (organic) brain functions... not Mhz, RAM or pentium processors.
    In the advent of an intelligent computer, you can claim everything you have claimed to be true about electrodes... but only on the machine that was created, not concerning humans, for we are clearly not assembled and made like your hypothetical machine.

    The machine would have never built itself, programers will have given it what it required to become what it would be. On the other hand, humans do seem to come from nothing(or at least the first amebea that eventually started to think comes from nowhere). You could claim evolution of the computers. But I hardly think that sentient computers would have the sudden urge to upgrade their offsprings... but then again, the fact that we built the first one would account for any such behavior.

    If you would ever claim that your machine is a direct replica of sentient humans, then you would have to explain to the world who 'programed' us (our brains).
    Either way, you are trapped: either the machine is not truly a replica of us and we are other than purely a machine... or we are machines and we have a necessary Creator\Programer.

    I will never understand why so many scientists think they will explain the human mind or eliminate God by making a sentient machine... it just doesn't make any sense. If they bothered to think of the logical consequences, maybe they would give it a rest.

    I believe my example of the starttled man in the alley withstands your critique... Iit wasn't at all addressed.

    Prisme
    Last edited by Prisme; 07-01-03 at 09:01 AM.

  17. #57
    plagued by infinities Raithere's Avatar
    Posts
    3,328
    Originally posted by Prisme
    Your use (and sciences) use of the word complex, is just another word for "we don't know what the hell we are talking about."
    You keep asserting this and it simply isn’t true. Complex in science means, well, complex: “A whole composed of interconnected or interwoven parts.” (AHD)

    But the fact of the matter ism this is not how the world and our brains interact. Our brains are carefully out of reach of outside interference.. it is operating independantly and most likely, the way it should operate.
    That the mind can be altered by physical affects indicates the exact opposite. Drugs, trauma, surgery, magnetic fields, all can affect the functioning on the mind and the fact that they can affect the brain is simply obvious. Perhaps you are trying to say something else here?

    I will never understand why so many scientists think they will explain the human mind or eliminate God by making a sentient machine... it just doesn't make any sense. If they bothered to think of the logical consequences, maybe they would give it a rest.
    Creating a conscious entity would not eliminate God, it would prove that conscious can be caused through physical processes and that a supernatural explanation is therefore unnecessary. It would eliminate the need for God to explain consciousness.

    ~Raithere

  18. #58
    plagued by infinities Raithere's Avatar
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: Proton Decay

    Sorry for the delay but I wanted to make sure I wasn't mistaking this for something else. Proton Decay, once again, provides for no loss of matter/energy from the Universe. The hypothesis under various GUTs is that protons might decay into a positron and photon. Matter is not lost but converted into energy, both sides of the equation balance out.

    ~Raithere

  19. #59
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    73

    Re: Take the atheist challenge

    Originally posted by Prisme
    Can some atheist please tell me what is wrong with the following statement?

    If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted, but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe.

    ....All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal,

    Enjoy.
    ______

    I don't know where you got it from, but the guy seems to have skipped some of the science classes in high school.

    If the hydrogen in stars is consumed - and by the way, our sun is possibly a THIRD generation star, built from the garbage thrown out when other stars exploded - does that mean the hydrogen stops existing? No, of course not.

    The matter is eternal. Existing in the form of hydrogen is not.



    http://www.dreamworksfansite.com/spi...board_Room.jpg

  20. #60
    Speak of Ideas, not of things Prisme's Avatar
    Posts
    464
    You keep asserting this and it simply isn’t true. Complex in science means, well, complex: “A whole composed of interconnected or interwoven parts.” (AHD)
    To use a word for its meanning is fine with me. It is when people say that 'man is a complex machine' in order to excuse the lack of evidence to support their claims that I perceive the word complex as being maliciously used.

    That the mind can be altered by physical affects indicates the exact opposite. Drugs, trauma, surgery, magnetic fields, all can affect the functioning on the mind and the fact that they can affect the brain is simply obvious. Perhaps you are trying to say something else here?
    I don't know what I said to make you believe that I was contesting the claims that some outside entities could alter the brain. I was just pointing out that the brain usually functions pretty well on its own.
    I was saying this in order to elaborate on the topic at hand which was: that all of these external 'interferences' do not necessarily prove that the brain dictate the individual in his volition.


    Creating a conscious entity would not eliminate God, it would prove that conscious can be caused through physical processes and that a supernatural explanation is therefore unnecessary. It would eliminate the need for God to explain consciousness.
    I am not ready to conceide anything yet on that idea. Creating a conscious machine would only add probability to the argument of design for no such sentient machine could have ever been possibly created on its own (by natural processes of evolution.)

    Even if the machine ever truly becomes conscious (not programmed to act consciously) then their would be another problem: how would consciousness be possible without a programmer?
    (programmer: individual that places all the parts together and organized their harmonious interdependance and capability of recognition between each part)

    Thus the two problems still remain:

    1- How was OUR consciousness 'made\originated'?

    2- Is outside interference necessary to create such consciousness?

    In the event of a conscious machine, we would not be able to answer any of these two questions in the favor in which you proclaim... it would certainly go in the opposite direction.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •