The joys of life without God

[superluminal]

I think baum has expressed it pretty well in his thread.

Which?

[S.A.M.]

Amazingly, it's called:

God, ontology, epistemology, blah blah blah

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57398

[James R]

lightgigantic:

Now lets see whether you can trace the causes of their existence to phenomena to something singular, or whether they are just relative causes - in other words lets see if you can actually determine the cause of these things or whether it ends up in mystery (remember I am asking you for an example of something of a complex structure that does not owe its existence to some cause that is not either mysterious or conscious, and thus you could use that for a extrapolative model for saying that a star is not designed by intelligence)
...

What causes weather patterns?

I know where you're going with this, so let's see if we can't short-cut the process.

Weather patterns are caused by things such as ocean currents, regions of high and low pressure in the atmosphere, the evaporation of water and many other factors understood to greater or lesser degrees by the science of meteorology. I'm sure you don't really care about the details. The point is, we have discovered various scientific laws about things such as pressure and evaporation and Coriolis forces which allow us to account for most of the features of the weather. We don't know everything, but we have a good understanding of how the weather works.

So, what causes the weather? Let's say I point at air pressure variations. You then ask: what causes pressure variations? I tell you differential heating of the Earth's surface by the Sun. You ask why the Sun exists. I tell you that it formed from a collapsing nebula of hydrogen gas. You ask why hydrogen gas exists. I tell you it was formed in the big bang. You ask what caused the big bang. I tell you I don't know.

At this point, you claim victory. You say "Ha! You don't really know what causes the weather at all! Because if you trace things back to the big bang, eventually you find a "mystery" - a gap in your knowledge. Therefore, God must have done it. The God of the Gaps causes the weather."

Your reasoning is fine up to the very last step. The relevant question is: how do you know God caused the big bang? For that matter, how do you know God causes anything? Just because we don't know how the universe started doesn't mean the only option is God. All it means is that we don't understand natural processes well enough. Gaps in knowledge don't imply the existence of God.

To prove that God exists, you need positive evidence of God, not just gaps in human knowledge.

So how does the idea of intelligence in the universe inhibit [scientists'] investigations? Particularly since they have more to learn ...

It doesn't. It doesn't affect their investigations. They are open to finding evidence of intelligence, if it exists.

The problem is that the relative mysteries are solved by discovering more relative information, and on the strength of these relative findings atheistic science attempts to manipulate some suggestion that intelligence is not intrinsic to creation, despite evidence to the contrary (its not like they have traced causes of material effects to an absolute material cause)

It is interesting that you use the term "atheistic science" throughout your post, as if science was somehow opposed to religion. The fact is, when you pick up your average science textbook, you won't see any mention of God. You won't find scientists taking the time to argue against the existence of God. In fact, many of them believe in God, and that doesn't prevent them doing excellent science. Nor does their science prevent them from believing in God.

Science is neutral towards religion. There is no "atheistic science" , or "theistic science" for that matter. Science is the study of the natural world - nothing more or less.

Why do atheists feel that things of complex structures can manifest themselves, when crayon pictures of the before mentioned structures cannot?

Because many complex structures are seen to "manifest themselves" all the time. You only have to look around you to see that.

Then the theists argue that if there is intelligence in the universe there is purpose - in other words there is an inextricable link between design and purpose, and therefore understanding the purpose helps unlock the design, and understanding the design helps unlock the purpose - atheistic science however does not even begin to allow any movement in the direction of "How god did it?"

The "atheistic" science you so disdain has produced, among other things, the complex computer you are viewing this post on, and many of the other technologies you take for granted every day.

What has the theory of intelligent design given us? Nothing. It has added nothing to the sum total of human knowledge.

Science works. Obviously. How can you argue that human knowledge has not progressed? The evidence to the contrary is all around you.

Just like pseudo science advocates a type of anti-science by corroding the epistemology of science, islamic terrorists act under atheistic premises...

No. That's completely incorrect, and I suspect you know it.

Islamic terrorists firmly believe they are following a "true" version of Islam, and that they are acting according to God's will. They are not atheists. Nor do they listen to atheists. They are more set against atheists than you are.

Or it could be that the mistakes we perceive are results of us not wanting to obey what god wants - like for instance if god gives a process how to live happily in this world, but we think it is better to create industry and manipulate 3rd world countries, the environment etc to make money to pay for a plethora of useless things etc etc - who is being the slacker?

Humans' failure to act in the way God wants doesn't explain natural disasters over which humans have no control.

If there wasn't the threat of "imbalance" why go to any pains to do unto others - it would make more sense to do as I damn well please (unfortunately many don't see a problem with this outlook)

Well, no, it doesn't make sense. Practically every human being lives in a society with other human beings, and depends on others partly for their own survival. Anybody who takes a "do as I damn well please" approach to other people is quickly ostracised from society and suffers personally as a result.

Fossils are real objects. They exist. They contain information which has to tell us something.

What they tell us is theoretical however - the fossils are a fact - what they tell us is an educated guess.

You're essentially saying that all science is an educated guess, then.

Which again makes me wonder why science has been so successful in producing knowledge and technologies.

If science is no better than guesswork, why is it so phenomenally successful?

Evolution is just another way to pass the buck on the big question how life evolved - and in the presence of this buck passing ideology it becomes a contentious issue whether abortion is actually killing a child

I don't see the link between evolution and abortion.

As for passing the buck, saying "God created life" is passing the buck, too. It doesn't explain anything in a useful way. If you think every creation needs a creator then the logical next question is: who created God? The problem has just been pushed back a step.

So there is no evidence of life coming from matter, but it must be seriously entertained until we can establish that life comes from life?

When the Earth was formed there was no life. Then, about 4 billion years ago, life appeared on Earth. Where did it come from? Other life? Then where did the other life come from? God did it, you say? Then how did he do it? And please don't tell me some story about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

You mean you have seen life come from something other than life?

No. I wasn't around 4 billion years ago. But it must have happened, or I wouldn't be here.

Then why can't life be constructed out of these atoms - is there a shortage of building materials?

No. The problem is putting the atoms together in the right combinations. You are much more than a collection of atoms. If I collected all the atoms in your body and sold them at current market prices, you might be worth a few dollars in terms of raw materials. And those raw materials are easy to obtain. The problem is assembly.

You can hardly walk 3 meteres without squashing a thousand living entities - surely it wouldn't be too hard to locate a few popping out of matter if that was how it really worked?

You've hit on something here. The very fact that the Earth is already swarming with living things means that if some simple form of life is arising spontaneously right now from inanimate matter somewhere, chances are it will be instantly gobbled up by some more advanced form of life which already exists. Therefore, our chances of seeing it happen are quite small.

And why are there perfectly well constructed combinations of dead living entities - why is one considered dead and another alive if they have identical atomic constructions?

Dead and living things don't have identical atomic constructions. The moment a human being, for example, dies, his or her body starts a process of decay. (Have you ever watched CSI?)

[lightgigantic]

YOU are, that is blantanly obvious, as many are pointing out.



There was no explanation in that other thread either. Are you to support one vacuous claim with another?



I've already told you I've seen THAT thread, there is nothing that explains the process you've claimed in THIS thread. Hence, I am a person waiting for you to explain said process, like most others here.

If I'm intolerant, it's not to people, it is to their religious ideologies. And since I, and many others here, have already objectively considered those ideologies time and again, there is no prejudice.

And since you've yet to offer your explanation of the process you claim, then one cannot be viewed as prejudice to that which doesn't exist.

Again, you are avoiding/evading.

Ok lets try this step by step
At the risk of running one topic on two threads,what does the first point of the process I suggest on the epistemology thread say?
I will give you a hint - two key words are "teacher" and "quality"

[lightgigantic]

exactly what about my comment suggests that i know nothing of theism? The part that they have conrtardictory claims and each claims to be the only correct view? I happened to be one of teh unfrotunate kids who was indoctrinated into christianity for most of my youth, luckily i broke free from it. One of the things i remeber was a quote written in huge letters on the wall of teh church

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

Does it say "People can come to the father throught me or any other religious figure"? NO. It says only Jesus is teh way to teh father (the alleged god taht you claim all religions agree on). Taken from your own book (and teh "correct" half of it for taht matter). And your rebuttal....

I am no authority on the bible,but even I know that inthe original script the king james was translated from, that quote is actually spoken in the present tense - inother words jesus is saying something more like "right here, right now, I am the only way" - considering he had to lay down a few house rules about having sex with other people's wives and the like its not hard to imagine why he gave a privledged status to his spiritual know-how

[lightgigantic]

[QUOTE]

Shameless repost to get lightgigantic's attention.



Yet you can't even paraphrase it in a simple sentence or two. Sounds like intentional obfuscation on your part.

What's the process? Does it really take a five page short story to say the same thing we say about science?

Actually its all there in the original thread opener,and it fits all on about three quarters of a screen if you take out the line breaks - as for why the dialouge gets so lengthy, well this is the way it usually works - it seems you have to spend at least 20 responses dealing with a person that has issues with the title of the thread - like for instance 8 thread pages down the track I have probably responded to maybe 6 or so questionings over the actual points I outlined in the process.

Everything else seems to be along the lines of "but there's no way to know god", (a statement alone that requires omniscience to determine what is knowable and what is unknowable)

For instance you are headed down the same worn out track when you say

And your claims about epistemology and how you need the correct epistemology, just like physicists do to understand physics, are useless here. Physicists use the above simple epistemology that anyone can comprehend. The esoteric details are of no interest to most people but most people can understand the results of almost any scientific discipline and benefit from many of them.

Physics is esoteric to a high school drop out
Inother words you assume that evidence is self evident, when it actually requires qualification to detect evidence (at least thats why the police have "detectives")

Are you claimimg (in the other thread with the billions of 20 page epistemological meanderings) that god is too hard to come to or perceive without extreme training and lifelong sacrifice in the pursuit of this deistic epistemology? Well, for a god of the people, that sounds pretty lame.

I don't suppose you have read the opening of the epistemology thread have you?
If all you have read is my responses to Raithere I guess your views are forgivable - the guy is trying to drive me semantically insane by osmosis

But as for the original post even a child or illiterate person can take up the process outlined - the fact that a person who can read, like yourself, hasn't even read the opening thread tends to indicate more clearly why people don't take to the process

Challenge: A simple few sentences that illuminate the process that we can all easily understand.

Okay read the first point I raised in the thread opener (there are about 8 or 9 points, the first one goes for one and a half lines, so hopefully it won't fatigue you)- Tell me what you think it says -

Hint - some words to consider are "teacher" and "quality"

[lightgigantic]

James R

I know where you're going with this, so let's see if we can't short-cut the process.

Thanks - I was actually dreading the prospect of doing this process

At this point, you claim victory. You say "Ha! You don't really know what causes the weather at all! Because if you trace things back to the big bang, eventually you find a "mystery" - a gap in your knowledge. Therefore, God must have done it. The God of the Gaps causes the weather."

I never said anything about god - I said that your claim that stars, despite being so much more complex than crayon pictures of stars, requires a model of something that has a cause that is not relative to consciousness - you are yet to provide me with one.
I wasn't trying to prove god -you weretrying toprove how matter does not require consciousness - I just want evidence of something, anything, that has a cause not related to consciousness

“ The problem is that the relative mysteries are solved by discovering more relative information, and on the strength of these relative findings atheistic science attempts to manipulate some suggestion that intelligence is not intrinsic to creation, despite evidence to the contrary (its not like they have traced causes of material effects to an absolute material cause) ”

It is interesting that you use the term "atheistic science" throughout your post, as if science was somehow opposed to religion.

I use the term to distinguish from science that does not offer a bias against religion

The fact is, when you pick up your average science textbook, you won't see any mention of God.

I know -they make sure there isn't - that's part of the bias

You won't find scientists taking the time to argue against the existence of God.

Shermer isn't a scientist?

In fact, many of them believe in God, and that doesn't prevent them doing excellent science. Nor does their science prevent them from believing in God.

Exactly - what's the chip on shermers shoulder then?

Science is neutral towards religion.

Neutral like shermer?

There is no "atheistic science" , or "theistic science" for that matter. Science is the study of the natural world - nothing more or less.

So what is shermer's contention?

“ Why do atheists feel that things of complex structures can manifest themselves, when crayon pictures of the before mentioned structures cannot? ”



Because many complex structures are seen to "manifest themselves" all the time. You only have to look around you to see that.

From your opening attempt it seems you cannot produce even one such example

The "atheistic" science you so disdain has produced, among other things, the complex computer you are viewing this post on, and many of the other technologies you take for granted every day.

And the persons who made such discoveries owe the foundations that they built upon to many scientists who had a strong conviction in the values of theistic endeavour -if they kick dirt inthe face of their superiors, why am I duty bound to offer atheistic computer designers a seat of awe and reverence?

What has the theory of intelligent design given us? Nothing. It has added nothing to the sum total of human knowledge.

What has the theory of the big bang or evolution given us?

Science works. Obviously. How can you argue that human knowledge has not progressed? The evidence to the contrary is all around you.

progressed no doubt,but progressed in which direction - like for instance is the internet such a grand thing when over 60% of net transmissions deal with pornographic material? You may say we have improved our ability of communication, but then it raises the question of the things we are communicating - in otherwords a big slice of the word progress belongs to utility rather than performance

“ Just like pseudo science advocates a type of anti-science by corroding the epistemology of science, islamic terrorists act under atheistic premises... ”



No. That's completely incorrect, and I suspect you know it.

Islamic terrorists firmly believe they are following a "true" version of Islam, and that they are acting according to God's will. They are not atheists. Nor do they listen to atheists. They are more set against atheists than you are.

Pseudo scientists may also believe that deciphering integers from the ocean waves rippling against the tails of dolphins is also scientific - as for theism, there are numerous incidents of atheists taking up theguise of theism -such as the common aphorism "the devil quotes scripture"

“ Or it could be that the mistakes we perceive are results of us not wanting to obey what god wants - like for instance if god gives a process how to live happily in this world, but we think it is better to create industry and manipulate 3rd world countries, the environment etc to make money to pay for a plethora of useless things etc etc - who is being the slacker? ”



Humans' failure to act in the way God wants doesn't explain natural disasters over which humans have no control.

How doyou know this?

“ If there wasn't the threat of "imbalance" why go to any pains to do unto others - it would make more sense to do as I damn well please (unfortunately many don't see a problem with this outlook) ”



Well, no, it doesn't make sense. Practically every human being lives in a society with other human beings, and depends on others partly for their own survival.

seems like you have given an indication of social balance

Anybody who takes a "do as I damn well please" approach to other people is quickly ostracised from society and suffers personally as a result.

In other words they unbalance the scheme of things which seems to be a change from your original post of

Me - In other words they unbalance the scheme of things which seems to be a turn around from your original post of
You - What do you mean by "moral balance"? What makes you think the world is not "morally balanced" as things are? And why do you think moral balance is a good thing, anyway?

What they tell us is theoretical however - the fossils are a fact - what they tell us is an educated guess. ”



You're essentially saying that all science is an educated guess, then.

Could empiricism be anything else?

Which again makes me wonder why science has been so successful in producing knowledge and technologies.

If science is no better than guesswork, why is it so phenomenally successful?

Successful in what ways?
Basically there are three types of knowledge
Direct perception - effective in looking out for cars while crossing the street
Empiricsim - effective in dealing with relative phenomena within our powers
Hearing from authority - effective in dealing with topics beyond our powers of empiricism and direct perception

I would say that empricism has failed to illuminate the nature of the universe, wouldn't you - Imean its clear from your opening post that you advocate the big bang - I know that cris strongly disagrees - at the very least it seems toindicate a failure

“ So there is no evidence of life coming from matter, but it must be seriously entertained until we can establish that life comes from life? ”



When the Earth was formed there was no life. Then, about 4 billion years ago, life appeared on Earth. Where did it come from? Other life? Then where did the other life come from? God did it, you say? Then how did he do it? And please don't tell me some story about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

This leads to an ontological analysis of god,a direction I get the impression you are adverse to negotiating

“ You mean you have seen life come from something other than life? ”



No. I wasn't around 4 billion years ago. But it must have happened, or I wouldn't be here.

Then why is it absurd toaccept that consciousnes is dependant on consciousness - the assumption that consciousness evolved frommatter must be at least onthe same level as the assumption that it came from god, or perhaps even more absurd since we don't actually have experience of life coming from matter at all

“ Then why can't life be constructed out of these atoms - is there a shortage of building materials? ”



No. The problem is putting the atoms together in the right combinations. You are much more than a collection of atoms. If I collected all the atoms in your body and sold them at current market prices, you might be worth a few dollars in terms of raw materials. And those raw materials are easy to obtain. The problem is assembly.

Yes indeed that is the problem

“ You can hardly walk 3 meteres without squashing a thousand living entities - surely it wouldn't be too hard to locate a few popping out of matter if that was how it really worked? ”



You've hit on something here. The very fact that the Earth is already swarming with living things means that if some simple form of life is arising spontaneously right now from inanimate matter somewhere, chances are it will be instantly gobbled up by some more advanced form of life which already exists. Therefore, our chances of seeing it happen are quite small.

On the contrary, the smaller the living entity, the easier it is to locate - for instance its not like ants or germsmake it on the endagered species list - if a species tends to get eaten up quickly, it tends to exist in plaugue like numbers - can you provide any examples of living entities thatare small and highly preyed upon that don't manifest in literally clouds of numbers?

“ And why are there perfectly well constructed combinations of dead living entities - why is one considered dead and another alive if they have identical atomic constructions? ”



Dead and living things don't have identical atomic constructions. The moment a human being, for example, dies, his or her body starts a process of decay. (Have you ever watched CSI?)

Then why are people sometimes revived from the point of death?
Like if two people both stop breathing,why does artificial ressuscitation only work on one and not the other?

[(Q)]

Ok lets try this step by step
At the risk of running one topic on two threads,what does the first point of the process I suggest on the epistemology thread say?
I will give you a hint - two key words are "teacher" and "quality"

Funny, I see neither of those two words in your opening post there. But, what I do see is this:

"1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession

2 - Disciplic succession has its origin in specific foundational , paradigmatic experiences of divine revelation. Scripture contains the record of these experiences as well as of important subsequent instantations of those experiences"

The serious flaw in those two statements is that the "knowledge" MUST be received from a "qualified" person. Then you go on to claim that a "qualified" person is one who has experienced "divine revelation."

In other words, the second statement contradicted the first.

It actually boils down to what I said before with two key words for which I'll give you a hint, "blind" and "faith," hence, your process is blind faith in scriptures.

[(Q)]

[QUOTE=lightgigantic]

But as for the original post even a child or illiterate person can take up the process outlined

Of course they can, anyone can, it only requires one thing: the suspension of disbelief; ie. blind faith.

[SkinWalker]

Nothing LG has given us in any of the threads I've read amounts to anything more than "god exists because written doctrine says he does; written doctrine is the divine word of god because says it is."

This isn't epistemology; it's a pseudo-epistemology. It isn't a way of knowing but a way of imagining.

I think we can safely dismiss Lightgigantic from here on out, but I have to admire James R's willingness to engage his unsubstantiated poppycock at length.

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Ok lets try this step by step
At the risk of running one topic on two threads,what does the first point of the process I suggest on the epistemology thread say?
I will give you a hint - two key words are "teacher" and "quality" ”

Funny, I see neither of those two words in your opening post there.

You must have done dreadfully at english comprehension at school then - let me put it in bold

"1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession

2 - Disciplic succession has its origin in specific foundational , paradigmatic experiences of divine revelation. Scripture contains the record of these experiences as well as of important subsequent instantations of those experiences"

The serious flaw in those two statements is that the "knowledge" MUST be received from a "qualified" person. Then you go on to claim that a "qualified" person is one who has experienced "divine revelation."

In other words, the second statement contradicted the first.

Is it contradictory to say that a person must receive knowledge about medicine from a qualified medical practioner - and a qualified medical practioner is one who is capable of carrying out successful medical proceedures in complete knowledge?

It actually boils down to what I said before with two key words for which I'll give you a hint, "blind" and "faith," hence, your process is blind faith in scriptures.

A highschool drop out could say the same thing regarding the opportunity to learn about an electron from a qualified physicist with text books

[lightgigantic]

SkinWalkerNothing LG has given us in any of the threads I've read amounts to anything more than "god exists because written doctrine says he does; written doctrine is the divine word of god because says it is."

Care to quote me?

This isn't epistemology; it's a pseudo-epistemology. It isn't a way of knowing but a way of imagining.

So on the basis of your opinion now you are drawing concrete conclusions?

I think we can safely dismiss Lightgigantic from here on out, but I have to admire James R's willingness to engage his unsubstantiated poppycock at length.

I agree , rather than trying to undersand something it is definitely easier to pretend one understands something as a means of dismissing it

This truly does seem to be the only "Joy of Life without God"

[James R]

lightgigantic:

I never said anything about god - I said that your claim that stars, despite being so much more complex than crayon pictures of stars, requires a model of something that has a cause that is not relative to consciousness - you are yet to provide me with one. I wasn't trying to prove god -you weretrying toprove how matter does not require consciousness - I just want evidence of something, anything, that has a cause not related to consciousness

Fine. I concede the point. In the terms you are talking, I of course can't prove that everything doesn't ultimately trace back to consciousness, or God if you prefer.

But you can't prove that it does, either. You can't prove that God is necessary.

So, I think we can leave it there.

The fact is, when you pick up your average science textbook, you won't see any mention of God.

I know -they make sure there isn't - that's part of the bias

Well, it tells you what science is and is not about, that's for sure.

Shermer isn't a scientist?

Technically, no, he isn't. He does advocate scientific methods for obtaining knowledge.

Exactly - what's the chip on shermers shoulder then?

I don't think he has one.

Science is neutral towards religion.

Neutral like shermer?

Not really. Shermer is a person. Science is not a person. A person has beliefs. Science is a collection of knowledge and methods.

There is no "atheistic science" , or "theistic science" for that matter. Science is the study of the natural world - nothing more or less.

So what is shermer's contention?

Read the article. What do you think? He makes statements about many different topics, so he has a number of contentions.

More to the point, what's your argument with him? Where do you disagree with his specific points?

What has the theory of the big bang or evolution given us?

A good understanding of the world in which we live. An ability to make sense of certain observations, and to predict likely future scenarios we will encounter.

like for instance is the internet such a grand thing when over 60% of net transmissions deal with pornographic material? You may say we have improved our ability of communication, but then it raises the question of the things we are communicating - in otherwords a big slice of the word progress belongs to utility rather than performance

You think we'd be better off without modern telecommunications? What about modern technology in general? Would you prefer that we all go back to living in caves?

Pseudo scientists may also believe that deciphering integers from the ocean waves rippling against the tails of dolphins is also scientific - as for theism, there are numerous incidents of atheists taking up theguise of theism -such as the common aphorism "the devil quotes scripture"

Please provide one example of an atheist "taking up the guise of theism". (Make sure you choose one where the atheist wasn't concerned for his or her own safety or the safety of others.)

Humans' failure to act in the way God wants doesn't explain natural disasters over which humans have no control.

How do you know this?

Are you claiming that God punishes people for the sins of others?

Well, no, it doesn't make sense. Practically every human being lives in a society with other human beings, and depends on others partly for their own survival.

seems like you have given an indication of social balance

Yes.

So, by "moral balance" you mean social balance. Ok then. That's sorted.

You're essentially saying that all science is an educated guess, then.

Could empiricism be anything else?

I won't argue this either.

If science is no better than guesswork, why is it so phenomenally successful?

Successful in what ways?
Basically there are three types of knowledge
Direct perception - effective in looking out for cars while crossing the street
Empiricsim - effective in dealing with relative phenomena within our powers
Hearing from authority - effective in dealing with topics beyond our powers of empiricism and direct perception

Assuming for a minute that I accept your classification:

In terms of direct perception, scientists are trained to examine phenomena carefully. The scientific method is the best one we have come up with for carefully examining directly perceived things.

Science has also be phenomenally successful in showing us how to "deal with relative phenomena within our powers". I shouldn't need to elaborate on that.

On the subject of authority, there is no evidence of any "authority" which is higher than humans. So, it seems we're stuck with direct perception and empiricism. If that means certain topics are beyond our powers right now, we just have to try harder, or work at the problems.

I would say that empricism has failed to illuminate the nature of the universe, wouldn't you - Imean its clear from your opening post that you advocate the big bang - I know that cris strongly disagrees - at the very least it seems toindicate a failure

I completely disagree with you. Cave men didn't have computers. Today, with our understanding of electricity, light and many other topics, we do. That has come from empirical investigations.

To claim that we know nothing more than in the stone age is obviously silly.

This leads to an ontological analysis of god,a direction I get the impression you are adverse to negotiating

Not at all. Bring it on. This is the Religion forum.

Then why is it absurd toaccept that consciousnes is dependant on consciousness - the assumption that consciousness evolved frommatter must be at least onthe same level as the assumption that it came from god, or perhaps even more absurd since we don't actually have experience of life coming from matter at all

Life continually comes from matter. How do trees grow? Answer: they absorb non-living carbon from the air and use it to build themselves.

On the contrary, the smaller the living entity, the easier it is to locate - for instance its not like ants or germsmake it on the endagered species list - if a species tends to get eaten up quickly, it tends to exist in plaugue like numbers - can you provide any examples of living entities thatare small and highly preyed upon that don't manifest in literally clouds of numbers?

I'm not a biologist, so I'm not sure. It doesn't affect my previous point.

Then why are people sometimes revived from the point of death?

It's like a car that won't start. There can be many reasons for that - some temporary, some more serious. Sometimes you try to start a car and it is a little too cold. But work on it for a while and it might start, even without you doing anything major to it.

Like if two people both stop breathing,why does artificial ressuscitation only work on one and not the other?

One is probably further gone than the other.

[Sarkus]

On the contrary, the smaller the living entity, the easier it is to locate - for instance its not like ants or germsmake it on the endagered species list - if a species tends to get eaten up quickly, it tends to exist in plaugue like numbers - can you provide any examples of living entities thatare small and highly preyed upon that don't manifest in literally clouds of numbers?

This is simple evolution at work.
A small organism that is preyed upon will have 3 options:
1. Multiply in vast quantities.
2. Develop a method of defence (poison etc) that will limit the prey.
3. Die out.

1. These are the small creatures that are preyed on as we now see them. Their method of survival is to multiply in vast quantities.
2. These creatures are NO LONGER preyed upon in / "eaten up quickly" as evolution has given them their defence mechanism. As such they are no longer seen as a small creature that is preyed upon easily.
3. Obviously you do not see these creatures - they no longer exist.

As a result - all small creatures that are easily eaten up quickly / preyed upon that continue to exist do so because they manifest in vast quantities.

Simple evolution.


As for why we do not see any new life springing up...
Easily explained by that new life NOT REACHING the evolutionary point where it manifests in vast quantities to survive.
This is again fairly simply explained by the fact that the building blocks of early life are a very pleasant snack for all the currently existing life-forms (bacteria included) - and so to get any sort of foothold is now more or less impossible.
The new life springs up - and is eaten.
There is no chance for evolutionary process to provide it with a survival mechanism.

[lightgigantic]

JamesR

Fine. I concede the point. In the terms you are talking, I of course can't prove that everything

I will settle for an example of anything

doesn't ultimately trace back to consciousness, or God if you prefer.

We'll keep it simple for the time being and just stick to consciousness

But you can't prove that it does, either. You can't prove that God is necessary.

I can prove that consciousness is at least the only perceptable evidence of the establishment of anything of complex structures however, unless you can come up with some evidence to suggest otherwise

I know -they make sure there isn't - that's part of the bias ”

Well, it tells you what science is and is not about, that's for sure.

Yet the book will maintain other premises which are purely hypothetical - namely the idea that creation does not owe its manifestation to consciousness, and in fact even accrediting consciousness to a material set of conditions, despite not a single shred of evidence that this is the case on a micro or macro level

“ Exactly - what's the chip on shermers shoulder then? ”

I don't think he has one.

I think he thinks he does - at the least he is doing what apparently scientists don't have the time to do, as you said

You won't find scientists taking the time to argue against the existence of God.

Neutral like shermer? ”

Not really. Shermer is a person. Science is not a person. A person has beliefs. Science is a collection of knowledge and methods.

So is science represented by science or people?
Like for instance when we read in a text book that 3 000 000 years ago the earth was like XYZ is that science telling us that or a person?

Read the article. What do you think? He makes statements about many different topics, so he has a number of contentions.

More to the point, what's your argument with him? Where do you disagree with his specific points?

I think I hae already exhibited from my first post how he is advocating atheist science, as pointed out by his fallacies, so he seems to be talking about two things in his interview - namely science and the apparently fallacious premises of religion - and he freely mixes the two subjects which gives you (hey presto) atheistic science

“ What has the theory of the big bang or evolution given us? ”



A good understanding of the world in which we live.

Do you mean "good" in the sense that it benefits the value system of a certain set of people or do you mean in some other way?
Do you mean understanding in the sense of backed up by empirical understanding or just a tentative suggestion that sounds plausible (or perhaps something else)?

An ability to make sense of certain observations, and to predict likely future scenarios we will encounter.

Such as?


“ like for instance is the internet such a grand thing when over 60% of net transmissions deal with pornographic material? You may say we have improved our ability of communication, but then it raises the question of the things we are communicating - in otherwords a big slice of the word progress belongs to utility rather than performance ”

You think we'd be better off without modern telecommunications? What about modern technology in general? Would you prefer that we all go back to living in caves?

I never said anything about the caves - what I said was that when you talk about progress it is not simply about ability but also application - For instance to say we have advanced as a civilisation in terms of communication does it mean because we send low grade information on high grade equipment, that we are advanced?
In other words what are the general principles you apply to determine clearly what is progress and what is not?

Please provide one example of an atheist "taking up the guise of theism". (Make sure you choose one where the atheist wasn't concerned for his or her own safety or the safety of others.)

Well how about the IRA - apparently their cause was one of religiousity, yet they were pacified at a later date by giving them a more liberal position in Irish politics (ie economic benefits, social benefits, political representation etc) - if their religious angle was pacified by the introduction of material aspects (namely economic, social and political benefits - none of which are intrinsic to religiousity ) it raises the question about the premises they had for a schism based on religion, don't you think.
In otherwords they used religion as a vehicle of authority to drive through their political agenda.
I would argue that the islamic insurgents are operating out of the same general principles and that to use religion for any other purpose than what it was intended for (to know and understand god) runs against god's instructions, and running against god's instructions is the characteristic trait of an atheist.

“ “ Humans' failure to act in the way God wants doesn't explain natural disasters over which humans have no control. ”
How do you know this? ”
Are you claiming that God punishes people for the sins of others?

No - I am claiming that sinful reactions from previous lives utilises at least one of three avenues of application
- disturbances caused by one's own body
- disturbances caused by other living entities bodies
- disturbances caused by natural phenomena

Assuming for a minute that I accept your classification:

In terms of direct perception, scientists are trained to examine phenomena carefully. The scientific method is the best one we have come up with for carefully examining directly perceived things.

My point was that it is not practical to contact NASA every time you want to cross the road

Science has also be phenomenally successful in showing us how to "deal with relative phenomena within our powers". I shouldn't need to elaborate on that.

Agreed

On the subject of authority, there is no evidence of any "authority" which is higher than humans. So, it seems we're stuck with direct perception and empiricism. If that means certain topics are beyond our powers right now, we just have to try harder, or work at the problems.

Well, I could argue that scripture represents the authority of god, but no doubt you will write that off as a social phenomena (which I admit is easier to do from the standpoint of the bible since its history seems to indicate tampering), which is a whole argument thread we can put on the back burner until a more appropriate time arises

Instead it might be more practical to question whether you believe that the universe with all its mysteries are knowable by humanity or whether ignorance must be an eternal concomitant factor for the progress of science.


“ I would say that empricism has failed to illuminate the nature of the universe, wouldn't you - Imean its clear from your opening post that you advocate the big bang - I know that cris strongly disagrees - at the very least it seems toindicate a failure ”

I completely disagree with you. Cave men didn't have computers. Today, with our understanding of electricity, light and many other topics, we do. That has come from empirical investigations.

These things are all empirical and successful because they relate to the relative world - I was indicating that in terms of knowing the universe, and where it is, we have no progressed an inch. Like suppose I ask you where are you and you say in my house, in my town, in my country, on the planet in the solar system, in the universe - then I ask you where is the universe?

In other words if you take things back far enough you can see that the comforts of our knowledge are relative and therefore limited - this is what I mean by empiricism being limited because it can only busy itself with the small questions (ipods, vacuum cleaners and space shuttles) and cannot approach the big questions

To claim that we know nothing more than in the stone age is obviously silly.

We still don't know where the universe is - which arguable a theist in ancient times might have been aware of

“ This leads to an ontological analysis of god,a direction I get the impression you are adverse to negotiating ”

Not at all. Bring it on. This is the Religion forum.

I only mentioned the word "epistemology " 4 times in my post on the subject, and even then it was only in the intro - the fact that the process of knowing god can be virtually unexamined after 8 pages tends to indicate a general trend, while the word "process" becomes the source of even opening up a second thread

Life continually comes from matter. How do trees grow? Answer: they absorb non-living carbon from the air and use it to build themselves.

Then why do all trees eventually die even if they are in the presence of such carbon?

I'm not a biologist, so I'm not sure. It doesn't affect my previous point.

Except that you have another theory to hang next to the crayon picture of the star


“ Then why are people sometimes revived from the point of death? ”

It's like a car that won't start. There can be many reasons for that - some temporary, some more serious.

The most serious being that there is noone to start it - cars don't start themselves

Sometimes you try to start a car and it is a little too cold. But work on it for a while and it might start, even without you doing anything major to it.

Again, only if there is a conscious driver

“ Like if two people both stop breathing,why does artificial ressuscitation only work on one and not the other? ”



One is probably further gone than the other.

Further gone? where are they going?

[superluminal]

LG,

So, I gather that in order to correctly be able to percieve god, you must be taught by one of an unbroken line of disciples that goes back to... when? Because these disciples have the foundational experience with divine revelations and phenomena that the rest of us clearly don't posses. Is that basically it?

[lightgigantic]

superluminal

So, I gather that in order to correctly be able to percieve god, you must be taught by one of an unbroken line of disciples that goes back to... when

When a person had a direct experience with god - in otherwords god (or arguable god's pure representative, like jesus in the case of the xtians) is the origin of disciplic succession

Because these disciples have the foundational experience with divine revelations and phenomena that the rest of us clearly don't posses. Is that basically it?

Yes
But don't forget to read point 4 before you respond

BTW - do you want to take this to the actual thread where this is discussed or are you particularly attached to the environment of this one?

[superluminal]

BTW - do you want to take this to the actual thread where this is discussed or are you particularly attached to the environment of this one?

You know what? I think I'll let this one go. There's nothing really to be gained here. I think your correct epistemology argument is completely flawed since its foundation is the personal experience and hearsay of the originator of this disciplic chain. There's no evidence or serious questioning involved (how could there be? Since the disciplic chain repeats the revelations flawlessly over time?).

No, I think you've created a nice little sanctum sanctorum of self-contained certainty, impervious to logic or objective evidence. You seem happy with it. Cheerio, pip-pip, and all that.

[(Q)]

When a person had a direct experience with god - in otherwords god (or arguable god's pure representative, like jesus in the case of the xtians) is the origin of disciplic succession

And you're perfectly willing to accept the claims of those who who allegedly had those experiences hundreds of years ago, without a shred of skepticism? In a time when myth and superstition reigned?

Yes
But don't forget to read point 4 before you respond

And the fact that others also claimed to have had those experiences bears no significance to you? Where do you draw the line between believing one so-called representative of god over another?

[lightgigantic]

And you're perfectly willing to accept the claims of those who who allegedly had those experiences hundreds of years ago, without a shred of skepticism? In a time when myth and superstition reigned?



And the fact that others also claimed to have had those experiences bears no significance to you? Where do you draw the line between believing one so-called representative of god over another?

Actually if you read point 4 you will understand that the person who successfully carries out the process gets the result. Its not just an infinite series of claims that cannot be verified
In other words just as a physicist comes to a certain level of performance whereby they can carry out and directly perceive an electron (which then makes the entire epistemolgy valid and correct), similarly the religious practioner also comes to such a stage when they are rightly qualified.