Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
ChrisGB said:
Soul just means the form of the body, so if a body is revived it has the form of the human, if it is permanently dead it no longer has the form of the human, it is an ex-human if you like.
What definition of the word are you using. Shape or appearance? or some other meaningChrisGB said:
7. There is no reason given at all to call those that aren't SHOWN to correspond to the provisional state of scientific knowledge "imagination". The logic is fixed, the science isn't. Who is to know which is the truth?
All of which is a category mistake. You simply can't judge logic on whether it seems to match current provisional empirical knowledge. Your previous example is of a flawed logical argument that doesn't reflect reality, so it in no way supports your argument here.
Chris reading that makes me wonder what you are on logic is a tool not every logically consistent explanation is correct, you need empirical data to weed out the logically sound but flawed explanation this is how science works and should hold for philosophy. But reading your posts I am starting to think you are of the opinion the logic is correct and unalterable reality must be flawed.All of which is a category mistake. You simply can't judge logic on whether it seems to match current provisional empirical knowledge. Your previous example is of a flawed logical argument that doesn't reflect reality, so it in no way supports your argument here.
Engineer1 said:
Chris reading that makes me wonder what you are on logic is a tool not every logically consistent explanation is correct, you need empirical data to weed out the logically sound but flawed explanation this is how science works and should hold for philosophy. But reading your posts I am starting to think you are of the opinion the logic is correct and unalterable reality must be flawed.
It does seem that Chris is indeed falling into this error. If we take his contention "I can prove that something cannot come from nothing" we find a particularly neat example of this.If you accept Chris' proposition, and construct mathematical equations to model observed reality, the equations do not work and do not make accurate predictions. If, on the other hand, you model equations based on the possibility that particles can pop into existence out of nothing, then the equations work to an astonishing level of accuracy. This is what Paul Dirac got his Nobel Prize for.
When logic (which we all agree is a tool invented by humans) can be demonstrated to be flawed, what do we cling to, the logic or the reality? And let's not forget that the reason we are able to communicate the way we do on the internet is because Dirac was right and virtual particles do indeed exist.
ChrisGB said:
What are the 4 fundamental forces? What is a fundamental force? What is it made of?
They could be prime mover? Well without preempting your answers, how are physical "forces" totally actual? - eternal, unchanging, only one, immaterial, etc.
So your argument, stylish to be sure, is just a riff on the "given that naturalism is true, how do we explain X..." question-begging, no offense to you intended.
The 4 fundamental forces are Gravity, Electromagnetism, the Strong Nuclear force, and the Weak Nuclear force. You have probably heard of the first, if not the last 3. They lie at the heart of all physics and are what makes the physical world work.They could be prime mover? Well without preempting your answers, how are physical "forces" totally actual? - eternal, unchanging, only one, immaterial, etc.
So your argument, stylish to be sure, is just a riff on the "given that naturalism is true, how do we explain X..." question-begging, no offense to you intended.
Gravity is not made of anything, it has been in existence since the Big Bang, there is only one, it's immaterial, and it causes change without itself being changed. Same with the others. Why would it not qualify as a prime mover?
ChrisGB said:
Captain Muppet said:
ChrisGB said:
Captain Muppet said:
ChrisGB said:
rxtx said:
Didn't think so. It's not your fault you were indoctrinated Chris.
(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)
On this basis, every atheist would have studied in depth the arguments for and against God, so would have a ready refutation of prime mover, final causality, immateriality of mind? Those exact things conspicuous by their absence in this thread and anywhere else.(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)
Sounds like double standards to me.
The problem comes from either side beleiving they are right and thinking the other side is wrong.
I've written a new version of the Lord's prayer to end this silly misunderstanding, obviously something similar will have to be rolled out to the rest of the religions:
Dear God, if you exist, you're ace.
Nice trick with the creation and lack of proof.
Given that we don't know the rules we made some up and hope we got them right.
But lets face it, you'd have to be pretty cruel and arbitrary to judge us either way.
Thanks for all the cancer,
Amen.
If you allow logic as a way of knowing, if rational argument can give you the truth, then God can be proven to exist.
You don't need to allow logic or reason.
Sorry, yes I was using "evidence" as just measurable stuff, data, things. I accept that it does limit my sources of knowledge.
Assuming that what you say is true, and that you can use logic to prove God exists, what use is that knowledge?
How does knowing there is a God change anything at all?
Where does the moral guidance come from?
Given that I'll have to invest quite a bit of time and effort to accept your argument that there is a god it'd be nice to know why I should bother.
There's no need to believe in God to know that the ideologies attached to atheism are also irrational and meaningless, and so the wrongness of them should be at least as, and more obviously, pressing a reason for abandoning them than the truth of theism.
Given a logical proof of God what are the practical applications of that knowledge?
I like the idea of a logical proof of the existance of God (I don't think there can be a logical proof that there isn't one), but without some kind of consequence it really doesn't matter, it's just an intellectual exercise, like working out what colour Cherenkov radiation is. Unless it makes a difference to your life it really can't be considered significant.
Unless it makes a difference to your afterlife, in which case I'll be wanting a logical proof of that too.
As a side issue: those of you who have been dead, is it possible that the transition to the afterlife takes longer than you were dead for? I can't get on the internet within 5 minutes of starting my old lap top, but that isn't proof the internet doesn't exist. Not experiencing an afterlife in that period of time doesn't really prove anything other than you didn't experience an afterlife in that period of time. That's science.
Edited by Captain Muppet on Tuesday 29th April 13:56
Captain Muppet said:
As a side issue: those of you who have been dead, is it possible that the transition to the afterlife takes longer than you were dead for? I can't get on the internet within 5 minutes of starting my old lap top, but that isn't proof the internet doesn't exist. Not experiencing an afterlife in that period of time doesn't really prove anything other than you didn't experience an afterlife in that period of time. That's science.
It's so convincing that, if you had experienced it, you would be compelled to agree.If, on the other hand, those waiting to recieve you wait a while to make sure you're good and dead - really, really, dead - they might wish to consider a different approach because those who dip in and out are making a strong case for them not existing.
As I explained in my anecdote, I stepped just inside a pair of huge old castle-like doors to be greeted by sombre old men seated around a table. It was such a jumble of everything I had ever considered about being received the other side of the pearly gates, and it convinced me that there is nothing. Just plain old nothing. As your body shuts down, by some wonderful accident of nature, the brain eases your departure; floods you full of endorphins probably. That's it.
There are three posters on here who have experienced being the other side. None of us believe there is anything there. Those on here who believe there is a hereafter do not have the benefit of that particular, peculiar, extraordinarily convincing, experience.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Given that a belief in god has historically lead to doctrines about how we live our lives... DickyC, do you think that not believing has affected your sense of moral compass; has not believing in another life affected the way you live 'this one'?
I'm a degenerate, tax dodging, law avoiding, drunk and womaniser?Sadly, I'm not.
But you put up a strong case for giving it some consideration.
DickyC said:
Captain Muppet said:
As a side issue: those of you who have been dead, is it possible that the transition to the afterlife takes longer than you were dead for? I can't get on the internet within 5 minutes of starting my old lap top, but that isn't proof the internet doesn't exist. Not experiencing an afterlife in that period of time doesn't really prove anything other than you didn't experience an afterlife in that period of time. That's science.
It's so convincing that, if you had experienced it, you would be compelled to agree.If, on the other hand, those waiting to recieve you wait a while to make sure you're good and dead - really, really, dead - they might wish to consider a different approach because those who dip in and out are making a strong case for them not existing.
As I explained in my anecdote, I stepped just inside a pair of huge old castle-like doors to be greeted by sombre old men seated around a table. It was such a jumble of everything I had ever considered about being received the other side of the pearly gates, and it convinced me that there is nothing. Just plain old nothing. As your body shuts down, by some wonderful accident of nature, the brain eases your departure; floods you full of endorphins probably. That's it.
There are three posters on here who have experienced being the other side. None of us believe there is anything there. Those on here who believe there is a hereafter do not have the benefit of that particular, peculiar, extraordinarily convincing, experience.
I take your point that if "those waiting to recieve you" really exist they are doing a terrible job of PR.
Captain Muppet said:
I don't think there is an afterlife, but I wouldn't want to extrapolate eternity based on a few minutes of data.
I take your point that if "those waiting to recieve you" really exist they are doing a terrible job of PR.
In addition to the experience of stepping over the threshold of life and death, you should add the pain I was in and the sense of how base everything is. Take away the comforts of civilisation and you have human beings simply as highly developed animals. If you don't arrive at the conclusion that this is it, this is as good as it gets and there is no afterlife when you are or have been very ill and in pain and surrounded by crap and vomit and, in my case, bits of you rotting away, your faith is ludicrously strong. If your faith survives and can sustain then that is all to the good. But how you could emerge from an experience like that with any faith at all is beyond me.I take your point that if "those waiting to recieve you" really exist they are doing a terrible job of PR.
Captain Muppet said:
I don't think there is an afterlife, but I wouldn't want to extrapolate eternity based on a few minutes of data.
I take your point that if "those waiting to recieve you" really exist they are doing a terrible job of PR.
The thing is a few minutes of data is the best you will ever get as that's about the limit before brain damage etc means you won't get answers.I take your point that if "those waiting to recieve you" really exist they are doing a terrible job of PR.
ofcorsa said:
ChrisGB said:
Soul just means the form of the body, so if a body is revived it has the form of the human, if it is permanently dead it no longer has the form of the human, it is an ex-human if you like.
What definition of the word are you using. Shape or appearance? or some other meaningChrisGB said:
ofcorsa said:
ChrisGB said:
Soul just means the form of the body, so if a body is revived it has the form of the human, if it is permanently dead it no longer has the form of the human, it is an ex-human if you like.
What definition of the word are you using. Shape or appearance? or some other meaningGaspode said:
Engineer1 said:
Chris reading that makes me wonder what you are on logic is a tool not every logically consistent explanation is correct, you need empirical data to weed out the logically sound but flawed explanation this is how science works and should hold for philosophy. But reading your posts I am starting to think you are of the opinion the logic is correct and unalterable reality must be flawed.
It does seem that Chris is indeed falling into this error. If we take his contention "I can prove that something cannot come from nothing" we find a particularly neat example of this.If you accept Chris' proposition, and construct mathematical equations to model observed reality, the equations do not work and do not make accurate predictions. If, on the other hand, you model equations based on the possibility that particles can pop into existence out of nothing, then the equations work to an astonishing level of accuracy. This is what Paul Dirac got his Nobel Prize for.
When logic (which we all agree is a tool invented by humans) can be demonstrated to be flawed, what do we cling to, the logic or the reality? And let's not forget that the reason we are able to communicate the way we do on the internet is because Dirac was right and virtual particles do indeed exist.
As to virtual particles, what exactly are these? Are they potentialities? Is the principle of non-contradiction in fact not possible to use as an axiom? That would indeed overturn my version of Catholicism, but it would also overturn all rationality and meaning. That may be a price people are willing to pay!
If there is something that really does come from absolute nothingness, then I am certainly wrong. So we do need to look at this, if anyone can explain more.
What does it mean to say the virtual exists? As potentiality? Actualised by what? If Wallace and Smith are right with their Thomistic reading of QM, then virtual particles confirm first mover. That would be interesting
Any help appreciated...
Gaspode said:
ChrisGB said:
What are the 4 fundamental forces? What is a fundamental force? What is it made of?
They could be prime mover? Well without preempting your answers, how are physical "forces" totally actual? - eternal, unchanging, only one, immaterial, etc.
So your argument, stylish to be sure, is just a riff on the "given that naturalism is true, how do we explain X..." question-begging, no offense to you intended.
The 4 fundamental forces are Gravity, Electromagnetism, the Strong Nuclear force, and the Weak Nuclear force. You have probably heard of the first, if not the last 3. They lie at the heart of all physics and are what makes the physical world work.They could be prime mover? Well without preempting your answers, how are physical "forces" totally actual? - eternal, unchanging, only one, immaterial, etc.
So your argument, stylish to be sure, is just a riff on the "given that naturalism is true, how do we explain X..." question-begging, no offense to you intended.
Gravity is not made of anything, it has been in existence since the Big Bang, there is only one, it's immaterial, and it causes change without itself being changed. Same with the others. Why would it not qualify as a prime mover?
You realise as well as I do that anything that has a beginning has a cause, so these forces cannot possibly be first mover. If you were serious, you would have to say Big Bang is prime mover, and then BB is just a brute fact, and then nothing at all is explainable. So it nearly works, if we don't worry too much about using nearly in a stretched way, but we still need to look elsewhere....
DickyC said:
Captain Muppet said:
As a side issue: those of you who have been dead, is it possible that the transition to the afterlife takes longer than you were dead for? I can't get on the internet within 5 minutes of starting my old lap top, but that isn't proof the internet doesn't exist. Not experiencing an afterlife in that period of time doesn't really prove anything other than you didn't experience an afterlife in that period of time. That's science.
It's so convincing that, if you had experienced it, you would be compelled to agree.If, on the other hand, those waiting to recieve you wait a while to make sure you're good and dead - really, really, dead - they might wish to consider a different approach because those who dip in and out are making a strong case for them not existing.
As I explained in my anecdote, I stepped just inside a pair of huge old castle-like doors to be greeted by sombre old men seated around a table. It was such a jumble of everything I had ever considered about being received the other side of the pearly gates, and it convinced me that there is nothing. Just plain old nothing. As your body shuts down, by some wonderful accident of nature, the brain eases your departure; floods you full of endorphins probably. That's it.
There are three posters on here who have experienced being the other side. None of us believe there is anything there. Those on here who believe there is a hereafter do not have the benefit of that particular, peculiar, extraordinarily convincing, experience.
I don't see prima facie why that should change if it's a non-Christian claiming a non-Christianity-affirming experience either.
As you say, this is the body doing pleasant things as it shuts down, so your own words confirm that your experience tells you absolutely nothing about what happens AFTER bodily death.
NDE is also used as an experiential argument FOR God and the afterlife because of common images of light, tunnel, sense of peace etc.
Personally I don't think NDE proves anything at all about life or nothingness after death, one way or another, and I think your analysis of your own experience actually says as much too.
Captain Muppet said:
ChrisGB said:
Captain Muppet said:
ChrisGB said:
Captain Muppet said:
ChrisGB said:
rxtx said:
Didn't think so. It's not your fault you were indoctrinated Chris.
(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)
On this basis, every atheist would have studied in depth the arguments for and against God, so would have a ready refutation of prime mover, final causality, immateriality of mind? Those exact things conspicuous by their absence in this thread and anywhere else.(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)
Sounds like double standards to me.
The problem comes from either side beleiving they are right and thinking the other side is wrong.
I've written a new version of the Lord's prayer to end this silly misunderstanding, obviously something similar will have to be rolled out to the rest of the religions:
Dear God, if you exist, you're ace.
Nice trick with the creation and lack of proof.
Given that we don't know the rules we made some up and hope we got them right.
But lets face it, you'd have to be pretty cruel and arbitrary to judge us either way.
Thanks for all the cancer,
Amen.
If you allow logic as a way of knowing, if rational argument can give you the truth, then God can be proven to exist.
You don't need to allow logic or reason.
Sorry, yes I was using "evidence" as just measurable stuff, data, things. I accept that it does limit my sources of knowledge.
Assuming that what you say is true, and that you can use logic to prove God exists, what use is that knowledge?
How does knowing there is a God change anything at all?
Where does the moral guidance come from?
Given that I'll have to invest quite a bit of time and effort to accept your argument that there is a god it'd be nice to know why I should bother.
There's no need to believe in God to know that the ideologies attached to atheism are also irrational and meaningless, and so the wrongness of them should be at least as, and more obviously, pressing a reason for abandoning them than the truth of theism.
Given a logical proof of God what are the practical applications of that knowledge?
I like the idea of a logical proof of the existance of God (I don't think there can be a logical proof that there isn't one), but without some kind of consequence it really doesn't matter, it's just an intellectual exercise, like working out what colour Cherenkov radiation is. Unless it makes a difference to your life it really can't be considered significant.
Unless it makes a difference to your afterlife, in which case I'll be wanting a logical proof of that too.
As a side issue: those of you who have been dead, is it possible that the transition to the afterlife takes longer than you were dead for? I can't get on the internet within 5 minutes of starting my old lap top, but that isn't proof the internet doesn't exist. Not experiencing an afterlife in that period of time doesn't really prove anything other than you didn't experience an afterlife in that period of time. That's science.
Edited by Captain Muppet on Tuesday 29th April 13:56
I'd suggest the practical implications are huge, and that that is an understatement.
If you didn't accept a particular revelation (Judaic or Christian), then I think you would have to follow natural law theory as your moral guide, as it is proved on the same premises as some of the proofs of God.
NLT is, its advocates say, an objective morality. It is also just about the most conservative version of morality there could be, timeless, changeless, one size fits all. I think it is very dry, but undoubtedly true. This would be your guide to living a good life in accordance to the plan of the thing you had come to accept thanks to the other Aristotelian proofs.
If you accept revelation from this thing proved is possible, you will be in a moral system based on Aristotle and the religion in question, so will have a variation, and in some cases a very thinned out variation, of NLT as your guide to the good life.
Proof of afterlife: there is something immaterial in minds, namely the intellect, and something specific like this and immaterial is not subject to death, as death is physical. So something survives. I don't know if you get further than that on a purely neo-Aristotelian account without Thomism, but you get at least that far.
WinstonWolf said:
ChrisGB said:
ofcorsa said:
ChrisGB said:
Soul just means the form of the body, so if a body is revived it has the form of the human, if it is permanently dead it no longer has the form of the human, it is an ex-human if you like.
What definition of the word are you using. Shape or appearance? or some other meaningChrisGB said:
WinstonWolf said:
ChrisGB said:
ofcorsa said:
ChrisGB said:
Soul just means the form of the body, so if a body is revived it has the form of the human, if it is permanently dead it no longer has the form of the human, it is an ex-human if you like.
What definition of the word are you using. Shape or appearance? or some other meaningChrisGB said:
I'm of the opinion that Gaspode's proof that logic is only valid when tested against reality is wrong, because his paradox and my Socrates example both prove that logic gives you truth independent of empirical checking.
As to virtual particles, what exactly are these? Are they potentialities? Is the principle of non-contradiction in fact not possible to use as an axiom? That would indeed overturn my version of Catholicism, but it would also overturn all rationality and meaning. That may be a price people are willing to pay!
If there is something that really does come from absolute nothingness, then I am certainly wrong. So we do need to look at this, if anyone can explain more.
What does it mean to say the virtual exists? As potentiality? Actualised by what? If Wallace and Smith are right with their Thomistic reading of QM, then virtual particles confirm first mover. That would be interesting
Any help appreciated...
Virtual particles are particles which appear and disappear in times too short to measure, and effectively appear to be travelling backwards in time. They are not directly measurable, neither are they directly detectable. If I understood what you mean by a potentiality or the principle of non-contradiction I might be able to answer your question.As to virtual particles, what exactly are these? Are they potentialities? Is the principle of non-contradiction in fact not possible to use as an axiom? That would indeed overturn my version of Catholicism, but it would also overturn all rationality and meaning. That may be a price people are willing to pay!
If there is something that really does come from absolute nothingness, then I am certainly wrong. So we do need to look at this, if anyone can explain more.
What does it mean to say the virtual exists? As potentiality? Actualised by what? If Wallace and Smith are right with their Thomistic reading of QM, then virtual particles confirm first mover. That would be interesting
Any help appreciated...
As they say, anyone who isn't baffled by Quantum Physics doesn't understand it. Who are Wallace and Smith, and what is their Thomist reading of QM?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff