21 Mar 09
Originally posted by knightmeister….Nope , it's not a metaphor for blind faith. It's a metaphor for seeing the world in a spiritual way
Nope , it's not a metaphor for blind faith. It's a metaphor for seeing the world in a spiritual way , sensitive to how the Spirit is working.
.…
lol -what’s the difference?
21 Mar 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAccording to the main stream scientific understanding of the beginning of the universe-there was no ‘cause’ for the universe.
[b]….Science will never be able to explain WHAT started the universe.
.… (my emphasis)
What is the premise for your belief that there exists a thing that “WHAT started the universe”?
….Okay, so what caused the big bang?
..…
According to the main stream scientific understanding of the beginning of the universe-there was no ‘cause ...[text shortened]... g of the universe thus it is implicitly and generally assumed that it wasn't “caused randomly”.[/b]
That is because for there to be a ‘cause’ of an event there has to be a ‘before’ the event and, according to the main stream understanding of the beginning of the universe, there was no ‘before’ the universe because time began at the start of the universe.
-------hammy------------------
It's such a shame you can't see this for the semantic kop out it really is. You really think you have solved the problem when you say things like this don't you?
22 Mar 09
[So, basically what you are saying is that the universe just exploded into being? That somehow, the "rules of physics" were just present? This seems to me to be a much weaker argument than creation. There was just a giant explosion with no cause? I really think you can apply hakims razor to this. The simplest answer is usually right. You are saying the universe just exploded into being with rules in place that came from no where. I am saying that something created the universe using a very precise set of rules. Which seems more likely?
…Here are definitions to help you At Random: without definite aim direction RULE or method
..… (my emphasis)
Aren’t the laws of physics “rules”?
Isn’t the behaviour of the universe assumed to be constrained by just such “rules” right from the beginning of time thus it is not completely “random” ? (although, of course, there may be random elements within it ONCE changes had a chan ...[text shortened]... g of the universe thus it is implicitly and generally assumed that it wasn't “caused randomly”.[/b]
22 Mar 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterBefore I can answer that question, I need to know which meaning you are attaching to the word “materialistically” here:
What's the difference from blind faith and seeing the world materialistically then? LOL
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/materialistically
“…1. Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.
…”
If what you mean is either (2) or (3) then the answer is that I do NOT think materialistically and nor do many (probably most) atheists.
If what you mean is (1) then it is logically self-evident that “blind faith” and “seeing the world materialistically” are not the same thing for it isn’t “blind faith” to base one’s beliefs on material evidence and reason with the absence of any assumptions of the existence of things that are not evident ( i.e. superstition).
So which one do you mean?
22 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhump….So, basically what you are saying is that the universe just exploded into being? That somehow, the "rules of physics" were just present?
So, basically what you are saying is that the universe just exploded into being? That somehow, the "rules of physics" were just present? This seems to me to be a much weaker argument than creation. There was just a giant explosion with no cause? I really think you can apply hakims razor to this. The simplest answer is usually right. You are saying the uni ...[text shortened]... at something created the universe using a very precise set of rules. Which seems more likely?
..…
yes
….This seems to me to be a much weaker argument than creation.
..…
No, it is vastly stronger because it doesn’t make any idiotic unfounded assumptions about an existence for something (a ‘god’ in this case) that is not based on any creditable evidence or reason.
Do you believe that the explanation that electricity is the origin of thunder and lightning is a “weaker” explanation than the explanation that the “agree gods” are the origin of thunder and lightning ?
….There was just a giant explosion with no cause?
.…
Yes, that’s what I just said. Why MUST everything have a ‘cause‘?
…You are saying the universe just exploded into being with rules in place that came from no where.
..…
Yes -which would make those rules brute facts.
Can you state any logical problem with that?
22 Mar 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterAnd your counterargument is….?
According to the main stream scientific understanding of the beginning of the universe-there was no ‘cause’ for the universe.
That is because for there to be a ‘cause’ of an event there has to be a ‘before’ the event and, according to the main stream understanding of the beginning of the universe, there was no ‘before’ the universe because time began ...[text shortened]... lly is. You really think you have solved the problem when you say things like this don't you?
22 Mar 09
The existence of the universe is evidence enough for me that it was created using a precise set of rules. Just like a science experiment. Unless a rule is controlled by something, it is subject to change at any moment. If you don't believe me, babysit a three year old sometime.
22 Mar 09
3 edits
Originally posted by dryhump….The existence of the universe is EVIDENCE enough for me that it was CREATED using a precise set of rules.
The existence of the universe is evidence enough for me that it was created using a precise set of rules. Just like a science experiment. Unless a rule is controlled by something, it is subject to change at any moment. If you don't believe me, babysit a three year old sometime.
..…(my emphasis)
How is the mere existence of the universe or the mere fact that it is governed by the precise set of the laws of physics constitutes “EVIDENCE” that it was “CREATED” by ‘something‘ ( let alone “CREATED” by a ‘god&lsquo😉 ?
Why can’t the existence of the universe at the first beginning point of time just be a brute fact?
….Just like a science experiment.
..…
In what way?
….Unless a rule is controlled by something, it is subject to change at any moment. If you don't believe me, babysit a three year old sometime.
.…
The physical universe is not a three year old kid -it is, I assume, a mindless thing as a whole.
If that is right, then the physical universe isn’t going to ‘question’ and then have a 'tantrum' and ‘deliberately disobey’ the laws of physics 😀
30 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonsome might take it that way sure; but careful socialization allows for an individual to make up their own mind on the matter. It is entirely possible to brainwash someone to have an infallible belief in God, of course the opposite is true as well.
Is “socialize their children with the ability to believe” just a very polite way of saying “religious brainwashing”?
Many people have no problem whatsoever in telling their children that a fat jolly man in a red suit will be coming down the chimney and leaving toys on "X-mas". yet to many of those same parents, the idea of teaching their children about faith or religion is intolerable. Is santa claus any more unbelievable than a God in heaven?
30 Mar 09
Originally posted by duecerMany people have no problem whatsoever in telling their children that a fat jolly man in a red suit will be coming down the chimney and leaving toys on "X-mas". yet to many of those same parents, the idea of teaching their children about faith or religion is intolerable. Is santa claus any more unbelievable than a God in heaven?
some might take it that way sure; but careful socialization allows for an individual to make up their own mind on the matter. It is entirely possible to brainwash someone to have an infallible belief in God, of course the opposite is true as well.
Many people have no problem whatsoever in telling their children that a fat jolly man in a red suit will be com ...[text shortened]... t faith or religion is intolerable. Is santa claus any more unbelievable than a God in heaven?
I do feel slightly uncomfortable with doing this, however I hope that I am also, separately, giving them the critical skills with which to analyse and, pretty soon in the case of the older one, see through the fairytale.
With any luck they will also be able to bring those same skills to bear on the idea of a magic man in the sky.
--- Penguin.
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by duecer….some might take it that way sure; but careful socialization allows for an individual to make up their OWN mind on the matter...… (my emphasis)
some might take it that way sure; but careful socialization allows for an individual to make up their own mind on the matter. It is entirely possible to brainwash someone to have an infallible belief in God, of course the opposite is true as well.
Many people have no problem whatsoever in telling their children that a fat jolly man in a red suit will be com ...[text shortened]... t faith or religion is intolerable. Is santa claus any more unbelievable than a God in heaven?
That’s obviously not what we are talking about here. Repeatedly telling a child from a very young age that there IS a god as if that is a fact is not encouraging the child to think for himself/herself by using their OWN reason independently of other people but rather simply brainwashing them to believe.
…It is entirely possible to brainwash someone to have an infallible belief in God, of course the opposite is true as well.
..…
But it doesn’t normally happen the other way around -why would a parent/teacher/institution etc repeatedly telling a child from a very young age that there is NO god and say this is what you MUST believe -it isn’t as if the ABSENCE of a particular belief is something that people psychologically particularly like promoting and propagating -there are no ‘atheist churches’ or ‘atheist rituals’ etc for atheism is not so much a belief but an absence of a belief.
Let me put it this way -if I was a parent then I wouldn’t repeatedly tell my child from a very young age that there is NO god for exactly the same reason why I wouldn’t repeatedly tell my child from a very young age that there is NO Santa -why the emphasis of what is NOT true? To educate my child, I would teach the child to be kind and I would teach the child about the known scientific facts and then encourage the child to have critical and independent thinking -would that be “brainwashing”?