| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > The existence of a creator, to me, implies that he's still hanging around.
> > Since there is no evidence to support that, and it seems like there would • have
> > to be if He were really there, I choose to go with spontaneous order.
>
> No evidence to support the existance of God?
Right.
> THe sustaining of all physical properties is not enough?
Uh, no. Is it really your assertion that Jehova is personally seeing to it
that every electron tunnels just so? Man, what a bore. He ought to code the
universe so that scripts take care of such things.
> Sure science can say, 'Oh, these pieces over here
> are made of these molecules, and these molecules are made of these atoms,
> and these atoms are made from... etc.. (tho we really are just delving into
> things smaller than the atom and are just beginning to understand that...).
> and this works 'cause these parts mesh like that...'
Well, that is a significant part of the search for an understanding of matter.
But I don't think that we're "just beginning to understand that." I think
that's been the whole point for quite some time.
> Axiom, faith based, whatever--fundamental tenants that we just accept 'cause
> we don't want to see anything else.
Uh, wrong again. Actually, what are you talking about? The search
to understand matter is deciphering reality with more and more precision. I
don't see the "just accepted" tenets.
> Spontaneous order is a euphemism for 'Well,
> we really don't know how it happened 'cause we can't explain it rationally,
> and it goes against our own theories of entropy and chaos, but there's order
> and we'll just say it's spontaneous 'cause we don't want to acknowledge that
> there *could* be *any* intelligent* thought behind any kind of consistant
> ordering...'
No. Spontaneous order is a part of Chaos that shows that while the energy in
the universe is spreading ever more thin, islands of energy can do quite
complex stuff without any direction. (Of course, you think God personally
assures that cylindrical temperature cells form in a pan on the stove, I
suppose.)
Why is it that you project the fear you have of being wrong onto scientists as
a whole, as if they could be all alike anyway? People engaged in science
_like_ to be wrong. That's when we learn more!
> When you cut to the end of the page and get before, 'Well,
> this preceeded that, and that preceeded this...' you are left with what?
More questions. So?
> And then the scientists would come back and say, 'Well, if we can't
> understand the infinite due to our finite limitations, then why bother--for
> all intents and purposes, for our daily lives and figuring out how the watch
> works, the infinite is a moot point, so it factors out of the equation.'
Have you ever actually met a scientist? Or taken a science class above the
junior high school level?
> Again, you could say that, but *if* God made us in His image, and *if* God
> wants us to have some sort of relationship with Him, *then* He gives us the
> ability to appreciate Him and know He's there.
So what does that say about me? Instead of the ability to appreciate Him, I
find only the ability to seek more and more truth. The unending desire to know
more about the universe. The mental tools to, with the help of others, make
sense of collected data. Did I get gyped or did you?
> To reduce *everything* to the realm of science is... wait for it...
> reductionistic.
How so? And what do you mean by the realm of science? And how could I reduce
anything, much less everything? Science can attempt to explain any
observable phenomena.
> Taking a concept and reducing it to the sum of its parts is
> not only reductionistic but is irresponsible for you lose the purpose, the
> humanity. To take a chair apoart and separate it into piles of wood, nails,
> glue and padding and say, 'That's a chair'--well, no, it isn't. Sure it
> helps you understand what makes a chair a chair, but reducing something
> cannot make it the same, or greater than it was. Our lives, our world, our
> universe can be reduced to their compnent parts, but the sum of all these
> parts is so far greater than the individual pieces. Science reducing things
> is Entropy--something gets lost.
Luckily, science doesn't do that! All science does is learn. Information,
including an understanding of the synergies to which you allude above, is built
by science. We get more, not less.
(It took me several reads of that paragraph to come up with an idea of what you
might mean. So if my response seems non sequitar, just try again.)
> Credible rational scientific evidence to believe. Proof denies faith.
That's sort of true. But without some evidence (proof is a math/logic
construct, not a science one) I have no reason to have faith.
> Credible evidence? Prove to the fish that water exists.
Well, see, fish aren't exactly rocket scientists. While I'm pretty sure they
feel pain, I don't think they have thoughts. So I don't think such a proof is
possible.
> It can't see it, it can't feel it, it can't taste it,
Uh...sure it can. I can see, feel, and taste water (and air, for that matter)
so why couldn't the fish? Actually, I'm rusty on my ichthyology, can they
taste or just smell?
> Something sustains the order of the universe.
Yes, natural explainable phenomena.
> The bottom of the page is that something intelligent is at work,
> going against the scientifically founded principles of entropy
> and chaos.
I'm not sure I get the whole "bottom of the page" thing you keep going on
about, but merely because you assert a thing doesn't make it so.
> A fairly large injustice is done to anybody who reduces their worldview to
> that which they can prove, for science 'knows' that the universe is finite,
Science doesn't prove anything! Really, really, really. Ignore what anyone
else says about it, it just doesn't happen. Proof is not within the domain of
scientific exploration.
And I have no problem with a worldview based on supportable theories. It
serves me just fine.
> therefore science should be able to 'prove' everything. What's after that?
> Well, nothing for those who cannot comprehend the idea of anything outside
> science.
Well, I agree that aside from some human constructs (in some ways), everything
is fair game for scientific exploration.
> Again, I can read the last chapter in a book and know whats going to happen.
> The characters in the book don't have a clue. Does that deny their free
> will to do as they please in the book?
Do you hear yourself? I mean really! You just asserted that characters in
books have free will. That was some kind of a slip up right? I'll give you a
do-over on that one if you'll (please) take it. I'm going to assume that you
know that a human being decides what all the characters in a book are going to
do and then writes about it, and those characters don't have any kind of will
at all because they're pretend.
> God is *timeless*. He is outside
> our timeline. He knows where we're going to end up 'cause He's been there.
Then we have no free will, because it has already been determined what we'll
do. Just like the book example above.
> Further, He doesn't want mindless automatons that will cave into His will
> and just bow down and worship Him.
I've always wondered...what does he get from worship?
> I have not seen it, am I
> taking it on faith that it's there? Or has my judgement, my intellect, my
> rationality weighed all possible ideas and scenarios and said, 'Madagascar
> exists whether I've seen it or not.'
>
> Just as God exists whether I have seen Him or not.
But you _could_ see Madagascar.
> And I see how not believing in God would be comforting to those who want to
> 'live as they please'. You have pointed out that you yourself live a
> upright life, and love your neighbours 'cause it's the right thing to do. I
> do exactly the same thing--not because there's a god and I wanna make him
> happy with me, but because it's the right thing to do. How do we know it's
> right? Do we just wake up one morning and say, "I think it'll be good to be
> nice to my neighbour..."
I'm guessing here, but I suspect that as we evolved intelligence, we were
already social creatures. Those of us who did not have a built-in tendency to
love thy neighbor were weeded out of the gene pool. So it may well be a
genetic propensity.
But to me personally, I have two POVs. Being "good" and what that means is a
deep part of my psyche. And it's often enough not what my contemporaries think
"good" means. It feels like it's written on the inside of my being. But
that's not evidence of a creator, it's just part of having a self and a
psychology. The other side of "good" is that which makes society function.
These often (luckily) overlap.
> God does not make bad things happen to people. Bad things happen because
> that's part of life, as the athiests would say. A Christian would say,
> 'It's a fallen world and sin is everywhere and has fractured everything.'
And God, in His infinite mercy chooses not to put things right and end our
suffering. Gotcha! I have to admit to leaning toward the "that's a part of
life" explanation.
> We, all of us, are sinners. Deal.
I'm dealing.
> And where does your love come from?
My hypothalamus[1].
> Where does the concept of Justice and
> Responsibility and right and wrong come from?
Well, justice is a sham. But all those ideas, I think, are a melange of innate
propensity and studied thought. What of it?
> The laws of God are 'written
> on our hearts'. It might be all touchy feely but it's there. You know when
> you're doing something wrong--you don't need the police to tell you
> that--you feel it. And none of that has anything to do with science.
What if you can remove a really small sliver of the brain and the concept of
right and wrong vanish. Wouldn't that be cool science?
> I don't write off all Germans bacause of what happened circa 1939-1945.
Gee, I keep a wary eye on them. They could turn on us at any minute! :-)
> If you have a bad experience with someone, or you read in the paper the
> atrocities done by certain memebers of whatever group and you hold that bad
> experience against the entire group (nationality, religion, belief system,
> whatever) then grow up--life is more complex and complicated than that.
Well, I agree, but I can't figure out where this came from.
> (The Columbine kids supposedly went bowling a few hours before they went on
> their shooting spree--Let's hate all bowlers.)
What, like at five in the morning?
> Take things in context.
> Understand that, my goodness man--there's a bigger picture!
I will continue to search for the bigger picture. One bit at a time.
Chris
[1] - I'm just making that up, my biopsychology is too rusty to pick the right
part out.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) I agree. I would further ask John how he would demonstrate to someone permanently locked indoors that wind exists. (...) I had salmon last night--it tasted great and smelled great. Does that help? 8^) (...) For those playing along at home, (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Again, a finite concept--Every hair on your head is numbered, every grain of sand, every molecule, He knows--do you get the idea that He is infinite yet? If it were *our* universe, and as finite beings, sure we would have to script it, but, (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) No evidence to support the existance of God? THe sustaining of all physical properties is not enough? Sure science can say, 'Oh, these pieces over here are made of these molecules, and these molecules are made of these atoms, and these atoms (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
