| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> This is too long so I'm snipping at will. I have taken great pains to make
> sure nothing is responded too out of context.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > My *only* point is that this is not *everything*. If you cut to the chase,
> > logic dictates that a finite universe can only have finite understanding.
> > What then?
>
> What when? Accepting for the moment, that the universe is actually finite, so
> what? So if we manage to hang on until we learn everything, then it's
> theoretically possible for us to actually do so. Great! Knowing everything
> would rock. I don't get all empty inside thinking that we don't have more to
> discover.
The quest for knowledge will just dissipate when we get there? A
fundamental human significance--the pursuit of learning--will promptly poof
when all that science can teach us is known? Yes it is a Good Thing (tm).
I have said so before, and I continue to say so--the pursuit of scientific
endeavours should be wholeheartedly encouraged.
But the folks that I personally know who are pursuing scientific knowledge
are also not putting all their eggs in the scientific basket. Sure when
they tag fish and birds to study the migratory patterns, and they work at
mathematical constructs, and they figure out how to get rid of some
toxicities in our soil and air, they are working with the scientific method.
They may be agnostics, but they believe that science cannot, by it's very
nature in the pursuit of knowledge in the physical universe, be used to
understand *everything*.
> But I don't think that will happen. When you place a point right between 1 and
> 2, you find 1.5. When you place a point between 1 and 1.5 you find 1.25. You
> can do that forever. And I think that's how science will go. At least for
> longer than we have a reason to expect our spiecies to exist.
Well, then we're getting into the concept of infinity. And let me try to
make this point clearer--the physical universe is finite.
How do I know this? It's expanding. Someone else mentioned red shifting
and such, but all that data boiled down, we know that since the big bang,
the universe is expanding. There are some theorists which state that there
will come a point when the universe stops expanding and will then start to
contract due to gravitational forces, and collapse in on itself for a real
'Gnab Gib' (opposite Big Bang (Adams once again :) )), and there are also
some theorists who suppose that the universe will keep on expanding, slowing
down but expanding, and gradually wind down (increasing volume and the same
amount of mass = less energy *1) until it ceases to exist as we know it.
Who knows if either one is what's gonna happen, or if there are not a bunch
of other possibilities--who knows? What we do know is that the universe is
*expanding*--as such, can't be infinite. This isn't grade school, 'Well I
say infinity + 1!' Theories, concepts are great, but in actuality the
chemical equation:
2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + energy
!=
2H2O + same amount of energy = 2H2 + O2
for there is energy lost to entropy.
The universe has a finite amount of mass in it, therefore a finite amount of
energy (E=MC^2 'n such). There is no physical infinity, for the universe is
expanding. Infinity cannot expand, for what, in our very limited concept of
infinity, can be 'bigger' than infinity?
Our brains are housed within the confines of the skull and therefore have a
finite amount of space for brain cells. Sure the brain is a mass of folded
upon folded tissue, but it cannot be folded infinite number of times inside
the brain cavity, unlike the theory that you can fold a piece of paper an
infinite number of times becasue there will always be half of whatever is
left to fold. We're dealing with physical properties of a physical
universe, and the baseball does indeed, hit the tree if you throw a baseball
at the tree (working against the theory that you can always divide the
distance b/w the ball and the tree in half until infinity, and therefore the
baseball will never hit the tree), and you can't fold a piece of paper in
the real world an infinite number of times, for paper has thickness, and
your brain matter cannot be folded an infinite number of times just because
of the cell thickness for starters.
Sure our crainial capacity can grow. I have no problem with that, but cut
to the end of the page--if the universe is finite, then your brain cannot
occupy any volume larger than our finite universe. Therefore your brain
will be finite, even if it is as big as the universe.
Well, getting off that existentialist soapbox...
>
> > Worry about that when we get to it? That's like the quote
> > earlier--we'll leave the afterlife until we get there. Yeah, makes perfect
> > sense to just sit back and wait until we're at an impasse before we even
> > start to consider the issue.
>
> Exactly! It makes great sense to plan for that which can be planned. But the
> afterlife, if such turns out to exist, is fundamentally unknowable and thus
> unplannable. What if you're all wrong about how to prepare for the afterlife
> and you wasted opportunity (even though you don't look at it this way) here in
> this life?
What, you don't think we can plan for such contingencies? Is like saying to
the people living along riverbanks--don't plan for the flood until your
basement's full of water. It's like telling the students don't plan for the
fire drills until the supply room's on fire.
What if I'm all wrong? What if I die tomorrow and nothing happens? Does
that negate me being nice to my fellow neighbour? Does that all of a
sudden, make my whole time on this planet poof into nothingness? I think
not--just as the impact of your life will not be lost to those around you if
you were to die tomorrow and, in your afterlife find that, 'omigod! there
is a God!'. I have not 'wasted' any opportinity (I hope) to edify, support,
be there for, uphold, lend a helping hand, and generally be a nice guy my
entire life. I do it not only because I believe there's a God who wants me
to do this, but I do it 'cause it's the right thing to do. How do I know
it's right? How do you know it's right? I say these ideas and ideals are
written on the hearts of humankind--it's part of the psyche of who you are.
It's that little voice in your ear. Again I say, you live your life the way
you want. Have respect for the way I live mine. That is how this whole
mess started.
> > "Deciphering reality" with science, as in anything else is *not* reality.
>
> Well...isn't that true? There is reality. Right? And anything else that we
> can discuss is fiction. Science is mostly about exploring reality. I think
> this might be the main point where you and I are failing to communicate. I
> feel like you're saying something that I'm just not getting.
Again, my point, time and time again, is that there is reality. I live in
it, with you and everyone else. My point, time and time again, is that our
reality is 'bigger' than what science can explain. Science is great for
that which science can explain. If the scope of science expands, so much
the better--I am not putting guidelines around science--I am saying it's
elevating science to the region of godhood to say it encompasses
*everything*. I mean, folks balk against the concept of God being and doing
*everything* and yet, watch out! Here comes science, we'll let that god be
the god of all. Can't have it both ways--if my God isn't good 'nuff for
you, what makes you think your god is *any* better.
Let's talk about the atrocities done due to the pursuit of knowledge--one
has to look back the the scientific experiments on humans by the 'evil' Nazi
doctors during WW2. 'But we condemned their actions!' As do I, as do I
condemn those religious zealots who shoot doctors and blow up abortion
clinics. Agan, who is without sin can go ahead and trash the other side.
Until such time, I'm trying to grapple with the toughies, and I'm trying to
live my life the best way possible whilst using a noninterference directive
with regards to others, and I'm not asking for much--I respect science,
scientists and I uphold the pursuit of knowledge. A little courtesy and
respect in return--too much to ask? That is how this thread started.
>
> > I love scientists. I love reading scientific
> > journals and papers--most of which do not belittle things that are outside
> > the scientific institutions, unlike some posts in these threads.
>
> Just for the record; you keep saying stuff like this and commenting
> disgruntledly about phrases like "Whacko Xtians." You aren't asserting that
> _I_ have been a problem in this regard, are you? I haven't been tempted to
> deride you, I haven't typed Xtian, and I agree that Christmas deserves the
> place of proper noun in our language. (But we celibrate Newtonmass :-)
I have not been attributing *you* to these phrases, but this is how this
thread started--that is the issue. I am sorry if I alluded that you wrote
this. The thread is what I am responding to, gathering in ideas from other
posts and ideas and replying to them here. I would love to celebrate
Newtonmass--is that an apple?
>
> > (My first personal attack in this thread(I think))
>
> Well, it's not much of a personal attack. I don't really think of it that way
> anyhow.
I'm not good at attacking people, I just like discussing ideas and
preconceived notions. Saying that reality is completely under the domain of
science is reducing reality to science. It's the very wording that I find
fault with. You can belittle a dutch person by calling them 'woodenhead',
or a German person by saying 'blockhead'. And most of the time, my
philosophy of 'sticks 'n stones' and put the /ignore on them. However, that
said, by saing that certain people are less than, well, you and me, is
opening the door to atrocities. Yes is a slippery slope idea but the second
you think that someone else is beneath you, you have made them less then
human. I can't remember the quotation, but Jean Luc mentioned it when he
was being tortured by his Cardassian captor in a TNG ep. Yes, I also draw
many references from television--my bad.
>
> > You, on the other hand,
> > won't even begin to accept the very notion that there could be a God,
>
> Well, I pointed out to John some of what I'd look for as far as evidence goes.
> Doesn't that mean that I'm at least willing to toy with the notion. Merely
> becaue I don't expect to decide that God exists (and I don't) doesn't mean that
> if compelling evidence presented itself, that I couldn't change my mind.
>
> > not
> > only because those that do beleive you have no respect for, and not only
> > because you find no scientific evidence that He does exist, but it would
> > mean, even the effort of considering that there *may* be a god, that you
> > would have to change your worldview, and you're the one that seems unwilling
> > to do that.
>
> How do I seem so? I'm not willing to change my worldview for no reason. I'm
> not even capable of that. But I'm not being willfully ignorant. I just have a
> different opinion than you.
You and I hold different opinions on this. I'm not being willfully stubborn
in thinking there is a God. To me, it doesn't matter if you don't believe
in God, and it shouldn't matter that I do--we can still carry on a
conversation and debate about issues.
But for some who have to belittle a race, a nation, a belief system, well
that's a different kettle of fish then, isn't it? Belittling because of a
bad experience in the past? Due to a few extemists posting to LUGNET? Due
to whay you read in the paper? If that's the basis for calling an entire
section of people 'wacko Xians' (again, this isn't directed at you, it's
directed at the thread) then grow up--that's a chidish knee-jerk reaction.
Look at the good things that many many Christians do in the world. As a
point, I look at the many many good things Athiests do, that Jewish folks
do, that everybody of every race, creed, and belief system do, and I applaud
*all* of them, as I condemn the actions of the idiots, no matter who they are.
>
> > > > 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?
> >
> > But science answered all that there is to know. The entire physicla
> > universe is mapped out, and reduced to a 'Grande Unification Theory'. What
> > else is there? What else indeed, but the stuff that exists outside science.
>
> Are you saying that this has happened, or that it will? Even a GUT isn't going
> to explain everything about the universe. It won't explain why some people
> prefer purple shorts to red trousers. There will be lots to explore further.
> I'm still trying to map what exactly you think is ourside science. In fact, I
> would appreciate it if you could just tell me rather than was poetic about fish
> and fiction.
Well, didn't you just do so? Your point about purple and red (i prefer
purple btw) is outside the realm of science. Sure you can get into studying
how many folks prefer purple above red, and how many of those have blonde
hair, and are male between the ages of 25-35, and how many live in Canada
(and I'd be part of that group :) ), but why do I like purple? I just do.
You answered my very problem by saying 'even a gut isn't going to explain
everything about the universe'. Thank you. That's all I wanted. Science
is not King. It may be a great thing but it doesn't encompass all of
humanity. That's all.
> > Does schooling make you intelligent.
>
> Maybe. But it seems off-topic for this thread. Why?
'Cause somewhere in this thread someone asked if I took a science course
above junior high. My point to that was 'does schooling give you a free
pass for intelligence?'
>
>
> > Does having a whole whack of letters
> > after your name automatically imbue you with the right to debate, to speak
> > your opinion?
>
> Nope, everyone has that.
>
> > If I mentioned that I went to both college and university (college for
> > computer systems tech, university for english major, poli sci and religion
> > minor) would what I wrote mean more to you than if I left high school after
> > grade 12 and have been pumping gas for the last 20 years?
>
> Not in the way that you mean. But it is useful to know where a discussant is
> coming from.
It is useful to a point, but if someone's a ditchdigger his or her opinion
is just as valid as the triple PHD. Sure it won't be as well informed into
the intracacies of whatever the triple PHD studied, but I'm not writing the
ditch diggers opinion off just because they're a ditch digger.
> > And we're back to a point I was admonished on a while back--science explains
> > what is observable--it's part of the scientific method. We build better and
> > better systems for observing and measuring, and I want to continue to do so.
> > My issue comes with that 'wall' which says *nothing* has existed, nothing
> > exists today, and nothing will exist that cannot be explained by science.
>
> I won't say that, and I never have. What I would say instead is, "*nothing*
> has existed, nothing exists today, and nothing will exist that cannot be
> explored by science."
And this I would say firstly contradicts the 'gut' idea above, and it goes
against against the explanations I have mentioned time and time again--that
saying that science can encompass *everything* is making science into a god.
If I want a god--already have one thanks. Beyond my little pat answer,
scientists (at least the ones I know), when we have these types of devates,
all tell me that science cannot answer *everything*. The scientific method,
by it's very nature, cannot tell me why I prefer purple over red, why some
like Mozard and some like M&M. You can get into sociology to help
understand some reasons, but try to take scientific principles and say,
'this is why you like this art over that one.'
Art, Music, the appreciation for the comfort of candles and hearths, why
people find curves attractive as opposed to angles (and for some, vice
versa), all the stuff that makes us *human*, our humanity isn't reduced to a
column of facts and figures, We ourselves cannot be reduced to a bunch of
water and chemicals--we're bigger than that.
Again, I am more than willing to say perhaps there is no god, for I struggle
with that question all the time--just reading the paper--How could my God
let this happen? Then I remember free will and such, so *we* do this to
ourselves and we, like the 5 year old blaming the dog, look to someone else
to hold responsible, when we just have to look in a mirror.
>
> > No, I think you read it right--the very first scientific experiment that I
> > remember doing is 'Observer this candle and document what you see' We
> > discussed the melting of wax, the flame flickering in the breeze, the
> > shadows on the wall, all observable phenomenon. What science cannot discuss
> > is why you will find a prevalence of scented candles in the dorm rooms of
> > 19-22 year old women, or why most of us feel comforted or amorous when
> > there's a few candles about.
>
> But clearly, it can! I'm not a physicist. I'm a social scientist (well, by
> training, anyway). And I feel strongly that you can apply the scientific
> method to preferential choice making as well as any other human phenomena that
> you can describe. What makes you think that the effects of candles on our
> psychology, or the preferences of humans is outside the domain of science?
I think that certain aspects of humanity can be explained by the scientific
method, if given enuf time science will hopefully answer a whole bunch more
stuff, but science is finite, as is *every* human based institution, and as
such, cannot be used to figure out the infinite. As well, science deals
with the physical universe, which, as sociology and psychology will attest,
isn't just about physics, chemistry and biology, but does have a human
element in it. I have no problem understanding that. But reducing me to
fit into the finite sciences is by its very nature, reductionistic. You
take the chemical elements and you analyse those, you take the physics of
bones and muscles and you analyse those, yo take the cells and you analyze
those, you take Dave in society and you analyse that, and you add all those
components, build them somewhere else and you don't have *me*. It may be a
very handsome and sophisticated doppelganger, but hey, it isn't me.
> > And with proof, there is no need of faith. If a god is provable, therefore
> > reducing to what we know and/or understand, he wouldn't be worth following.
>
> First, why not? Second, just because something is demonstrated to exist,
> doesn't mean you fully grasp it.
Why would He? A god that is smaller than the infinite is nothing--
god/infinity = 0.
I don't fully understand many many ideas, not even in my chosen field of
computer *science*. I like to think I'm pretty swift at times, though and
what I come across in my life in journals, textbooks, and such I say, 'well,
isn't that a neat concept', or 'wouldn't it be good if i could factor this
into my life' As such, my mind is always open to possibilities and concepts
that may be so far above my complete understanding, but nevertheless, I can
grasp the concept. I don't have to know everything there is to know about
brain surgery to beleive that it can work. I don't have to know all
concepts of nuclear physics to know how a nuclear reactor works. I don't
even have to know all the in's and out's of my God to know that He's there.
It doesn't have to happen.
I don't have to know how LEGO bricks are made to use them. The fact that I
do know how LEGO bricks are made (most of it anyway) is just 'cause I'm
interested in the entire process.
Here's the next thought:
I don't have to know the ramifications of breaking the law if I obey the
law. I really don't. If I never break a law, why do I care what the
possible consequenses are if a law gets broken--I'm not going to break it.
>
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > K, in scientific pursuit, one of the first things to go is literature, and
> > the concepts therein--like allusions, metaphors, and concepts framed in a
> > way that we may understand them better instead of a straight scientific
> > explanation--'It's like...' is a foreign concept, so it seems...
>
> So, how should I respond when you make an assertion that is plainly false or
> meaningless? I'm not interested in trying to second guess what you might mean
> based on the cutesy references you use. Why don't you just say what you mean?
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Literally that line makes
no sense at all--how do you measure an ounce of 'prevention'? Can I go to
the store and order a 'pound of cure'? My allusion above was grossly
simplistic and the nitpickers can and will find holes with it. That's not
the intent, nor is it my problem. Someone mentioned that metaphor years ago
and it kinda stuck. Is like a bird, who knows it can fly 'cause it
obviously does, but does it know how it flies? Does it know about air
pressure and such? Prob'ly not--it's a bird. The allusin was to put
ourselves, with our rationalistic logical minds in the place of the bird or
the fish and say, 'I don't see this air or water to which you speak,
therefore it cannot exist'. That's the extent of the metaphor.
I believe that God is *everywhere* because He is God. Does that negate the
pursuit of scientific exploration? Nope. Does that negate free will?
Nope. Does that stop you from not believing in Him? Nyaah. Again, I say,
it's not really relevant to my life what you believe. Id God is irrelevant
to you, your choice. God, however, is not irrelevant to me. So there you are.
> > > > 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?
> >
> >
> > Again, allusion. The actual issue gets sidetracked and lost due to the
> > allusionary concept being either ignored or too far above to understand.
>
> WRONG! The issue isn't being ignored or missed by the dolt with whom you are
> conversing. The issue simply doesn't make sense. You're asserting that an
> analogy exists to a thing in order to make it easier to understand. But you
> are requiring that we belive patently false things in order for it to work.
> Don't you see that this means your analogy is shot in the head? It's dumb to
> compare to the fish that can't sense water when the fish _can_ sense water. In
> fact, if you think the analogy holds, it _means_ that the thing to which you
> are comparing the fish-water relationship is also wrong.
>
> > No, natural explainable phenomenon are based in the tenants of the
> > scientific framework which have, as their funamental base tenants concepts
> > of chaos and the loss of energy, two completely contrary points to order and
> > intelligence. If you want a house, you build it. If you want chaos, dump a
> > whole bunch of stuff in the middle of a field and say, 'there you go'.
>
> We've been over this. It's just not so. Chaos and Entropy do not invalidate
> the natural and spontaneous origin of life. If you don't trust me, do the
> reading.
I did the reading, as far as my interest went with it anyway, and I have
mentioned time and time again that I know about jetsams and floatsms in the
universe after the big bang that lead to eddies and the formation of stars,
planets and such. It's a concept and I have no problem with even saying
that it's more than a concept--it's what more than likely happened. I have
no problem with chaos mathematics, fractals or the mandelbrot set. I have
no problem with patterns in nature on many many scales that are remarkably
similar. You say spontaneous order, and know it fits right along side chaos
and entropy. I will again, concur, that scientific principles show this to
be true. I have no problem with order out of chaos--patterns in the sand,
the Buckey ball, whatever. It's the intelligent order that I have the issue
with. Intelligent order takes just that--intelligence. Dumping all the
parts of a house in a field and hopeing that one of the times it's gonna
form the house in the plans is *not* even scientifically possible.
>
> > No, what I say doesn't make it so, nor what you say makes it so. But I will
> > reiterate some points:
> >
> > The universe is finite.
>
> Show me.
I did.
> > We are finite creatures.
>
> What does that mean?
Just that--we are finite according to any scientific study. Our lives have
a beginning and and to them = finite. Since Humankind, according to
science, started *sometime* ago, there's a mark in the scale of where we
started, therefore we're finite in the scheme of the universe. How many
more ways do you want me to show that we're finite?
> > Our brains are finite.
>
> See above.
See way above.
>
> > We can understand and test finite concepts of the universe.
>
> Agreed. Usually.
>
> > Sooner or later, in our continual quest to understand the finite universe
> > with our finite minds, we will come to the point where there is nothing left
> > to understand, for we know it all. Logic dictates this is so, not me.
>
> If your premises are all true, then I think I think you're right.
>
> > Then what?
>
> Then we play!
Oohh, play LEGO? I'm in!
>
> > Really really really I understand that science does not 'prove' anything.
>
> Then what am I to take from the constant insistance to the contrary? Are you
> being sloppy or disingenuous when you keep making those claims.
I like to be inconsistant--well, no, not really. Slopp would be a word I'd
use. And for that, I apologize. Some scientists set out to 'prove'. I
like more of the concepts of the theory of gravity, the theory of light, the
theory of evolution--makes them more adaptable. I know that science is an
ongoing process of understanding, I know that we're no wehre near coming
close to understanding via science all that science can tell us, and I
emplore the scientist to keep it up--keep on pushing our bounds of knowledge
today. Modify the theories, think outside the box, and if you need my help,
gimme a shout. But what science can tell us will never encompass the
infinite (read way above).
>
> > But open your mind to the idea that not everything can be found
> > out thru science.
>
> I'm listening. Please provide examples.
Read above.
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Allusion. Get over it.
>
> So you don't actually mean what you said? If not, then what did you mean? Is
> God like an author who wrote a book and we are the characters, or not?
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > No, again you're not quite grasping the point. You can't see but I just
> > raised my hand spontaneously--My free will to do so. Just 'cause God knew I
> > was going to do that did not negate my free will for doing so. He does not
> > determine what we are going to do, He just knows.
>
> How can you say that? If he knew ahead of time that it was going to happen,
> then you had no choice -- It simple _had_ to happen. That's not free will.
> I'm grasping this concept just fine. You're the one presenting a paradox as if
> it were perfectly logical.
And this is reducing God to something that we can logically and rationally
understand. If I could explain Him and infinity, my goodness, I'd be the
most intelligent person on the planet. *I* made my arm move. *I* have free
will. *I* can do as I please. Call it a paradox if you wish, but we can't
understand the infinite and we can't understand God. He was before time, He
will be after time. He is 'I am'. That's how I know Him anyway.
> > And you could _see_ God as I have come to see Him
>
> If what? Why don't I?
Dunno, maybe there was some sort of traumatic experience in your childhood,
maybe your parents were abusive folk who never introduced you to Him, maybe
there's a big wall of deniability (in response to a ++Lar post much much
earlier)
Or maybe you just don't. He didn't come to me and tap me on the shoulder
and say 'Hi, pleased to meet you--I'm God.' Is just in my dealings with the
world and my relation in it, that I cannot comprehend how all of this, and
the stuff we don't even know about yet, could possibly have arisen from
*nothing*. Big bang is great to start the universe and the chaos that
followed, and the natural laws that we understand today, but to say that's
everything? that that's the entire ball game? That's just reducing us to,
well, animals. Some would say that's a good thing for that's just what we
are--animals that react to various stimulus in various ways, like mindless
automatons. Oh wait, that's what all those Christians are who follow the
ways of the Lord.
>
> > Well, if we have free will that He gave us, it would be an apparent
> > contradiction for God to force an unwanted 'rightness' on us when it's
> > obvious we don't want it.
>
> I want it, even if you don't. Why do I have to be dragged down by you?
I pray for it. I pray for understanding and compassion. I hope no one on
this planet is 'dragged down' by me. I want rightness and I strive to do
whats right and Just. For me, those concepts come from God but whether they
do or don't, the important bit is just to do what's right and just.
That's how I live my life.
> > I'm leaning towards 'It's part of the bed we made and now we must sleep in
> > it' POV.
>
> Who's this "we?"
'We' is everyone. 'We make our own beds...' is another metaphor. The lives
we live are ours to do with. If someone wants to be bitter because of a
slight in the past, and hold that resentment til the day he or she dies, is
his or her perrrogative.
Or we can just try to understand that life happens, and it goes on. You
make due with what you have, as my very wise uncle would have said. My
point here was that we live in a fallen world. You don't have to beleive in
God to know that sh*t happens. It's what a person does with his or her life
which is the significant part.
> > > > Where does the concept of Justice and
> > > > Responsibility and right and wrong come from?
>
> > These concepts fall outside the purview of scientific explanation, and yet
> > we have them, and justice is not a sham just because we have some poorly
> > instituted and implemented legal systems. I know there's Justice for I see
> > injustices done and I wish to right the wrongs.
>
> How and why do these fall outside scientific inquiry? I could design
> experiments about morality.
You could design experiments about a whole bunch of stuff. I have no
problem with that notion. Morals are subjective, as Larry and I are
bantering about right now. However, I do hold that there are moral
absolutes. These absolutes are justified, not only by God but by scientific
experimentation. For example, I say it's a moral absolute that you cannot
take a hammer and whack the head of your kid. It's wrong--the court jester
knows that the same as the PHD. Some say morals stem from keeping society
safe from itself. I appreciate that theory. Morals evolve as society
evolves. Is like a pendulum swinging--there's the 'dark ages' in which
things were possibly a little too conservative, then the reinassance, and
the pendulum swings to the other side, or more recently conservative start
to the 20th century, including thru the wars, then the roaring 20's, then
the '30's and '40's and even into the '50's where conservatism ruled, then
'60's and '70's with free love, then 80's, '90's where the scaring of STD's
and the religious right on their high horse were bringing back conservative
values, and now into 2000's and the pendulum is swinging back. History is a
cycle, and it repeats itself over and over and over again.
All of that can probably be explained by sociology.
That's great. But that's not *all* there is. And if I knew what else there
was, I'd be happy to tell you. K, how 'bout let's design a experiment to
either prove or disprove the theory of an infinite God.
It's like the athiests are walking around, thinking that the thiests are
'dellusional'.
> > And doctors supposedly have performed just such surgeries and have removed
> > the 'human' element--now isn't that interesting... a little hunk of meat
> > that contains all that there is to be human. Well, there's a thought. As a
> > science appreciator I would lump this into the same category as the
> > Enquirer, 'My dog gave birth to human triplets!!'.
>
> Wait, so you're disbelieving serious learning based on...what?
Again, I said way above about removing parts of the brain and the results
thereof. Further to that particular point, if someone can remove a physical
part of the brain which takes away the sense of right and wrong, the sense
of *humanity*--it would be across all the newspapers! I mean that would
almost *prove* that we have no soul, and as such, what gives with that God
guy telling us we have a spirit elememt?
>
> > Inherently, across cultures and civilizations, we know
> > when we smile, it's understood across the board,
>
> Is that so? I remember reading something about smiling being an agressive
> action, but I can't remember if it was fiction.
I remember reading that the Germans, again during that pretty dark age of
their history, tried to prove that the German language is inherently in
everybody, so they segregated a few kids in a study area and the kids had no
contact with any written or spoken language, to see if they would develop
the written and spoken German. I don't know if that was fact or fiction,
but it makes an interesting theory.
>
> > and we all know that guilty feeling when we do wrong.
>
> How do you know we all feel that?
Some folks would feel guilty doing different things, I don't contest that.
And the level of guilt and remorese felt is more than likely different for
different folk. Guild is, however, not a Christian concept, it's a human
concept, and, as such, some science has delved into guilt and remorse aspect
of being *human*.
>
> Chris
Wow, I wrote waaay too much.
Dave K.
*1
An e-mail I received a while back went something like this (and if anyone
finds it, post it 'cause it's really good)
A final exam question for whatever class--is Hell exothermic or Endothermic.
The professor read many answers to this question, but the one he liked best
went something like this:
Hell, exo or endo-thermic.
First we have to figure out who's going to hell. If every religion says
only they're going to heaven and all the rest are going to hell, everyone
then is going to hell.
The population is expanding, so there are alot more people dieing, so hell
is increasing exponentially with the number of people entering...
If the volume of hell is constant, and the mass of hell is exponentially
increasing, energy will increase until all hell breaks loose (exothermic)
If the volume of hell is expanding greater than the mass entering hell can
fill up, then it'll expand until hell freezes over (endothermic)
If we take the postulate put before me by Miss Swanson my first year here
that 'it'll be a cold day in hell' before we have sexual relations,
and since, as of this time we have not had said relations...
We can therefore deduce that hell is exothermic.
---
The original e-mail was so much better than my vague recollection, but I
thought it was pretty good.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Dave--you do indeed make this point time and time again, but you haven't yet backed it up in any comprehensible fashion. Can you explain something that we can verify as part of the universe that can't in principal be explained by (or as Chris (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) But actually, there are any number of mathematical infinities and they aren't all equally infinite. The number of real numbers between zero and one is infinite, and yet it is half that between negative one and one. An infinity can be operated (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| This is too long so I'm snipping at will. I have taken great pains to make sure nothing is responded too out of context. (...) What when? Accepting for the moment, that the universe is actually finite, so what? So if we manage to hang on until we (...) (22 years ago, 16-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
|
|
|
|
