[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by dina12)
Sorry Islam is not the religion you thinking of and read what you saying. You do not know anything about my religion, so why comment such thing "Your religion is incredibly disrespectful towards other religions and beliefs." i do respect others religion so do Muslim people!!! i do repect atheists so get it right in your head!!!

Islam teaches that the Bible is corrupted and lying when it says Jesus is the Son of God. That is not respectful (though people have every right to hold these views)

Islam teaches that Hindus who worship many Gods are doing an awful and terrible thing. That is not respectful (though people have every right to hold these views)

Islam teaches that unbelievers are such bad and evil people, that they deserve to be burnt and tortured for ever and ever in hell after they die. That is not respectful (though people have every right to hold these views)

So I think you don't know anything about your religion. I am pretty certain that I know more about your religion than you know about it.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
Not true, discredited by both classical and modern physics - Newton's third law tells us that all macroscopic actions are mutual - as much as gravity binds you to the Earth it binds the Earth equally to you. As much as things are directed they are themselves directing that which directs them. It is all self-contained, there is no external director of any closed system, nor can any entity that is solely acting upon other entities without being acted upon exist.

Further, Quantum mechanics tells us that things evolve non-deterministically and more importantly do so between observations. Changes occur without direction all the time.

Surely such would prove that these events could transcend the laws of physics that we find ourselves constrained to - although can matter come to be without any cause?

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
Why the need for an external entity to put matter into motion? Why does it need to be put into motion? Why can it not just come into being of its own accord, without any cause?
In fact scientific research tells us that this is the case - matter can spontaneously come into being from the vacuum, from nothing. This has been observed to happen.


that which can be tested and shown to be true.

...which would fit in nicely with some of the arguments that the creationists make. There are atheists who mock the concept of things coming into being without a cause, but if some kind of empirical data can prove that to be a reality as oppose to deception, or a bit of presupposed magic, then I can't argue with that...

There are limits placed on the possible laws of physics by the mathematics that must underpin them and by necessary definitions.

most importantly, any entity existing in the universe must obey the same laws of physics.
and entity not existing in the universe cannot interact with any entity in the universe in any possible way. To each's perspective the other does not exist.


Then God, as you have described him, does not exist. The universe is non-deterministic and non-causal (Determined by experiments on Bell's inequalities and the fundamentals of quantum physics) which would be required for such a God.

We are not able to sense Jesus or angels, there is no evidence that the latter exist and no evidence that the former was anything more than a Jewish preacher at the time of the Roman Empire, who is now dead.

Descartes' has been quite thoroughly debunked, also there are no souls, if there were it would be possible to determine their existence and presence somehow, to determine the point at which a soul leaves a dying person's body. This is not possible.

Descartes' didn't know anything of modern neuroscience, so his misunderstandings are explainable. However he's quite wrong - thoughts are as much a part of the physical form as the rest of it. There is no dualism. (Again such a dualism would be measurable)

The only way a deity existing external to this entity/universe having any input would be through that of a receptive human agent, who must have their cognition attributed to that of the soul - which is a thing that transcends the constraints and contingencies of this reality - as described by Descartes (this isn't the only reality that exists, as the electrical nature of the axons and dendrites and also that of the theory of electrical modulation and demodulation proves that to be the possible case, can one speculate otherwise?). Whether or not one would like to accept that is up to the individual, but artificial intelligence (I dual function as a computer programmer/video game developer) and neuroscience has so far failed to provide a sufficient explanation as to what produces intellect within the brain...

You've misunderstood both evolution and what it is to be a species. There is no definable "first chicken".

Evolution is a continuous process, but a species is defined by the ability of members to produce fertile offspring. If you were to find the first creature which could produce fertile offspring with a chicken, while its parents couldn't, it would be a chicken and its parents not. But then it could produce fertile offspring with its parents, so they too would be chickens, but as we have already determined they are not chickens.

This paradox only solves if you change the definition of a species to refer only to creatures of the same time period, the same few generations, which is what is done.

So there is no first chicken.

By that logic the earth must have been here for an infinite length of time (as the amount of any species that has existed before those which concurrently exist now within this earth is proportional, and subtly determined, by that of the length of the earth's existence...)

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Surely such would prove that these events could transcend the laws of physics that we find ourselves constrained to - although can matter come to be without any cause?

No, it just shows that you don't understand what the laws of physics actually are. They can be quite counter-intuitive when looking at a scale dissimilar to our day-to-day experience.

Yes, matter can come into existence without any cause. Demonstrated by "Vacuum pressure"

...which would fit in nicely with some of the arguments that the creationists make. There are atheists who mock the concept of things coming into being without a cause, but if some kind of empirical data can prove that to be a reality as oppose to deception, or a bit of presupposed magic, then I can't argue with that...

You've completely mixed up your sides of the theism/atheism debate here! Theists ALWAYS argue that everything MUST have a cause, because that (the cosmological argument) is one of their main justifications for the existence of God - "Everything must have a cause, and that cause is God"

Atheists on the other hand are quite happy to accept that things can exist without an inherent cause.

The only way a deity existing external to this entity/universe having any input would be through that of a receptive human agent, who must have their cognition attributed to that of the soul - which is a thing that transcends the constraints and contingencies of this reality - as described by Descartes (this isn't the only reality that exists, as the electrical nature of the axons and dendrites and also that of the theory of electrical modulation and demodulation proves that to be the possible case, can one speculate otherwise?). Whether or not one would like to accept that is up to the individual, but artificial intelligence (I dual function as a computer programmer/video game developer) and neuroscience has so far failed to provide a sufficient explanation as to what produces intellect within the brain...

A receptive human agent is itself ruled out by a deity existing outside the universe - the deity and human agent cannot, ever, interact in any possible way.

As I said, to the human agent the deity outside the universe effectively does not exist. Their existence or non-existence has no consequences. It cannot.

If there are such things as souls (And science shows there are not), they too exist entirely within the universe and cannot interact with a deity outside it.




You really love quoting Descartes don't you? He's...wrong. Unsurprising that someone who died in 1650 would be a bit behind modern science.

Neuroscience provides a perfectly sufficient explanation, you just don't like it.

The first thing you've done here is to misunderstand what the universe is.

By that logic the earth must have been here for an infinite length of time (as the amount of any species that has existed before those which concurrently exist now within this earth is proportional, and subtly determined, by that of the length of the earth's existence...)

No this is just wrong. Did you not just get the explanation that it is not appropriate to define a species temporally? My argument is completely consistent with a finite-time earth, I'm just saying it's wrong to talk about a "first chicken" because evolution is continuous and non-discrete.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
No, it just shows that you don't understand what the laws of physics actually are. They can be quite counter-intuitive when looking at a scale dissimilar to our day-to-day experience.

Yes, matter can come into existence without any cause. Demonstrated by "Vacuum pressure"



You've completely mixed up your sides of the theism/atheism debate here! Theists ALWAYS argue that everything MUST have a cause, because that (the cosmological argument) is one of their main justifications for the existence of God - "Everything must have a cause, and that cause is God"

Atheists on the other hand are quite happy to accept that things can exist without an inherent cause.

Didn't Adam come to be without an inherent cause?

A receptive human agent is itself ruled out by a deity existing outside the universe - the deity and human agent cannot, ever, interact in any possible way.

As I said, to the human agent the deity outside the universe effectively does not exist. Their existence or non-existence has no consequences. It cannot.

If there are such things as souls (And science shows there are not), they too exist entirely within the universe and cannot interact with a deity outside it.




You really love quoting Descartes don't you? He's...wrong. Unsurprising that someone who died in 1650 would be a bit behind modern science.

Neuroscience provides a perfectly sufficient explanation, you just don't like it.

The first thing you've done here is to misunderstand what the universe is.

Yes, I do happen to like quoting Descartes (behind Aquinas he is probably one of my all-time favorite philosophers) and that is because I'm not satisfied with what I've read so far that claims to contradict his propositions...

No this is just wrong. Did you not just get the explanation that it is not appropriate to define a species temporally? My argument is completely consistent with a finite-time earth, I'm just saying it's wrong to talk about a "first chicken" because evolution is continuous and non-discrete.

[/QUOTE]
I did, yes - but the fate of a species will always be causally determined by factors outwith the creature's control...

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Didn't Adam come to be without an inherent cause?

No, God gathered a pile of dust together into his image and breathed life into it.

Yes, I do happen to like quoting Descartes (behind Aquinas he is probably one of my all-time favorite philosophers) and that is because I'm not satisfied with what I've read so far that claims to contradict his propositions...

Sorry to break this to you but his propositions are misplaced. Again, understandably for a philosopher who knew nothing of modern science.

However, where any philosopher make propositions which can be tested and found to be true or false, and they are found to be false, they should be discarded. Building a philosophy on that which is found to be wrong is in itself logical fallacy.

If you're not satisfied, I suggest you go read some scientific literature, or search through his propositions for predictions which could be tested or consequences which could be observed and see if you can find concrete evidence for their truth. I assure you that you will find nothing that points to the existence of souls within the tones of scientific literature, and not for lack of people trying to find evidence - searching for proof or disproof of the supernatural is one of the largest topics of scientific study.

I did, yes - but the fate of a species will always be causally determined by factors outwith the creature's control...

This isn't relevant to how the indefinability of a first chicken relates to the age of the Earth.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
No, God gathered a pile of dust together into his image and breathed life into it.



Sorry to break this to you but his propositions are misplaced. Again, understandably for a philosopher who knew nothing of modern science.

However, where any philosopher make propositions which can be tested and found to be true or false, and they are found to be false, they should be discarded. Building a philosophy on that which is found to be wrong is in itself logical fallacy.

If you're not satisfied, I suggest you go read some scientific literature, or search through his propositions for predictions which could be tested or consequences which could be observed and see if you can find concrete evidence for their truth. I assure you that you will find nothing that points to the existence of souls within the tones of scientific literature, and not for lack of people trying to find evidence - searching for proof or disproof of the supernatural is one of the largest topics of scientific study.



This isn't relevant to how the indefinability of a first chicken relates to the age of the Earth.

You know what, the very theory you are dismissing is far more likely than that of any atheist's point on what the origins of matter is:
1) nothing produces nothing
2) if time were for infinite then there would be an irreversible decay of matter occurring at one point or another, perhaps by now, thus leading to a cold and lifeless equilibrium
3) if you accept the big bang, but not a deity, then you accept that the big bang was caused by nature thus nature always being within this entity thus bringing me back to the point about the irreversible decay
4) by logic, everything must have an antecedent cause thus prompting the creation of the Bayes' theorem (who was also a Presbyterian minister)

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
You know what, the very theory you are dismissing is far more likely than that of any atheist's point on what the origins of matter is:
1) nothing produces nothing
2) if time were for infinite then there would be an irreversible decay of matter occurring at one point or another, perhaps by now, thus leading to a cold and lifeless equilibrium
3) if you accept the big bang, but not a deity, then you accept that the big bang was caused by nature thus nature always being within this entity thus bringing me back to the point about the irreversible decay
4) by logic, everything must have an antecedent cause thus prompting the creation of the Bayes' theorem (who was also a Presbyterian minister)

What atheists believe is far more likely because we have evidence for it, solid proof that it did happen, whereas we have concrete proof that most of what theists believe in did not happen.

Sorry, what do you mean by point 2) an what the hell is your evidence for it?

There is no valid logic which concludes everything must have an antecedent cause, it can only be an axiom. (it is also a false one - things happen without cause all the time, probability tells is this is not only possible but far more likely than everything having a cause)

You've misunderstood the big bang - there is an event horizon before which we know nothing of (and more importantly cannot know anything of) - we don't know if the universe started then or before and collapsed then rebounded.

But even more importantly it doesn't matter what happened before the event horizon - nothing beyond there can affect the present universe because no information can pass through the event horizon.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
What atheists believe is far more likely because we have evidence for it, solid proof that it did happen, whereas we have concrete proof that most of what theists believe in did not happen.

Sorry, what do you mean by point 2) an what the hell is your evidence for it?

There is no valid logic which concludes everything must have an antecedent cause, it can only be an axiom. (it is also a false one - things happen without cause all the time, probability tells is this is not only possible but far more likely than everything having a cause)

You've misunderstood the big bang - there is an event horizon before which we know nothing of (and more importantly cannot know anything of) - we don't know if the universe started then or before and collapsed then rebounded.

But even more importantly it doesn't matter what happened before the event horizon - nothing beyond there can affect the present universe because no information can pass through the event horizon.

Evidence for point 2? Surely it is possible that there is an infinite decay occurring within the universe, that being nothing lasts forever in its present state (only at the most refined part, which would be a singular atom) that will result in the atoms coming to a complete standstill hence no more "life" or "material" as we know it...
...plus, why is it the natural human drive to stay alive, care for others (subject to moral ratification) and reproduce? What will we have achieved by keeping the human race alive and thriving? According to my interpretation of Christian doctrine, we are here as agents to give way to potential agents in order to couple the immaterial mind to the material matter - that being far greater than anything perceivable by humans (i.e. if a blind man was blind from birth, he wouldn't know what sight was and vision would be beyond his mental comprehension)...
Without a deity, the universe must have been around for infinite and the irreversible decay of matter and the existence of hydrogen surely serves as a testament to a universe that has been for finite time...
Events just don't occur without a cause though, the random possibility of an infinite regress of events forming matter, along with the formation of earth and life, along with humans and their consciousness and the drive to subconsciously keep the DNA "going for as long as possible" seems rather peculiar.

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
Evidence for point 2? Surely it is possible that there is an infinite decay occurring within the universe, that being nothing lasts forever in its present state (only at the most refined part, which would be a singular atom) that will result in the atoms coming to a complete standstill hence no more "life" or "material" as we know it...

So, this is wrong then. There is no natural decay, and some things DO last forever in their present state. Graphite for example never decays.

There will always be "material" (There will not always be "life" because the universe will eventually get too cold and entropic for life)

...plus, why is it the natural human drive to stay alive, care for others (subject to moral ratification) and reproduce? What will we have achieved by keeping the human race alive and thriving? According to my interpretation of Christian doctrine, we are here as agents to give way to potential agents in order to couple the immaterial mind to the material matter - that being far greater than anything perceivable by humans (i.e. if a blind man was blind from birth, he wouldn't know what sight was and vision would be beyond his mental comprehension)...

All of this is explained through Darwinian natural selection. If you were to consider an initial sample of replicating entities, some with a survival/self-preservation/reproductive instinct and some without, simply chosen by pure random chance, and placed in a hostile environment, the survivors to successive generations will be those with the instincts that led to them seeking survival. Empathy and other more advanced psychological traits evolved later once species formed as they enabled reciprocity and the forming of societies, which turned out to be advantageous to survival.

We don't have a "purpose", we just are.

Also, remember that animals show all these things too, including morality.

Also, the mind is material too. Sorry if that disagrees with your Christian teachings, but that's how it is.

Without a deity, the universe must have been around for infinite and the irreversible decay of matter and the existence of hydrogen surely serves as a testament to a universe that has been for finite time...

Yes, the universe existed for a finite time, but your reasoning is completely wrong - there is no decay of matter, we know the universe existed for a finite time because we see evidence of its formation in the Big Bang, and the pattern of its expansion. The light from the first few nanoseconds of the universe's existence is still present and visible today in the Cosmic Microwave Background, a completely uniform, isotropic background level of microwave light with no discernible source that exactly matches what the big-bang theory predicts.

Events just don't occur without a cause though, the random possibility of an infinite regress of events forming matter, along with the formation of earth and life, along with humans and their consciousness and the drive to subconsciously keep the DNA "going for as long as possible" seems rather peculiar.

Events DO occur without a cause.

Events are CONSTANTLY occurring without a cause. The MAJORITY of all events occur without a cause. If you follow quantum theory you'd find that EVERY event occurs without a cause, what we call a "cause" just makes that event far more likely than its alternatives, but those alternatives can still happen and the event can still happen without the cause.


This all only seems peculiar because you've been taught that it should be so, that in your limited experience of the world (on scales of 1mm to 1km only, time periods of 1 second to a few decades) and because of what your Christian doctrine orders you to believe, you have not directly experienced these things.

But these things are true, and that you are a stranger to these experiences does not make them any less true. Many things with which you are completely comfortable now would seem peculiar, even incomprehensible to humans in the past and even more so to humans in the future.

That you don't understand them does not detract from their truth. They are the foundation of those things you do understand, they are certainly true, if they were not then the world as you know it could not exist.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
...plus, why is it the natural human drive to stay alive, care for others (subject to moral ratification) and reproduce? What will we have achieved by keeping the human race alive and thriving?

The natural thing to do is to strive to stay alive personally and to help those close to you to do so. This isn't trying to keep the human race alive - it is personal survival - though it might have the long term effect of preserving humanity. It has nothing whatever to do with morality or gods, and we achieve nothing by it in a philosophical sense.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by bordercollies10)
...plus, why is it the natural human drive to stay alive, care for others (subject to moral ratification) and reproduce? What will we have achieved by keeping the human race alive and thriving?

Evolution.

humans and their consciousness and the drive to subconsciously keep the DNA "going for as long as possible" seems rather peculiar.

Evolution.

Kinda simpler than an all-knowing deity, right?

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Evolution.



Evolution.

Kinda simpler than an all-knowing deity, right?

Not really - no,
If the reality that is around us is all that there is, then life as we know it must be a meaningless accident and morality cannot be understood as anything meaningful - I know that doesn't directly prove the existence of God to be true, but it does pose the question of "why aren't we automata?"