LOGIC

[KC]

Why is it so hard for people to understand that one can't be both a marxist and religious? To be marxist one must base all thought on logic. Therefore, if you are religious and can't justify your religion with logic, then you are not a marxist. Is this so hard to understand?

[apathy maybe]

Who would want to be a Marxist anyway?

Sure it may not be possible to be a Marxist and follow the teachings of a [illogical] religion (even a made up one, or a mix of existing ones), but not every communist is a Marxist.

That said I am sure that there are many people who would claim that their religion is logical, though you would say that it isn't.

(Edit: I just fixed something that I always complain about. There, their and they're are different words. They mean different things. I guess we all make mistakes sometimes.)

[KC]

That said I am sure that there are many people who would claim that there religion is logical, though you would say that it isn't.

They would have to prove this, of course. If they could prove it i would be convinced.

[anomaly]

How is the belief in God illogical? Please explain, since I assume, Lazar, that you are an atheist.

[KC]

How is it logical?

[anomaly]

How can you explain the existence of matter without the existence of a supernatural being? The belief that matter simply 'appears' in a vaccuum is entirely illogical. The belief that matter has simply 'always been here' is equally illogical. There comes a point when we see that origins sciences cannot explain the 'beginning' of things. At this point, we make a choice: either the beginning was caused by something science cannot explain, or we have faith that science will 'one day' explain the 'truth'.

[KC]

Logic can't be used to explain the existence of god. So saying that the beginning was created by god is illogical.

on edit:


The belief that matter has simply 'always been here' is equally illogical.

Why is that illogical? Time has no beginning. If matter can't be created or destroyed, and if time has no beginning or end, why can't matter have no beginning or end?

[anomaly]

Boy, that's a great argument! Didn't I just ask you to explain how the existence of God is illogical? And now we're back where we started from. Tell me though, do you reject any 'answer' to the creation of matter and thus the universe, or do you adhere to the myth that 'science will explain it'. If one wants to find a logical explanation of how matter itself was created, one cannot turn to science. The only logical argument is that a supernatural being created it. If you believe this not to be true, please show me another 'logical' answer.

[KC]

Boy, that's a great argument! Didn't I just ask you to explain how the existence of God is illogical? And now we're back where we started from.


Tell me though, do you reject any 'answer' to the creation of matter and thus the universe, or do you adhere to the myth that 'science will explain it'.

Matter has never been created. It has always existed. And the beginning of the universe is different than the beginning of matter. The universe actually had a beginning.



If one wants to find a logical explanation of how matter itself was created, one cannot turn to science.

One cannot turn anywhere. It has always existed.

[anomaly]

And what 'proof' have you to confirm this obvious faith of yours? It seems to me that anything must be created, nothing has simply 'always existed'. This impermeable nature you describe is simply found nowhere in nature. We have theories of how this universe was created, possibly by the collision of two universes. And how did those universes get created? If ours was created, is it not logical that those others were created as well? Soon we arrive at a point where 'collisions' do us no good, because at one point there had to be only on universe, unless you have some great theories on other ways universes can come into existence. With 'universes' comes matter itself. It is inevitable that we find a need to explain this existence, this creation.

[KC]

And what 'proof' have you to confirm this obvious faith of yours? It seems to me that anything must be created, nothing has simply 'always existed'.

Time is considered a dimension by many, which I somewhat agree with. Dimensions cannot have a beginning; they have always existed. And you say that everything must be created? Have you heard about the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy? Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So if time goes on infinitely, matter must also exist infinitely. This isn't in any contradiction to dialectics, as everything must have a beginning and end; but when we speak of matter, we speak of EVERYTHING. Which basically means that when one thing ends another begins. Therefore matter is never created nor destroyed.


This impermeable nature you describe is simply found nowhere in nature.

That's because matter is EVERYTHING. When something is destroyed, something else is created. Everything that makes matter keeps it balanced. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed!


We have theories of how this universe was created, possibly by the collision of two universes.

Two branes.


And how did those universes get created? If ours was created, it is not logical that those others were created as well?

It's completely logical.


Soon we arrive at a point where 'collisions' do us no good, because at one point there had to be only on universe, unless you have some great theories on other ways universes can come into existence.

You made the mistake of thinking that branes are universes. And even if it was universes colliding that created other universes, why would we eventually end up with one universe? Wouldn't we end up with two? Because you need two to create another one. And weren't those created by other universes colliding? With this we could conclude that there are an infinite number of universes. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore there always had to be matter of some form, and the same amount as well.



It is inevitable that we find a need to explain this existence, this creation.

There is no creation.

[anomaly]

So basically you have faith that this 'many' is right when they refer to time as a dimension?

Do you not think there must be a source for matter and energy? The reason matter cannot be destroyed is simply because it transforms into energy. You may think you 'destroy' matter, but, of course, you have only converted this matter into energy. So in this sense it cannot be 'destroyed'. But is it not true that for this transformation to occur, something must act upon matter or energy? A force must be applied for this conversion, and what source can you give for the apllication of such forces? Inevitably one will find the need for a source.

[anomaly]

I'd appreciate it if you reply to this post in the same post in which you reply to my other.

Getting to the idea from the other thread, that you have faith in nothing...I must then ask, you seem to have much faith in the various physical theories of science. Do you honestly think that science will one day explain everything in this universe? If you do feel this way, it must then be said that you have complete faith in science.

Here's another good question: how do you feel truth is determined? Is it only through the scientific method that we reach truth, or can truth come through revelation?

[KC]

So basically you have faith that this 'many' is right when they refer to time as a dimension?

If you want me to go into greater detail: time is a reference tool used to measure the fourth dimension. It's just easier to say "time" instead of saying, and having to explain, the fourth dimension.



Do you not think there must be a source for matter and energy? The reason matter cannot be destroyed is simply because it transforms into energy. You may think you 'destroy' matter, but, of course, you have only converted this matter into energy. So in this sense it cannot be 'destroyed'. But is it not true that for this transformation to occur, something must act upon matter or energy? A force must be applied for this conversion, and what source can you give for the apllication of such forces? Inevitably one will find the need for a source.

I don't believe there is a source for matter and energy, as it has always existed. Yes, matter cannot be destroyed because it turns into energy. But lets call x the sum total of all matter AND energy. x will never change. So why does there have to be something that creates x? If time has always existed (I'm sorry, the 4th dimension) then why can't x have existed forever?

I like this debate....

[anomaly]

Here's a curveball for you: what exactly makes the laws of physics work, do you believe? Do these laws not need a source? You also did not answer the most important part of my post there. I pointed out that this transformation from matter to energy requires a force to act upon it. Where do these forces come from? Obviously, matter must be dynamic in nature, otherwise we'd live in a 'static' universe, where everything remained as it is. What source do these forces have?

I like this debate as well. I've been looking for such a debate for some time.

[KC]

Here's a curveball for you: what exactly makes the laws of physics work, do you believe? Do these laws not need a source? What makes these laws work, in other words.

Ever thought of becoming a pitcher? :D Anyways, I've never really thought about that. Space-time itself makes them work.


You also did not answer the most important part of my post there. I pointed out that this transformation from matter to energy requires a force to act upon it. Where do these forces come from?

What forces are you talking about? The burning of a star turns matter into energy. Is that what you mean? I'm not really sure what you mean by asking me what these forces are. From what I know, all these forces are natural (i.e. the burning of a star).


Obviously, matter must be dynamic in nature, otherwise we'd live in a 'static' universe, where everything remained as it is. What source do these forces have?

Matter is dynamic, in the fact that things are created and things are destroyed, new things are created, etc... But the sum total of matter and energy never changes. Again, nature.

[anomaly]

Also, I don't think the law of conservation of matter and energy neccesarily means that matter and energy has always existed. It just means that it is here, and it cannot be destroyed. The law does not mean that this matter and energy could not have been created, and not it cannot be destroyed. Certainly it could mean that it has always been, but that's an assumption on your part.

[KC]

Also, I don't think the law of conservation of matter and energy neccesarily means that matter and energy has always existed. It just means that it is here, and it cannot be destroyed.

But if the law of conservation of matter and energy is true NOW, why wouldn't it be true at any other point in time? Unless you think the law is wrong (which would have immense implications) then the law of conservation of matter works the same now as it did billions of years ago.


The law does not mean that this matter and energy could not have been created, and not it cannot be destroyed.

Uh, yes? The law states: Energy or matter cannot be created or destroyed.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:20 AM

Here's a curveball for you: what exactly makes the laws of physics work, do you believe? Do these laws not need a source? What makes these laws work, in other words.

Ever thought of becoming a pitcher? :D Anyways, I've never really thought about that. Space-time itself makes them work.


You also did not answer the most important part of my post there. I pointed out that this transformation from matter to energy requires a force to act upon it. Where do these forces come from? Obviously, matter must be dynamic in nature, otherwise we'd live in a 'static' universe, where everything remained as it is. What source do these forces have?

What forces are you talking about? The burning of a star turns matter into energy. Is that what you mean? I'm not really sure what you mean by asking me what these forces are. From what I know, all these forces are natural (i.e. the burning of a star).
Space-time somehow 'makes' them work? Explain yourself. I'm usually a terrible pitcher, actually!


As far as forces go, this is just a general question of why the natural forces act as they do. Why does this star burn, for example. Why does gravity itself work? I think we'll have to continue this debate tomorrow. I'm glad to have a worthy adversary!

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:23 AM

Also, I don't think the law of conservation of matter and energy neccesarily means that matter and energy has always existed. It just means that it is here, and it cannot be destroyed. The law does not mean that this matter and energy could not have been created, and not it cannot be destroyed. Certainly it could mean that it has always been, but that's an assumption on your part.

But if the law of conservation of matter and energy is true NOW, why wouldn't it be true at any other point in time? Unless you think the law is wrong (which would have immense implications) then the law of conservation of matter works the same now as it did billions of years ago.
No, I don't think the law is wrong, I'm saying I don't think the law itself always existed. I'm saying that the law itself does not prove that that law has always been true. A God could very well have created matter billions, even trillions of years ago and made it work as we see it today. The possibility is open, that's all I'm saying.

[KC]

Space-time somehow 'makes' them work? Explain yourself. I'm usually a terrible pitcher, actually!

I've never heard anyone even ask this question or bring it up. Anyways, why does there need to be something to "make them work"? I guess that's what I should have said.



As far as forces go, this is just a general question of why the natural forces act as they do. Why does this star burn, for example. Why does gravity itself work?

Again, why does something have to "make them work"? I am, however, going to save this question for whoever's unfortunate enough to teach me chemistry this year.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:47 AM
How is the belief in God illogical?
Because it's not based on any logical argument; logical argument being an argument that has a premise in fact. Furthermore there is no actual evidence to make any assertion that god exists tangible.

Also, it is not up to me or anyone else to prove that god doesn't exist. First of all it is you who is asserting that god exists, the burden of prove lays on you. Secondly, how can you logically disprove something that is illogical. There's no basis to collect evidence. There's no quantifiable process to follow in order to disprove him.

All we have to go on is your faith. How can anyone build a factual argument against the premise of your idea with only your idea as the basis. You believe that something without evidence to support its existence, exists? What then can be done?

If you believe it exists without evidence to prove its existence, then you have defied logic in the very first instance; that now negates any further process of logic.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
Do you honestly think that science will one day explain everything in this universe?

Thus far, the track record of science in "explaining things" is unmatched by any other form of thinking that we humans have ever come up with.

No one can possible know if we will ever be able to "explain everything" or just simply "everything that happens to interest us" or even less than that.

But we are like gamblers who've discovered a system that "really works"...that consistently beats the casino.

Science really works.

We'd have to be complete dumbasses to waste any more bets on any other system.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Publius]

Questions regarding what happend 'before' the big bang are invalid, I would say.

As for the big bang itself, may I reccomend: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...883243?v=glance (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375412883/002-6927746-4883243?v=glance)

Let me just say this. The Universe could easily have 'created itself'.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:02 AM
How can you explain the existence of matter without the existence of a supernatural being? The belief that matter simply 'appears' in a vaccuum is entirely illogical. The belief that matter has simply 'always been here' is equally illogical. There comes a point when we see that origins sciences cannot explain the 'beginning' of things. At this point, we make a choice: either the beginning was caused by something science cannot explain, or we have faith that science will 'one day' explain the 'truth'.
ok if your gonna argue that, how did a supernatural being come about? was that just always there? that seems a lot more outrages to me than matter has always been here.

[Publius]

The question of whether God created the Universe is roughly as logical as the question of whether I created the Universe.

Neither is verifiable, falsifiable, logical, sensical, or possible.

You may as well say I created the Universe if you're going to make up some creator. You can at least prove I'm real.


How can you explain the existence of matter without the existence of a supernatural being? The belief that matter simply 'appears' in a vaccuum is entirely illogical. The belief that matter has simply 'always been here' is equally illogical. There comes a point when we see that origins sciences cannot explain the 'beginning' of things. At this point, we make a choice: either the beginning was caused by something science cannot explain, or we have faith that science will 'one day' explain the 'truth'.

Saying this is like asking why the sky is blue a few hundred years ago and then decrying that science has failed and it was obviously God who made the sky blue.

Most scientists don't believe matter has 'always been here', though 'here' is about the broadest definition you could possibly use.

[Publius]

How can you explain the existence of matter without the existence of a supernatural being? The belief that matter simply 'appears' in a vaccuum is entirely illogical. The belief that matter has simply 'always been here' is equally illogical. There comes a point when we see that origins sciences cannot explain the 'beginning' of things. At this point, we make a choice: either the beginning was caused by something science cannot explain, or we have faith that science will 'one day' explain the 'truth'.

And matter appearing in a vacuum has some scientific backing: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mar...tic/vacuum.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html)


From: http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html

"Could quantum fluctuations of empty space have something to do with this also? Well, Prof. Edward Tryon of Hunter College of the City University of New York thought so when he proposed in 1973 that our Universe may have originated as a fluctuation of the vacuum on a large scale, as "simply one of those things which happen from time to time." (10) This idea was later refined and updated within the context of inflationary cosmology by Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University, who proposed that the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into the something we call our universe. (11) Although highly speculative, these types of models indicate once again that physicists find themselves turning again and again to the Void (and the fluctuations thereof) for their answers."


http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/kuantumfluct.htm




From: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/17dec03.html

'The uncertainty principle, derived from quantum mechanics, implies that at the subatomic level there are virtual particles (also called quantum fluctuations) that pop in and out of existence. Many scientists say space-time itself is made up of quantum fluctuations which, when viewed up close, resemble a froth or "quantum foam." Some scientists think a quantum foam of space-time can slow the passage of light - much as light travels at its maximum speed in a vacuum but at slower speeds through air or water./'

[Publius]

We quite simply cannot know what happend before the Big Bang.

There is no way information could be transferred through it, and since our minds are rather feeble, merely trying to 'logic it out' will get us nowhere.

Until science progresses, or God gets his ass down here and tells me he created the Universe, we're left with no actual answer.

But any scientific theory with any backing whatsover is still far more valid than 'God'.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Lazar+Aug 3 2005, 09:58 PM--> (Lazar @ Aug 3 2005, 09:58 PM) Why is it so hard for people to understand that one can't be both a marxist and religious? To be marxist one must base all thought on logic. Therefore, if you are religious and can't justify your religion with logic, then you are not a marxist. Is this so hard to understand? [/b]
Yes; that is very difficult for people to understand. For that matter; a large number of "Marxists" are idealists not materialists (so not Marxists!), like orthodox ones, there is no dogmatism in philosophical materialism; baseless assertions of reality are idealist by definition.

In all fairness; you have to give people a little leeway sometimes but when they don't even begin to understand these facts; they aren't remotely Marxist.


Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)Who would want to be a Marxist anyway?[/b]

I would; who would want to be apathy maybe? :P


[email protected]
How can you explain the existence of matter without the existence of a supernatural being? The belief that matter simply 'appears' in a vaccuum is entirely illogical. The belief that matter has simply 'always been here' is equally illogical. There comes a point when we see that origins sciences cannot explain the 'beginning' of things. At this point, we make a choice: either the beginning was caused by something science cannot explain, or we have faith that science will 'one day' explain the 'truth'.

Making "choices" is not logical scientific method; it is admitting defeat as a rational person. I am glad someone mentioned the laws of conservation of matter and energy; it does state that neither can be created or destroyed...

The belief that matter or energy simply came into existence is less of a stretch then some magical being made it but both are illogical or simply conjecture. Without proof they are both not factually sound.
Religion just begs more questions of the discerning mind; while not giving valid answers.


anomaly
Space-time somehow 'makes' them work? Explain yourself. I'm usually a terrible pitcher, actually!

As far as forces go, this is just a general question of why the natural forces act as they do. , for example.

I need to do some more reading but I'll give this my best shot.

"natural forces act as they do" because they are what they do. For example: when you strike a baseball, striking is what you are doing. Substances act as they do because the forces behave according to the variables involved (energy effects matter, depending on where it is and the quantity).


Why does this star burn

I don't really call it "burning." Stars go through fusion. To give a summary of the fusion process:

Elements are condensed (by some force, gravity, magnetism) and stripped of their electrons by heat, forming plasma. When two elements are combined, some of the mass is converted to energy (Neutrons in some cases are expelled from the nucleolus, interacting with the surrounding matter and producing heat).


Why does gravity itself work?

I'm not sure anyone knows for certain. Gravity is a weak force between particles, possibly influenced by fields of matter. Gravitons are one theory..

[KC]

Get back to the topic at hand!

I spilt the topic off for you; now you can do some responding ;) - EM

[anomaly]

Damn, I had no idea how many enemies I had on this topic. Perhaps we're back to debating, Lazar. Actually, most of that 'debate' up there is not so important.

I've found, with the help of a very good book, and also in our debate, that science cannot be used to prove or disprove God's existence (I suppose nothing can 'prove' God's existence or not, but the use of science will not even give one personal answers). There are certainly instances in which the existence of a supernatural being would greatly help explain the crucial 'why' question that science never answers. Science has greatly explained 'what' and 'how' but it has few if any answers for 'why' things are as they are. The guess posed by some scientists is simply that 'we are' because of some random series of events. That's one guess, but we theists simply see too much order for such an answer to be satisfactory in the least.

Back to the topic, comrade, since science obviously cannot be used to prove/disprove the existence of God, what other arguments have you against God's existence? (hopefully we can move back to this debate...it was very good)

[KC]

Back to the topic, comrade, since science obviously cannot be used to prove/disprove the existence of God, what other arguments have you against God's existence? (hopefully we can move back to this debate...it was very good)

I'd like to know what arguments you have FOR god's existence. And as far as the argument of why laws are the way they are, they just are. It can't be that simple? Even if it wasn't that simple, there is no evidence of god. Because something hasn't yet been explained means that god exists? Does everything need a point?

This argument is exactly the same as the whole meaning of life argument. My argument on that subject is that there is no meaning of life, we aren't here for a reason, and we are just as material as the rest of the universe.

[anomaly]

Arguments for the existence of God. (with some help from C. S. Lewis)

1. The order of this universe. This planet, the distance from the sun, the fact that if we were a little further we couldn't survive, the fact that if we were a little closer we couldn't survive. Of couse, this could simply be 'chance', but damn, are we lucky if that's the case!

2. The undeniable existence of a Universal Moral Code among human beings. We all seem to 'just know' what is right and wrong, and when we do wrong (which we often do due to our free will) we feel a strange feeling known as guilt. (this second argument has proven, historically, to be a much better argument).

No one can prove a negative, so I suppose the only thing an atheist like you can do is to attack those supposed proofs with all your intellectual might!

[Mujer Libre]

Arguments for the existence of God. (with some help from C. S. Lewis)

1. The order of this universe. This planet, the distance from the sun, the fact that if we were a little further we couldn't survive, the fact that if we were a little closer we couldn't survive. Of couse, this could simply be 'chance', but damn, are we lucky if that's the case!

Well the argument against that is that if the earth was positioned differently, we wouldn't be here to know it; making that point moot. Our ENTIRE experience of existing is the result of a vast and beautiful series of coincidences. Had the situation been any different, we wouldn't be here or our experience of being would be drasically different.

Remember that the universe is so vast; that even the extremely low odds of conditions being right for life to evolve can be met. The time-scale of the universe is also in favour of evolution. Our minds simply aren't built to handle the vast distances and billions of years involved, so it's the easy way out to simply dismiss evolution and the history of the universe as "too unlikely."


2. The undeniable existence of a Universal Moral Code among human beings. We all seem to 'just know' what is right and wrong, and when we do wrong (which we often do due to our free will) we feel a strange feeling known as guilt. (this second argument has proven, historically, to be a much better argument).
Undeniable? :lol:
All this "point" proves is that humans are capable of empathising, which has nothing whatsoever to do with a creator, and more to do with our self-consciousness. We are capable of putting ourselves in someone else's shoes, because we are conscious of our own minds and feelings, and knowing that we are separate from other people.

[anomaly]

I don't dismiss evolution..but isn't it odd that we just 'randomly' happened to evolve, and with us came the idea of God? To miss the absolute order of this universe is really hard to do. Do you honestly not see it? All the beauty we see around us? It's very easy to say 'it's a coincidence', but if you take some time to think, is that really possible? That this beauty just 'randomly' happened?

So you adhere to moral relativism? So if I kill your friend, that can't be wrong, because I said it's right (and without any moral point of reference, my morality is just as 'good' and 'true' as yours). Would I not feel guilt? This also cannot be simply a characteristic for our survival. If a man commits adultery, it actually is beneficial, speaking solely on the basis of reproduction. So why is it that we see it as wrong? Why is it that we all, universally, have this sense of right and wrong? If we are all to have a sense of right and wrong that is pretty much universal, we must have some universal moral point of reference. To say that we all 'empathize' does not answer this need for a moral point of reference.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:36 PM
Damn, I had no idea how many enemies I had on this topic.
Enemies? Can't we disagree!?


Perhaps we're back to debating, Lazar. Actually, most of that 'debate' up there is not so important.

Thanks <_<


I&#39;ve found, with the help of a very good book, and also in our debate, that science cannot be used to prove or disprove God&#39;s existence (I suppose nothing can &#39;prove&#39; God&#39;s existence or not, but the use of science will not even give one personal answers). There are certainly instances in which the existence of a supernatural being would greatly help explain the crucial &#39;why&#39; question that science never answers. Science has greatly explained &#39;what&#39; and &#39;how&#39; but it has few if any answers for &#39;why&#39; things are as they are. The guess posed by some scientists is simply that &#39;we are&#39; because of some random series of events. That&#39;s one guess, but we theists simply see too much order for such an answer to be satisfactory in the least.

This as quite the abstraction; you ask no real questions and make many assertions without any reasoning.

[anomaly]

Enemies on this topic. Sure, we can disagree. I&#39;m sorry you don&#39;t like my labels there comrade&#33;

I explain why I don&#39;t think that debate is so important.

It&#39;s not an abstraction at all. I say that science (more to the point, the scientific method) cannot be used to prove/disprove God, and I give my reasoning. Science, in fact, does not answer &#39;why&#39;, just like I said. Here it seems the existence of a supernatural being would give us some answers. In other cases, which Lazar and I discussed, it seems as if science does not need God. This inconclusion cannot be used to even give one personal answers (unless, of course, one has the utmost faith in science). Besides, one cannot prove a negative, so I left it up to the atheists to disprove my supposed proofs.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:54 AM
(more to the point, the scientific method) cannot be used to prove/disprove God, and I give my reasoning.



Not necessarily true; if "God" did exist, then there might be proof.
It is however, not falsifiable.


Science, in fact, does not answer &#39;why&#39;, just like I said.

Why what&#33;? That is an abstraction or just a poor question.


Here it seems the existence of a supernatural being would give us some answers.

Yes but beyond the assumed existence of this being, all you would have are more questions; possibly more assumptions. This is idealism, I can assume anything i want and live a fantasy; how is that productive?


In other cases, which Lazar and I discussed, it seems as if science does not need God.

Why would you ever "need God" other than psychologically? No physical need exists that I can see.


This inconclusion cannot be used to even give one personal answers (unless, of course, one has the utmost faith in science).

What does faith have to do with this? I am a philosophical materialist, that means no faith.


Besides, one cannot prove a negative, so I left it up to the atheists to disprove my supposed proofs.

It is impossible to prove a negative when something is undefined in place, time and substance. In this way "God" is an abstraction and those taking positions on "God" are drawing lines in the air.

[anomaly]

What &#39;proof&#39; are you looking for? I, as a believer, feel that there are ewvidences for God. I gave my two evidences. You haven&#39;t responded to them. The only &#39;proof&#39; most materialists are acceptable with is visible proof. We haven&#39;t &#39;seen&#39; God, therefore He doesn&#39;t exist&#33;

...OR it&#39;s not a question at all&#33;&#33; The basis for the statement is simple. For example, science has shown what physical laws exist, but it has not explained why these things work. What makes these things work, in other words. Lazar says &#39;they just do&#39;, but can one accept such an answer?

Again we fail to establish the evidences I have given for a God. There is no evidence that a flying purple peaople eater exists. But I have given evidences of a supernatural being, and Intelligence beyond this universe.

Do you honestly think that science will explain the entire physical universe? Science still cannot explain a great many things. The assumption that it will explain them, and thus negate any physical need for God, is faith in science.

If you have no faith, this means you have no faith in science, so you don&#39;t realistically expect or believe that science holds the key to all truth, and that revelation holds none. With this, there must be a physical need for God (or you&#39;re an agnostic, and the choice you&#39;ve made is clear).

It is impossible to really &#39;prove&#39; any negative. It does not matter the circumstances. And so, an atheist must attack the &#39;proofs&#39; for God. I suppose, since you&#39;re an agnostic, you really cannot take a side here.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:25 AM
What &#39;proof&#39; are you looking for? I, as a believer, feel that there are ewvidences for God. I gave my two evidences. You haven&#39;t responded to them.
I can but why don&#39;t you respond to my initial post that we are coming full circle to, first?
Besides, I think Mujer Libre did a reasonable job of addressing those reasons but if we can progress linearly, I may address them as well.


The only &#39;proof&#39; most materialists are acceptable with is visible proof.

Not even remotely true. Materialists are interested in facts; any verifiable observation.


We haven&#39;t &#39;seen&#39; God, therefore He doesn&#39;t exist&#33;

As you&#39;ve recognized; I am an agnostic, I don&#39;t play the baseless assertion game.


...OR it&#39;s not a question at all&#33;&#33; The basis for the statement is simple. For example, science has shown what physical laws exist, but it has not explained why these things work. What makes these things work, in other words. Lazar says &#39;they just do&#39;, but can one accept such an answer?

Why don&#39;t you respond to my initial statement in this thread on the issue?


Again we fail to establish the evidences I have given for a God. There is no evidence that a flying purple peaople eater exists. But I have given evidences of a supernatural being, and Intelligence beyond this universe.

You have given conjecture; no evidence, not even theoretical implications or links with the material world.


Do you honestly think that science will explain the entire physical universe?

No. Science is not my "God."


Science still cannot explain a great many things.

"The God concept" has still never demonstrated ANY proof, no known verifiable explanations for ANYTHING. We know science exists and provides proof at least.


The assumption that it will explain them, and thus negate any physical need for God, is faith in science.

Like I said; I have no faith. The "need for God" is yet another abstraction, as will anything else be that is a phrase you make without explanation, as proof.


If you have no faith, this means you have no faith in science, so you don&#39;t realistically expect or believe that science holds the key to all truth, and that revelation holds none.

So far I know that science "holds the key to all truth" I know and revelation holds none that I know of.


With this, there must be a physical need for God (or you&#39;re an agnostic, and the choice you&#39;ve made is clear).

What point are you trying to make here?


It is impossible to really &#39;prove&#39; any negative. It does not matter the circumstances. And so, an atheist must attack the &#39;proofs&#39; for God.

Didn&#39;t I already say that?


I suppose, since you&#39;re an agnostic, you really cannot take a side here.

Basically; as a materialist I only "take a side" or come to a conclusion, based on factual evidence.

[encephalon]

the question of a supernatural being is not logical nor illogical. It is outside of logic altogether. That said, if things exist outside of logic, then logic itself has no foundation. Therefore, one must logically be an atheist. End of story. This is a dumb argument. We should have all moved beyond this by now.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:07 AM
the question of a supernatural being is not logical nor illogical. It is outside of logic altogether.
How so? You need to address the debate again comrade.


That said, if things exist outside of logic, then logic itself has no foundation. Therefore, one must logically be an atheist.

Your argument is simply incorrect here :blink:

Let me illustrate what you&#39;ve said; Say logic is a fishbowl and the supernatural is the fish:

The fish is outside of the bowl. We cannot say where the fish is relative to the contents of the bowl. Conclusion: there is no fish.


This is a dumb argument.

You mean the debate? Well, it is an absurd issue to address, I will admit.


We should have all moved beyond this by now.

I&#39;ve been moving but most people are right where they were before.
Give me 400 years or so and maybe the debate will be settled :lol:

[KC]

1. The order of this universe. This planet, the distance from the sun, the fact that if we were a little further we couldn&#39;t survive, the fact that if we were a little closer we couldn&#39;t survive. Of couse, this could simply be &#39;chance&#39;, but damn, are we lucky if that&#39;s the case&#33;

This has everything to do with evolution and the fact of the matter being that the universe needed to become what it is today to survive.




2. The undeniable existence of a Universal Moral Code among human beings. We all seem to &#39;just know&#39; what is right and wrong, and when we do wrong (which we often do due to our free will) we feel a strange feeling known as guilt. (this second argument has proven, historically, to be a much better argument).

A Universal Moral Code? This is completely nonexistant. This "Universal Moral Code" is taught by society, and is not inherent in man. Cannibal societies, headhunters, etc... all disprove this.



No one can prove a negative, so I suppose the only thing an atheist like you can do is to attack those supposed proofs with all your intellectual might&#33;

If you can&#39;t prove a positive then the negative must be true until the positive is proven true.



The fish is outside of the bowl. We cannot say where the fish is relative to the contents of the bowl. Conclusion: there is no fish.

That&#39;s a bad analogy.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
There are certainly instances in which the existence of a supernatural being would greatly help explain the crucial &#39;why&#39; question that science never answers.

You label these "why" questions "crucial"...but what are they "crucial" to? Just why do the "answers" to those "questions" matter?

In fact, are they semantically real questions at all? That is, they may conform to the grammar of questions in the English language...but do they have any real content?

The question what happens to us after we die? can be rephrased: what form of existence do we have after we have ceased to exist?

Which is not a real question...even though it sounds like one. It contains an internal contradiction that makes it meaningless noise.


I&#39;ve found, with the help of a very good book, and also in our debate, that science cannot be used to prove or disprove God&#39;s existence.

I have no idea what "standard of proof" you are using...but science has been unable to locate any shred of reliable evidence for the supernatural in three centuries of investigation.

That&#39;s good enough for me; the supernatural does not exist.


The order of this universe. This planet, the distance from the sun, the fact that if we were a little further we couldn&#39;t survive, the fact that if we were a little closer we couldn&#39;t survive. Of course, this could simply be &#39;chance&#39;, but damn, are we lucky if that&#39;s the case&#33;

Luck had a lot to do with it...but so did the constraints of physics and chemistry.

If this planet had been slightly closer or slightly further away from the sun, then life on this planet would have been different. And if an intelligent life form had arisen, it would no doubt wonder just as much as some humans do "why" it happened to be "perfectly situated" in its "comfort zone".

If you want to speak of "luck", consider the planetary catastrophes that our ancestors managed to survive -- the five or so occasions when 75% to 95% of all life forms died out -- most recently, the asteroid that crashed into the Gulf of Mexico 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs.

The universe is not really very "orderly" at all...it&#39;s rather violent and tumultuous on the whole.

We just happen to live in "a quiet neighborhood". :lol:


The undeniable existence of a Universal Moral Code among human beings.

Fiction. "Moral Codes" are generally "all over the place".

The prohibition of murder has nothing to do with morality at all -- it is a matter of common sense. Any community that does not prohibit and punish murder will be composed only of those willing to live in constant fear of being murdered.

That&#39;s not viable...either the prohibition of murder will be invented or that community will go extinct.


...with some help from C. S. Lewis

One of the more clever and imaginative Christian apologists, to be sure. I found his books quite enjoyable reading. Nevertheless, his arguments cannot really withstand critical examination.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:02 AM


The fish is outside of the bowl. We cannot say where the fish is relative to the contents of the bowl. Conclusion: there is no fish.

That&#39;s a bad analogy.
That is bad commentary. You might want to try giving explanations...

Maybe the analogy was simplistic but so was what I based it off of.

The initial statement made the claim that you should base your "decision" on something being outside of you method of deciding; that is illogical.

[Sihvyl]

Although some might not call this concrete "proof" I always like to make the point. Look around you. Look at the computer screen in front of you. Know what that is? Atoms of various elements at work under a very particular and specialized set of rules. Even science itself relies on this set of rules to make conclusions. Gravity, photons , gluons, muons, quarks, valence sheilding, etc, etc.: all follow a set of rules that does not alter itself or change in anyway, besides discovery or revamping of the human understanding of the rules. Hell, even disorder seems to be ordered. Now, personally, I come to the conclusion that rules, or a system, usually has intention, and intention usually has reasoning, and of course; reasoning belongs to a thought process of a mind, based on experienced and conclusions on the topic that the system was created for. The first person to put up a "No running by the pool." sign probably set up this system of rules because they had witnessed someone running, slip, and break their head open. Thusly, that person reasoned that a rule ought to be created in order for other people not to make the mistake. Although I have no idea if God had any previous experience on why he made the rules the way he did, but the pool analogy seems an alright one to try and get my point across. To see things from both sides though, I guess in some unknown and mysterious way that eludes human intelligence, rules were created without intention (other then the progress of that specific object needing the rule, which would displace the cooperation of all systems to create a whole), by the very things that were to follow these rules. Although I could never see how the first atom structure came about and worked as a whole. In a sense I guess I see the atom and it&#39;s various structures and accomplices (gravity, energy) as a irreducibly complex system that could not have evolved itself.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 02:41 PM
Although some might not call this concrete "proof" I always like to make the point.
This "point" is an assumption.


Now, personally, I come to the conclusion that rules, or a system, usually has intention,

These are not stated "rules" though; these "rules" are boundaries of the functions of matter and energy. I see no reason to assume there was any intention, as I see nothing unifying the laws of the material world in any agenda or purpose.


and intention usually has reasoning, and of course; reasoning belongs to a thought process of a mind, based on experienced and conclusions on the topic that the system was created for.

I gather that you are arguing "intelligent design." The problem is that as much as people assert there is a creator; no one has handed out irrefutable proof and if a creator wanted us to know, we would know. I don’t have evidence of a deity and I have looked. So apparently; if a “God” exists, this “God” cannot or will not prove existence to me; so looking in random places or believing without reason, is inane. We can explore material reality and if “God” shows up, we go from there but there is no reason to start from wild speculation and work backwards.


The first person to put up a "No running by the pool." sign probably set up this system of rules because they had witnessed someone running, slip, and break their head open. Thusly, that person reasoned that a rule ought to be created in order for other people not to make the mistake. Although I have no idea if God had any previous experience on why he made the rules the way he did, but the pool analogy seems an alright one to try and get my point across.

Why would we assume that "God" in involved? All we know from the evidence is that the physical laws are existent. We don&#39;t even have anything other than speculation on whether on not they have existed for the duration of time or if time is infinite.


To see things from both sides though, I guess in some unknown and mysterious way that eludes human intelligence, rules were created without intention (other then the progress of that specific object needing the rule, which would displace the cooperation of all systems to create a whole), by the very things that were to follow these rules.

Again; I see no evidence of any motivation. Either this is not understandable by human beings and we are wasting our time or this concept simply makes no sense.


Although I could never see how the first atom structure came about and worked as a whole. In a sense I guess I see the atom and it&#39;s various structures and accomplices (gravity, energy) as a irreducibly complex system that could not have evolved itself.

Why could the atom not have just happened? Elements just fuse, Molecules just form, particles just collect and form masses into solid objects. Just because we do not understand the formation of matter, does not mean "God" is involved. Just like humanoid gods do not live in the mountains; now we know that for sure but the initial assumption never had any proof.

[Sihvyl]

The replies around here are outstanding. :)

Yeah, what is proposed isn&#39;t proof, indeed it&#39;s speculation. All I know is that I don&#39;t even know enough to know that I know nothing. But I sure like to talk about it. ;)

In a sense of providing "proof" for a creator to exist though, that is the most logical reason I can come up with. I may be wrong, wouldn&#39;t be the first time, but like I said, I love talking and thinking about it.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 03:42 PM
The replies around here are outstanding. :)
Thanks; nice to be appreciated. Quite the rarity from someone when you are debunking their suppositions ;)


Yeah, what is proposed isn&#39;t proof, indeed it&#39;s speculation. All I know is that I don&#39;t even know enough to know that I know nothing. But I sure like to talk about it. ;)

As long as people are open to critical thought, progress is possible.


In a sense of providing "proof" for a creator to exist though, that is the most logical reason I can come up with.

Might I ask you why you believe then?


I may be wrong, wouldn&#39;t be the first time, but like I said, I love talking and thinking about it.

Ditto :D

[Invader Zim]

I find the premise that the universe had to be created nonsensical, why can it not have always existed? Why does time have to have ever started? Someone explain to me why the universe cannot be infinate, in every respect.

[Sihvyl]

313- I&#39;ve believed, I&#39;ve not believed, and now I&#39;ve come back to believing again. Why? Shit, I guess it&#39;s just an interesting process, I dunno actually..HAHA :rolleyes: Maybe one of these days I&#39;ll go back to not believing, who knows&#33;

Hey&#33; I&#39;ve been free of carbonated beverages for quite awhile too&#33; Oh, beer...well, that doesn&#39;t count&#33; *laughs* ;)

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:12 AM
1. The order of this universe.
There&#39;s not "order" in the universe. And you have nothing to compare this "order" with. If the universe was "disorder", you would surely consider it to be "order" anyway.


This planet, the distance from the sun, the fact that if we were a little further we couldn&#39;t survive, the fact that if we were a little closer we couldn&#39;t survive. Of couse, this could simply be &#39;chance&#39;, but damn, are we lucky if that&#39;s the case&#33;

And I can&#39;t believe that your deity is there by chance and has the characteristics it has by chance. Therefore it must have been created (by us humans of course).


2. The undeniable existence of a Universal Moral Code among human beings. We all seem to &#39;just know&#39; what is right and wrong, and when we do wrong (which we often do due to our free will) we feel a strange feeling known as guilt. (this second argument has proven, historically, to be a much better argument).

False. There&#39;s not such a thing as a "moral code". Even if there was, it would just be a bunch of chemicals who think that "X" is wrong. Not related with "Dog" in any way.


I don&#39;t dismiss evolution..but isn&#39;t it odd that we just &#39;randomly&#39; happened to evolve, and with us came the idea of God?

Listen, if dog existed, every planet would have life and we would have noticed it already.


To miss the absolute order of this universe is really hard to do. Do you honestly not see it?

My grandmother would claim my mother&#39;s room was not "ordered". However, my mother would put it that way. My mother would get anry at my grandma everytime she said that because she could always find things and shit. For her, it WAS ordered.

This is a stupid example, of course, but you get the point.


All the beauty we see around us?

Yeah, sure. People starving in Africa. People dying from AIDS. Rats. Cockroaches. Poisoned rivers. Oppressive governments. Crimes. Hip hop. Poverty. Sweatshops. Cancer. Unemployment. Religion.

A lot of beauty indeed.


It&#39;s very easy to say &#39;it&#39;s a coincidence&#39;, but if you take some time to think, is that really possible? That this beauty just &#39;randomly&#39; happened?

You have nothing to put this view up against. So it&#39;s unverifiable. Billions of years ago there was not such a thing as this "coincidence" or "beauty" and it surely doesn&#39;t exist in most of the universe, or at least not yet.

Thank Dog this is not an attempt of passing this up as "science"...