crelution or evelation

by showme 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Abaddon

  Perry, remember you attacked non-religonists?

  Neither one is provable, although the former is sometimes associated with a total lack of manners and/or respect for competing beliefs.

  You get a response you can't really address, and the best you can come up with is a demonstration that I would happily agree with, that non-religionists and religionists often both behave in the same fashion. And being religious makes you better because...? Wow, go god's people, way to differentiate yourselves from the ungodly. Oh, They don't. Pity, you may have had a point there.

  So, by saying that I am full of shit simply furthers my agrument that some world views are commonly associated with a lack of manners. Thanks for illustrating my point is such a predictable way.

  I didn't say you are full of shit. If you read what I wrote, you can see I am asking a question, vis; Are you full of shit? As the differentiation you claimed to find between religionists and non-religionists was entirely devoid of validity, it is a reasonable question.

  I am very interested that you claim that an 'An infinite, inteligent First Cause' does not require special pleading.

  Please demonstrate this.

  And please explain why god cannot be proved.

  Why many rabid atheists simply don't like to tolerate competition to their pet beliefs is beyond me. Are they afraid of examining the effects of that world view too closely? Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

  Perry, you can have any world view you wish. You know I believe that, as you're not without some intelligence. Just throwing around strawman attacks is so old, you really should up your game. It's dishonest, for one. All I do is disagree with things you cannot prove. You can disagree with things I cannot prove. To try to take some form of moral highground, as you do, is ludicrous. Dull. Pointless.

  Oh, why does where Pete come from matter? I'm curious you ask him the same question you ask me. I hope you have better reason...

  Edited by - Abaddon on 30 January 2003 13:18:54
• 

  peacefulpete

  It is telling that any discussion of evolution vs. creation the believers retreat to a first cause arguement. This is of course because the present state of our science is as of yet unable to offer a detailed testable solution. into this void it is easy to "***insert God here***". As I said earier this is presently beyond the scope of science and in fact always will be. For any naturalistic solutions as to first cause that are yet to be revealed will not prevent the believer from suggesting the same as some here have suggested, that God used natural processes, such as evolution, in doing his will. God will then become less a miracle worker and more a foreman. The question was however not about first causes but about the biology of evolution.
• 

  Xander

  I don't recall who posted in another thread, but the gist of their argument addressed your point directly, pete.

  They maintained that atheism 'cannot be lived' (LOL) because in celebrating christmas, an atheist somehow betrays their belief. Which is utter nonsense, of course. The problem was that the poster arguing that position COULD NOT understand that atheism does not mean WORKING AGAINST GOD, but merely not believing in him/her/it/them.

  IOW, an Atheist view of creation is more a "Well, we evolved, and something started it. Since I have no evidence to assume it is anything but abiogenesis, occam's razor suggest that no other supernatural entitity is involved."

  IE., if it could be proved that aliens came to Earth and started life, an atheist could believe that. If it could be proved that abiogenesis was the cause of life, and atheist would believe that. If it could be proved that a supernatural being created life, and atheist would believe that (although, they would probably not be called an 'atheist' any more).

  The point is, an atheist COULD believe anything that's provable. Given nothing is, again, it's occam's razor time, and they don't 'multiply entities unnecessarily'.

  A creationist, on the other hand, REQUIES belief in a divine being. Period. They thus cannot argue one way or another, and no deviance in their belief can be allowed. IOW, "the believers retreat to a first cause arguement"....because a creationist MUST do so - they have no other argument. 'God created everything.' Period. That's their argument.

  Hence, why these debates just go round and round. An atheist will not believe anything without proof, and a creationist cannot provide proof because he doesn't need it himself.
• 

  Perry

  Rem,

  Thanks for clearing that up rem. Quantum mechanics is quite interesting. I certainly don't understand all of it. Here's an interesting discussion though if any are interested.

  When a photon strikes an atom, boosting an electron into a higher orbit, the electron moves from the lower to the upper orbit instantaneously, without having traversed the intervening space. The orbital radii themselves are quantised, and the electron simply ceases to exist at one point, simultaneously appearing at another.

  Quantum mechanics is a wellsupported empirical theory, and we need some account of its success. The most plausible explanation is that it is a true--or, at any rate, nearly true--picture of reality; and, if thats right, then we need to figure out how to properly interpret the theory, in order to get an accurate picture of reality. Now, of course, there are hard questions here--it may be that quantum mechanics is not true, and there are many competing interpretations of quantum mechanics on the market, not all of which hold that there really are quantum leaps. There is nothing in any of this which suggests the attribution of real causal powers to chance.

  Not only are quantum events uncaused and indeterminate, they defy the conventions of ordinary, classical, Aristotelian logic. Because of quantum indeterminacy, it is impossible to measure the position and the momentum of, say, an electron. We can know only one feature, not the other. A similar situation occurs in a number of other so-called conjugate pairs, for example, wave-particle duality. But this "duality" differs radically from Cartesian dualism with its ontologically incompatible pairing of self-subsisting body and mind, or object and subject. Quantum dualities are not discrete opposites, they are complementaritiesmeaning that although they are mutually exclusive, they are also mutually necessary. The nature of quantum events is nondual complementarity, requiring a new logic different from either/or. For example, quantum events are both waves and particles. Quanta are paradoxical: spread out over space (waves) and infinitesimal point-events.

  Quantum events are not causal. They are inherently unpredictable. The exact instant when an electron jumps orbit, or when a radioactive particle is emitted from an atom, is entirely random, entirely uncaused. To say that an event is "entirely uncaused" amounts, logically, to saying that it is "self-caused"; and this, as philosopher Arthur Young argued, is tantamount to saying that the event chooses, that is, exhibits consciousness. .
  

  This logical and observational identity of randomness and choice is a critical implication of quantum physics. Youngs point is this: If some entity, say an electron or a photon, is exercising true self-action, freewill, or choice in how it will move, its behavior will be undetermined (by any prior causes) and will be unpredictable. To an observer, its behavior will appear utterly random, uncaused. Thats exactly what is observed in the behavior of quantum particles. The observer will not be able to detect any difference between choice-driven action and purely random behavior. But to the quantum entity making the choice, there would be a world of difference. The quantum event would be self-caused, not uncaused. It is uncaused only in the sense that no causes external to itself influence its behavior.
• 

  Perry

  Pete says:

  This is of course because the present state of our science is as of yet unable to offer a detailed testable solution. into this void it is easy to "***insert God here***". As I said earier this is presently beyond the scope of science and in fact always will be.

  Nice succinct way of putting it Pete. I disagree on the point that the question of origins emphatically will always be beyond the scope of science. It certainly is possible but I hope that it wont be at some point.

  Abbadon says:

  I didn't say you are full of shit. If you read what I wrote, you can see I am asking a question, vis; Are you full of shit?

  What's a matter Abaddon. Did I feed you too many mandates on the other thread? Why don't you stop humping the fire hydrant and join the discussion with something original. This quantum mechanics thing is quite challenging, it may offer support for your view. Why not give it a rest for five minutes and give us your take on it.
• 

  peacefulpete

  If I am going to be quoted don't end my statement in the middle of a thought. The reason I said science will never be able to remove the belief in God as the behind the scene orchestrator, is due to the nature of belief. It can't be killed because it is too slippery. Belief is not bound to rules of logic evidence or substance. If it needs to it simply slithers to a new home and grins back innocently.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Who is to say god didn`t create through evolution..When was the last time you saw a fully mature tree just pop out of the ground.A mother give birth to a 200lb grown man..Evidence of evolution is all around us.Nothing remains the same.The world around us and all living things are in constant change..I have never seen a shred of evidence for creation..Creationists are a funny bunch.They demand god create exactly,how they personaly believe he should.A very close minded and arrogant attitude...OUTLAW
• 

  Abaddon

  Perry, are you familiar with the Radiohead song Just?

  Nevermind...

  Just so you know, when you quote large extracts of an article someone else has written it is common practice to provide a quote or a reference, for reasons of honesty and reference. Many people try to pass off stuff they have cut and pasted from elsewhere as their own, Can't imagine why, but some people plagerise, which is why it is uimportant to always provide the reference to avoid such accusations. All but the first paragraph of your post to REM is from Timothy Ferris book Coming of Age in the Milky Way I believe.

  I am afraid I am not in the least bit surprised you don't respond to my questions above;

  "I am very interested that you claim that an 'An infinite, inteligent First Cause' does not require special pleading.

  Please demonstrate this.

  And please explain why god cannot be proved."

  Here's a starting point for your web browser; http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search/ukie?p=why%20god%20cannot%20be%20proved

  You also don't answer my question; 'Oh, why does where Pete come from matter? I'm curious you ask him the same question you ask me. I hope you have better reason...'

  I have already asked you questions that you have evaded, so your bluster;

  Why don't you stop humping the fire hydrant and join the discussion with something original.

  ... is unconvincing.

  Do you want a discussion on Quantum Mechanics based upon what you know, or what you can cut and paste? I'll give you a clue; they don't have small spanners...

  Isn't it funny how people like peacefulpete, on this thread alone, note you use partial quotes?

  Trick Pony One.
• 

  Perry

  Abaddon,

  Your logic is schocking to the extent that you cannot even form an original opinion when invited to do so can you? The extent that you go to avoid clear invitations to support your own contentions is simply breathtatking in their degree of evasiveness. What a waste of what otherwise might have been a mind with an actual contribution to the furtherance of human endeavor. You seem to have questions about a great many things. If you can't provide a comment of Quantum mechanics then don't. I admitted that I don't know a lot about it. Now you're upset that I don't.... a line of reasoning so typical for rage-aholics. I provide a snippet, you don't like that either. You could have offered your take on it, you didn't. As far as I know`it explains how something appeared from nothing. If that is the case, then there is no reason to believe in infinites, intelligent or otherwise. That supports your position silly.

  Why don't you provide a source you personally feel better about? I would love to have the issue settled and so would millions and millions of people world wide. This is not being sarcastic....it is true. Pete felt that the issue would never be settled from the standpoint of religious fudies. I agree with that. I don't think the part I quoted from him missed his point. I pointed out that I hoped that it would, and that science might one day be able to do that. You didn't like that either.

  As far as an intelligent First Cause requireing special pleading, in my opinion it doesn't if presented as a choice of belief. If presented as a fact of logic, it surely does. I have never dogmatically promoted that. I already admit that it cannot be proven. And, you do agree with that correct? Insert answer here:_________.

  Abaddon, you don't like to answer straight forward questions because you are not interested in learning in my opinion. You don't like having your answers examined. It appears you are simply interested in promoting a liberal agenda from the gist of your posts. There is nothing wrong with that. I repeat THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. But, you will always be challenged when your comments are bigoted, as they sadly so often are.

  So, back to the issue. I'm going to only ask you only two questions. These two questions will be a litmus test to see if you are willing to be honest. Please answer with a simple yes or no and then qualify your answer all you like. Whether you believe it or not I really am interested in peering inside the reasoning of your mind. You seem to have much potential to offer this board.

  Question #1

  Do you believe that the universe is a result of infinite cause and effect events; or did it happen spontaneosly from nothing?

  Question # 2

  How do you arrive at that conclusion?
• 

  peacefulpete

  PPete also felt you were lifting his statement out of context to appear to be in agreement. Again I will say this is entirely off topic. First cause arguements are clearly a philosophical debate. Even Occam's Razor is only a wise but uncertain approach for scientific hypotheses. It may be someday possible to explain the appearance of randomness now recognized as an aspect of quantum physics. New rules of physics for the quantum level formulated and this may end the questin of how the chain of cause and effect appear to be broken. This will not prevent the believer from assuming a divine agent pulling the strings to aquire a desired result. This is the enduring aspect of teleological philosophy. Perry is in one camp who "feels" the universe is by intent and assumes a supernatural agency until proven otherwise, as this explains all the yet unexplainable, yet Abbadon and I are in another camp who "feel" a natural explanation for the universe must be assumed until proven otherwise, as this approach has successfully led science to the heights it now has and is therefore deemed by us more conducive to human progress. These dispite all the arguements are personal philosophies. The world is big enough for both.