Discussion in 'Dead Threads' started by godsquadgeek, Nov 6, 2017.
Where did the natural laws come from?
The joy that a Father feels/experiences, while holding his newborn child, is inseparable from those virtues and attributes that transcend reason, and natural explanation. What the father is experiencing is more than biologically-based. If it is not, then he is just being deceived by his material body into believing that what he is feeling/experiencing is transcendent and special.
Consider this carefully. If what the father is feeling and and experiencing is nothing outside of the material realm, then such feeling/perceived experience, such as unconditional love, can ultimately be reduced to a mathematical formula. If such is reality, then such love is not truly unconditional and transcendent nor special. Unconditional love transcends reason, material explanation and utilitarian/personal value. Also, such a feeling would simply be biology fooling the father into believing that such a feeling is unconditional love, when in fact, such feeling/experience is no more than a biological mandate to perpetuate life.
Do you see the problem with a belief system that necessarily requires all apparently transcendent attributes/qualities of man (creativity, inspiration, unconditional love, etc.) be reduced to a mathematical formula? Hold your child (if you have one) in your arms and consider that. If not, then imagine a parent telling the child that what they feel for one another is nothing more than an illusion.
The atheist worldview literally darkens the previously mentioned qualities/attributes that facilitates/allows a person and family to move forward positively in life and to enjoy life. This is but one reason to reject it.
Very interesting article. Thank you.
Natural laws are by products of the unverse. Us humans study the universe and explain the constants found as laws.
As humans we know life comes from life, behind a cause is something, and every design comes from a designer, so why does it suddenly stop before a Almighty Creator
"Big Bang", is a misnomer.
It arrived after the theoretical publication of Georges Lemaître in 1931 entitled, "hypothèse de l'atome primitif". ("hypothesis of the primeval atom")
However, going with the traditional, "Big Bang", science hasn't yet concluded what absolute caused the bang.
This is also a book. "The God Particle"
How are they there to be found?
There would be no joy if some cause did not first create life in which there can be found joy.
By-products? How strange and inaccurate a description.
Because no one has all the answers I can only go on what the evidence is and where it leads and no theories. That is, life comes from life, behind every action is something that causes it, and behind every design is a designer. The hard solid facts.
Not made up possible theories.
No we can actually define emtions pretty well.
Joy is caused by a hormone spike, that doesn't diminish the feeling felt.
You are the one defining it as trancendant, you are asserting that a person who understands to difficulties and mathmatics chaos of life can't experience the concept called awe.
Have you ever read a story book? Have you ever felt a conection to some one in a tv show or video game. Those characters are based on code (languages and cues) yet it can effect us and feel real.it doesn't matter if it is really real, it's the feline we get that makes it real to us. We are organisms that are capable of experiencing our universe. We are the universe experiencing itself based on the very mathmatics formulas you are trying to poo poo. Personally I find that amazing. I'm not trying to tell you not to believe in a God, I just disagree that I need a God to feel meaning.
My question is what is wrong with math? You are phrasing this as if it's bad that we can research and find paternity that we can predict aspects of our universe with. You forget that chaos theory is a thing and that even though we understand that our feelings are made from hormones, those hormone receptors are conditioned based on experiences. Experience is still amazing even of our bodies have to calculate to make it respond to the experience.
Doesn't exist because it doesn't function as a world view any more than a person who doesn't believe in unicorns. A world view is based on a set of ethics or beliefs and atheism is just the dismissal of a belief. That is why I called myself an Objectivist and why many atheists call themselves secular humanists.
As soon as you can show me a centralized source that explains the beliefs and ethics of atheists.
This is an over simplification of what biologists and bio chemists have discovered. Which is that living organisms reproduce and that what we recognize as living organisms come from a lineage and don't spontaneously arise from the aether. The current research into abiogenesis looks into what defines life and where it originates.
A cause isn't a physical thing, but is a concept used to explain the changes or transference of energy.
You have established a design, you have just asserted it as such.
I recommend you then read where these hard facts came from and how they are utilized in study.
Yeah, its just a name that stuck that is based on the expansion of the universe.
Because there would not be a before considering that time would be a product of the universe forming. Our language has a hard time trying to explain it since our language assessment time.
Yeah I have heard of it.
Youram abiogenesis? The hypothesis in bio chemistry on the origins of life?
Well, feel free to correct me.
Humans study the universe and look for paterns and constants. A lot has been studied and every year more is found and the understanding of the universe becomes more pracise.
Your post it littered with inappropriate comparisons and misrepresentation. Let me just address one segment for now.
You are confusing what constitutes and enables a feeling/thought/sense and what is being responded to. Observing the end result of a coded video game literally has nothing at all to do with what constitutes and enables a feeling/thought/sense in a human. Are you comparing inanimate programming code with a human being? If so, you acknowledge that we possess programming or are programmed? if so, then are you acknowledging a programmer? If so, who is the Programmer?
The response (thoughts/felling/sense) of unconditional love is manifestly transcendent: that is, it transcends natural explanation. If it does not then it an be reduced to a mere mathematical formula.
No I'm going to end this by stating that I'm growing tired of your projecting onto me what you want me to argue. Your statmeets are filled with you telling me how I need to feel and and think. Last time I check I could make my own decisions. I have explained multiple times my position and if it's not what you wante to say I'm not sorry nor will you force me to stuff myself with straw to make it easier for you.
I was asking if you felt emotional attachments to a character because you were making a big deal about "meaning". I was trying to establish that we can project meaning onto things that don't physically exist or matter in our reality.
So what if it's math. Math explains why my tacos taste delicous and that doesn't cheapen it at all. Why do you despise math?
OH, are you offended again? Good grief, man, cannot you stand someone disagreeing with you?
Separate names with a comma.