Theists and atheists ( P.S.)

[Deavonreye]

There is no such thing as a natural explanation for our world. I am convinced that all humans recognize our world as a creation, they either accept it or deny it,however there is no doubt in my mind that all men recognize our world as a creation. Human beings deny reality that they do not want to accept so it is no wonder that some people will deny the creation because it is not what they want to believe.

Do you accept the reality of those who claim to have visited Faeryland?

Science cares not about that which cannot be tested specific experimentation, . . . and experimentation that is ALSO repeatable. And YES, there will be a natural explaination.

BELIEVING in a god [by scientists] does not mean that any credible work would be looked at if a submission of "it began with a supernatural catalyst" is offered.

 

[Sparkey]

Do you accept the reality of those who claim to have visited Faeryland?

Science cares not about that which cannot be tested specific experimentation, . . . and experimentation that is ALSO repeatable. And YES, there will be a natural explaination.

BELIEVING in a god [by scientists] does not mean that any credible work would be looked at if a submission of "it began with a supernatural catalyst" is offered.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am no expert, but didn't Darwin himself mention God? Your premise that "any credible work would not be looked at," is/seems flawed by hostility. Any set of blinders that conclude an experiment before it is begun must be held suspect if the subject is to be considered in a neutral light.

Deavonreye, have you read or are you familiar with "Analogy of the Cave" ?

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[Deavonreye]

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am no expert, but didn't Darwin himself mention God? Your premise that "any credible work would not be looked at," is/seems flawed by hostility. Any set of blinders that conclude an experiment before it is begun must be held suspect if the subject is to be considered in a neutral light.

Deavonreye, have you read or are you familiar with "Analogy of the Cave" ?

Cordially,
~Sparrow

I am not familiar with that analogy.

Here's my point. People on here are claiming something as "absolute fact" [that the supernatural had to be involved] when they have absolutely no evidence for that. Thus, it is ONLY opinion, and opinions hold little weight to the scientific method. WHY it matters is because if we begin to think this way [that it must have been a supernatural agent] then progress could very well be slowed to the detriment of mankind.

I don't claim anything because I have no evidence. I just think it is disingenuous for the theist to make "absolute claims" without evidence.

Sparrowhawke, I DID like the video you linked. Very interesting.

 

[Sparkey]

I am not familiar with that analogy.

Here's my point. People on here are claiming something as "absolute fact" [that the supernatural had to be involved] when they have absolutely no evidence for that. Thus, it is ONLY opinion, and opinions hold little weight to the scientific method. WHY it matters is because if we begin to think this way [that it must have been a supernatural agent] then progress could very well be slowed to the detriment of mankind.

I don't claim anything because I have no evidence. I just think it is disingenuous for the theist to make "absolute claims" without evidence.

Sparrowhawke, I DID like the video you linked. Very interesting.

Thanks for the reply, sir. I'll fetch the analogy that I mention and hope it leads to further conversation. It's worthy enough and I'm certain that you will agree.

Here then: "The Allegory of the Cave"

As always, I'm looking forward to our ongoing conversation(s).

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

And as we discovered that lightning DIDN'T come from an angry Zeus, so we will eventually discover a completely naturalistic explaination for life. It is "giving up too easily" by assuming that there was a force that was outside of natural laws . . . because then you would have to define by what laws THAT being is governed by and why that being created a different existence than itself.

There are those who postulate that there wasn't a "beginning of life", but that it always existed in one form or another. Multiverses, for example. The point is, . . . your "supernatural" is still the same as "magic". A being who "speaks and things immediately form in their place, and fully grown"?

What makes you so sure that a purely natural cause for life will ever be discovered? And on top of that, what then would be the cause of the inanimate or non-life? Didn't the very material (matter) have to have come from somewhere? And would it not have also had to have come about at some time? Consider even time itself. Time is in the most basic form simply the separation of events. In order for there to be time, there must have to have been EITHER an initial event unless time and therefore events have been going on infinately.

As far as being able to discover the laws that would govern the being that caused our natural world, from a scientific and measurable (and thereby definate) standpoint, it would be impossible since that creative "IT" exists on a plane that is not subject to the laws of our universe and our ability to measure because our measurements and calculations are all based and rooted in what natural law dictates.


There are indeed some who subscribe to the multiverse assumption, but they are not the mainstream.

Physicists Paul Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University) offer an alternative to ex nihilo creation. Their proposal stems from the ancient idea that space and time have always existed in some form. Using developments<SUP> </SUP>in string theory, Steinhardt and Turok suggest the Big Bang of our universe as a bridge to a pre-existing universe, and speculate that creation undergoes an eternal succession of universes, with possibly trillions of years of evolution in each. Gravity and the transition from Big Crunch to Big Bang characterize an everlasting succession of universes. However, this view does not take into account<SUP> </SUP>the problems of infinite regression.

The problem with this thinking is that it is ultimately a vicious regress. A vicious regress is "an attempt to solve a problem which re-introduced the same problem in the proposed solution. If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved..

Infinite regress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The mainstream scientists based on what the evidence they are privy to seems to indicate have a virtual concensus that there was a beginning (the big bang anyone). As far back as Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" concept, this has been what the mainstream believes the evidence and logic dictates. What is not agreed on or known is what the cause of that beginning was. That is the roadblock, NOT whether or not there was a beginning.

 

[Deavonreye]

So, having read about this analogy, Sparrowhawke, would you like to give your take on how it relates to this OP? I think I have an idea, but would like to hear your answer.

 

[WIP]

Thus, it is ONLY opinion, and opinions hold little weight to the scientific method.

More than merely opinion. It's belief and faith with no evidence required.

 

[Deavonreye]

More than merely opinion. It's belief and faith with no evidence required.

Then we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[Sparkey]

So, having read about this analogy, Sparrowhawke, would you like to give your take on how it relates to this OP? I think I have an idea, but would like to hear your answer.

The dissertation continues and I find Plato's conclusion of interest to this discussion. Shall I fetch it?

 

[WIP]

Then we have nothing more to discuss.

You do have that choice I guess. Technically, most everything in your science is also nothing more than theory and therefore....opinion.

The source for the evidence is just different.

 

[Sparkey]

Here then: "The Allegory of the Cave"
[video=youtube;69F7GhASOdM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM[/video]

Socrates makes the point that the enlightened must return to the cave. It's not my suited to my purpose to argue or discuss what the term "enlightened" is exactly and although there is mention of the "divine" it is not my thought that they were talking about much more than the concept that truth exists outside of the realm of human experience and that it is discoverable (rationalism).

Socrates tells Glaucon that the cave is the prison house of the soul, and that the journey out of it is equal to the soul's journey to enlightenment. Because of this, he says that educators who believe people have to be taught in order to know anything are wrong.

The concept that I find pertenent to this discussion is the need for the two groups to work together. To put this in context we consider that Plato wanted to help build an ideal society. Those who have understanding must return and work with they of the cave. The discussion considered who would make worthy leaders or who could govern. The conclusion of the discussion (who would make proper governers of society) ruled out two groups: Those who were unenlightened and those who were permanent fixtures of enlightenment.

If the allegory applies to Theists and Atheists, either group could be the ones who have exited the cave because the limitation could be considered the restrictive belief of the other. I would thus argue that the OP's question can be resolved without first choosing who is "right" but only need consider that whoever is right has a duty to continue in his care for others. To me, this concept aptly ties in with Maslov's heirarchy of needs.

 

[Deavonreye]

True, no one can know. Which us the two sides has left the cave? BOTH sides may still be there for all we know. My point is that, under the circumstances, neither side has the right to claim that the other side is "absolutely wrong".

BTW, another good video, Sparrowhawke.

 

[Mike S]

And as we discovered that lightning DIDN'T come from an angry Zeus, so we will eventually discover a completely naturalistic explaination for life.

This is a statement of faith. Odd, don't you think, for someone who denigrates faith?

 

[Deavonreye]

This is a statement of faith. Odd, don't you think, for someone who denigrates faith?

Not entirely. We have discovered a natural explaination for everything else, so it will just take a matter of time for scientists to make the breakthrough.

 

[jasoncran]

Not entirely. We have discovered a natural explaination for everything else, so it will just take a matter of time for scientists to make the breakthrough.

picard" we are ready to handle whatever comes our way". Q" oh, really?!. oh the arrogance!"

.

 

[Deavonreye]

picard" we are ready to handle whatever comes our way". Q" oh, really?!. oh the arrogance!"

.

Good episode! :yes

 

[jasoncran]

Good episode! :yes

one of my favorites. i cant remember the name but its the one that the borg are introduced.

man the heyday of st:tng.off topic the only thing i didnt like about st:tng and voyager was the political correctness.

that being said, i understand why you say that.in science one cant say well God did it and just not try to see if cant be explained. that being said if said"supernatural phenomon" is explained doesnt negate the existance of said diety. just that we are able to understand the things around a little more. science often has more questions then answers.

wouldnt you agree?

 

[Sparkey]

In my pursuit of "enlightenment" I find myself, late in life --attending college (again) and one of my classes is Soc101 where we are currently discussing methods of measuring the ethnocentricity of different groups. The extra credit assignment that was given (about 1/2 hour ago in class) was to design a set of 10 survey questions that would help determine and measure the level of ethnocentricity a select group had.

The idea is that I'll go out to some public location and deliver the survey to every 5th passerby. They will respond to my questions and I will then tabulate the results. The conclusion (my measurement of the degree they feel they are right and others, outside the group are wrong) will occupy the third section of the report.

The main purpose of the assignment is to get the student thinking about the differences, hmmmm... no, make that the measurable difference between various cultures or groups and the tendency that each group has for their own ideas, concepts, behaviors and ways of life --such that they tend to believe all others are inferior. And example might be (since I live near the Canadian border) a comparison based on nationality. Example questions might include, "Which group, in your opinion, would be more aware of World Politics, the average US citizen or the average Canadian citizen," or "Which, in your opinion could be better in terms of politeness, American or Canadian," and etc.

Of interest to me is the polarization that is formed between theist and atheist --both are knowledge seekers, both are interested in the benefit of mankind and yet, as this discussion shows, the ethnocentricity of each interferes with the mutual goal of respect of self and others.

 

[Oats]

I don't think you'll find very many actual scientists who would state that the "universe created itself".

Then what caused it?

If you don't know it is safe to assume that something created and there cannot be an unending stream of causes...

It is a scientific fact that time is an aspect of this physical universe, so time had to begin just like this universe did, If you assume it has always been this way forever that is the farce

Not entirely. We have discovered a natural explaination for everything else, so it will just take a matter of time for scientists to make the breakthrough.

if it has a cause, then it has a causer, also before the universe began science says there was not any nature to produce a natural cause

 

[Deavonreye]

one of my favorites. i cant remember the name but its the one that the borg are introduced.

man the heyday of st:tng.off topic the only thing i didnt like about st:tng and voyager was the political correctness.

that being said, i understand why you say that.in science one cant say well God did it and just not try to see if cant be explained. that being said if said"supernatural phenomon" is explained doesnt negate the existance of said diety. just that we are able to understand the things around a little more. science often has more questions then answers.

wouldnt you agree?

I would agree with that. It is quite possible that what is called "supernatural" may just be "technology/natural we haven't reached the ability to test for".

BTW, the episode is "Q Who?"