Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeSure. Gravity (inverse square law), Sun-centered solar system ("it
still
moves" - Galileo), evolution, genetics, the Big Bang, the laws of
thermodynamics, powered flight, E=mc^2. Shall I continue?
None of these laws disprove the existence of a spirit world.
Of course not (you cannot prove a negative). What they prove is that the
material world exists and has little relevance to the nonsense proposed by
people like Aristotle.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeThen you would validate the statement, since people have, in fact, done
exactly that.
You missed my point. My point was, if morality is just something we
"define" willy-nilly, that means we cannot impose our version of
morality on Hitler, for example. So we could not justify trying to
stop Hitler, or trying to stop 9-11, or any of it.
Morality must be unchanging, or it is worthless.
Morality is defined by societies that hold them to be valid or invalid.
Thus you have Christians believing that morality comes from God, and
atheists who don't believe that God exists, and natives who believe in
animism. Hitler apparently believed that he was morally justified to
commit genocide, as did Cromwell. Southern Christians believed they were
morally justified on religious grounds to own slaves and to treat them
harshly, and many did so. Of course, most people today do not hold these
ideas to be morally valid (and certainly no atheists I know think that they
are). Religion does not hold a monopoly on morality. Indeed, most of the
wars occurring today have religious overtones, if not outright religious
underpinnnings. Do you deny that the sectarian violence in Iraq is due in
large part because of religious differences/bigotry? If you believe that
all that violence is actually morally justified on religious grounds (or
any other grounds), then there is not much else we have left to say to one
another.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeWhat may be true for you may not be true for somebody else. It may be
good
and just for the courts to go after deadbeat dads who don't pay their
child
support. But what if dad is indigant, or disabled, or in a vegetative
state from a car wreck?
See? Changeable morality is worthless. Hitler could probably justify
his actions under your argument, as could Osama Bin Laden. Morality
must be fixed, or it is just leads to cowardice and inaction and
procrastination.
And who decides what morales man is to be held accountable to? You?
Society decides what our laws are to be. If you don't believe in
democracy, you are living in the wrong country.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeThat is quite an incredulous statement, considering the death and
destruction religious belief has wreaked on mankind, not to mention the
destruction it has wrought on this planet.
Atheism under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot was much worse. The 20th
century, the century when atheism was seriously tried for the first
time, was the bloodiest century ever recorded.
Umm, Stalin and Hitler both had mustaches. It must have been the
Mustaches. Yeah, that's it. Jeez.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeTo suggest that atheists are
immoral because they don't believe in God is arrogant, to say the least.
Nope, it is ATHEISTS who are the height of pompous arrogance. They
seem to think that all previous generations of mankind were wrong,
Let's see. Previous generations believed that the earth was flat (some
still do believe it) and the center of the universe. I guess they were
wrong, eh?
Post by b***@juno.comand only the arrogant, self-aggrandizing wisdom of the tiny minority
known
as "atheists" knows how things really are. This is the absolute height
of pomposity and arrogance. Atheism is the most overweening arrogance
possible.
Saying "god did it" doesn't explain anything. Is it arrogant to look for
natural explanations? If so, then perhaps you should turn your computer
off and give it away, because it obviously is an an evil atheist plot to
confuse you into believing that the natural world doesn't depend on your
religious interpretations of reality.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeIf atheists are so immoral, why are there so few of them in our prisons,
yet so many Christians and others locked up?
There are plenty of atheists in prison. The fact that atheism is such
a tiny minority is probably why there is a small sample size.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:
Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)
Unknown/No Answer 18381
----------------------------
Total Convicted 93112 80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is known.
Held in Custody 3856 (not surveyed due to temporary custody)
----------------------------
Total In Prisons 96968
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeNever heard of entropy, eh? Look up the laws of thermodynamics, the
foundation of modern science, and the most well understood laws of
nature.
I was a math major. Entropy does not explain diddly squat. Are you one
of those people who like to throw around "scientific sounding" words,
and hope that nobody calls you on it?
This likely explains why you "WERE" a math major. If you truly believe
that you've proven, with that math cap you have on, that entropy doesn't
explain "diddly squat", then you should publish your findings in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal. I'm sure there's a Nobel Prize waiting
for you.
Post by b***@juno.comI'm sorry, I'm gonna have to call you on the carpet here. How about
you explain to me how "entropy" explains the origin of scientific
laws.
You first. Do the above, and then, I'll consider your request.
Post by b***@juno.comAlso, "themodynamics" is NOT the "foundation" of modern science. Spare
me the pedantic nonsense.
I said it is one of the foundational laws of modern science. Nothing in
modern science is considered valid if it violates the laws of
thermodynamics.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeScience does no such thing. Science excludes God from its experiments,
and
for good reason.
Science excludes God from actual empirical observations, but Science
proceeds along the lines that the universe is Intelligible. This
universal Intelligibility points to a Divine Intelligence behind it.
The hidden assumption behind all science is that the universe is
rational, and rationality always proceeds from a Rational Source,
which all early scientists believed was the Mind of God.
Utter crap. Go back to school. You missed a few classes.
Post by b***@juno.comThat is why Newton, Einstein, and all the original scientists,
believed in God. They were brave enough to do science, because they
believed that "Math is the language with which God has written the
universe." (Newton.) And also, "I want to know God's thoughts, the
rest are details" said Einstein.
Real scientists are human beings, and as such may believe all sorts of
things. Argument from authority carries no weight in science. Newton, for
example, is greatly respected for his work in optics, mechanics and
mathematics; but this lends no additional credence to his work on alchemy,
mysticism and theology.
Be that as it may, if for some reason you really do give weight to the
theological musings of real scientists, I advise caution: the trends
actually argue against your main point.
In particular, you have grossly misrepresented Einstein's views. He had a
strong reaction to such misrepresentation. He once wrote the following to
someone who had written to ask him about this point:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If
something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal
it."
Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas
(Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton
University Press.
Einstein's views on science and religion
(http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/) are readily available
in print and on the web, but there is no compulsion for other scientists to
agree with his personal views.
The final irony is that Einstein's remark God does not play dice is not a
statement about God, but about quantum mechanics, and this is a famous
example of a case where the great man was quite likely incorrect. The
question is still open, and will not be resolved by appeals to Einstein's
authority.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by Georgeit" simply doesn't explain anything at all. As the essay points out,
that
is a lazy philosopy since it doesn't require you to seek the hard facts.
In fact, it insists that you don't do so.
Try telling that to Newton, or Einstein, or any of the rest of the
early scientists, all of whom considered the Rationality of the
Universe to point to a Rational God as their Author.
See above.
Post by b***@juno.comFor some reason, they were able to do science, and give glory to God
while they were doing it. I guess that pretty much sinks your little
theory, doesn't it?
See above.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeThat's amusing. And completely wrong. "God did it" is a frequently
heard
axiom in religious circles, yet there is no way that anyone can prove
that
it is true. It is a subjective opinon not based on emperical evidence,
and
is not testable nor falsifiable. No, axiomatic reasoning is anything
but
objective in nature.
You apparently don't know what "axiomatic reasoning" is. I was a math
major, so I know. Euclidean Geometry is the most obvious example, but
the fact is, absolutely every system of thought is based upon unproven
axioms.
People have often asked if math is a science or an art. I think you first
have to find out what "science" and "art" mean in this question. The
question is not, is math used in science or art,
but is it AN art or A science. The terms you're dealing with are used in
different ways, and your first need is to define them carefully. If you
were asked this question by a human, ask what they mean by the terms; if it
came from a book, ask another book (a dictionary) for details.
In my view of this question, the definition of "a science" from my
dictionary that best fits our needs would be "a department of systematized
knowledge as an object of study"; this doesn't
necessarily have to be, as another definition says, "knowledge covering
general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested
through scientific method." That is, the mere fact that math is an orderly
study of something makes it a science. It is different from natural
sciences, however, in that we determine truth by proof rather than by
observation and experiment. So it doesn't exactly follow the scientific
method, but it's similar. This is an important distinction that you
apparently missed when you were majoring in math.
On the other hand, the first definition my dictionary gives for "an art" is
"skill in performance acquired by experience, study, or observation," and
another is "a system of rules or methods of
performing particular actions." The aesthetic aspect of "art" is only one
of many definitions. Math (even apart from pictures) is often called
beautiful by those who know it well; but that's not what I would mean in
calling it an art. Rather, it is an art because it involves skill.
The other thing you have to think about is, what is math? It's not just
arithmetic, but a whole set of different fields in which we discover and
prove theorems, use them to invent methods of calculation or construction,
and ask new questions about completely imaginary objects. Students often
miss the full extent of math, and get too small a view of it.
Putting all this together, I would say math is both an art (a system of
skills used to do calculations, devise proofs, and so on) and a science (a
system of knowledge about numbers, shapes, and other abstract entities, and
a way of gaining that knowledge). That is, it's
both a way of doing (an art) and a way of learning (a science). But it is
not, in and of itself, a science.
Post by b***@juno.comScience itself, is certainly based upon multiple unproven axioms, for
example. (Axioms such as: Empricism, Rationality of the Universe, the
Ability of the Human Mind to understand science, the efficacy of the
cause-effect relationship, mathematical nature of the hard sciences,
and so on.... not one of which can be "proven.")
Post by GeorgeLazy exactly describes religious belief. Faith is a belief in something
for which there is no proof.
Faith applies to everything except for Descartes' "I think, therefore
I am." (Called the Cartesian Cogito).
Nonsense. Knowing that gravity exists doesn't require faith. Faith is a
belief in something for which there is no proof. There certainly is proof
that gravity exists. It can be tested, those tests can be repeated by
others, and can be falsified. Faith doesn't enter into the picture at all.
Post by b***@juno.comPlease don't make me explain this again. I already explained it in
another recent post. If you don't understand the Cogito, go read that
post, I don't feel like explaining it again.
Perhaps you should update your library. Things have changed a bit since
Descartes' day.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by Georgeexistence. And that is lazy thinking unsupported by any facts, and
contrary
to everything that science has gleaned from the natural world.
It is supported by the enormous fact that Western Civ was based upon
this kind of thinking. We know that God exists because of modern
science such as biochemistry and cosmology. (Read up on Antony Flew,
recent convert to Deism if you doubt me. Flew was such a world-famous
atheist, that he is mentioned in the "Oxford Companion to Philosophy"
as a major proponent of Atheism...... and he recently became deist
becasue of biochemistry and other modern scientific advances. He will
release a new book in November explaining it all. I saw it on
Amazon.com).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support it. The fact
is that the vast body of scientific knowledge does NOT support any
knowledge of the existence of God. To say otherwise is to admit self
deceit.
Post by b***@juno.comOnce you know that God exists, it stands to reason that He would wish
to communicate with us. So revealed religion becomes highly likely,
and it is a simple exercise to come to the conclusion that
Christianity is the best one, for so many reasons, which I can explain
to you if you wish.
If you talk to God, you are considered holy. If God talks to you, you'll
likely be asked to check yourself into a mental institute. You cannot
prove that God exists or doesn't exist. If God is outside the realm of the
natural world (as most theists contend), there is no test that can be
conducted, no scientific result that can be obtain to satisfy the question
"Does God exist", because, by definition, God is outside the realm of the
natural world, and so is not detectable by any scientific measurement. It
becomes a moot point, and so there is no point in arguing what cannot be
proven. However, if God is subject to natural law, then we should be able
to detect his presence and influence. And to date, no one has announced
any credible emperic evidence for God's existence. You guys have had
thousands of years to do this, and have failed utterly. I suggest you move
on.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeUmm, those rules were not "handed down from above". Games have rules
that
people agree on, and abide by. No higher power is required.
What about the World Chess Federation?
What about it? The rules are agreed on by human members of the federation?
What? Do you actually think they are gods?
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeAnd when did chimpanzees and dolphins first realize their "selfness"?
Did
they eat an apple too? If you are going to use the Bible as a science
book, I think you are going to encounter huge problems in doing so.
The Bible is not a science book, but it is accurate whenever it does
address scientific matters. Which is does very rarely, of course.
Is that a fact? Let's test that, shall we?
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeShrimp eats plankton, fish eats shrimp, whale eats fish, man eats whale.
Asteroids can and do strike the Earth. Floods kill more people than any
other natural disaster. Where's the mercy? The mercy comes from man
deciding to treat his fellow man with dignity and respect,
Which atheists are terrible at. Read up on Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot.
Stalin and Hitler also had mustaches. That must have been it. Jeez. I
notice that you didn't mention Hitler, who was, by the way, a Catholic.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by George'flying spaghetti monster', nor from some other omnipotent deity. And
he
does so because it is mutually beneficial for all people to do so.
That's
how civilizations are created.
History shows that it is NOT always "mutually beneficial" to treat
others with respect. That is exactly why Hitler and all the rest
sometimes kill to promote their own benefit over others.
Ah yes, but Hitler was a Catholic who, in accordence with his Central
European upbringing, hated Jews. If Hitler had respected the differences
of others (i.e., Jews), I seriously doubt that he would have masacred them
as he did. Obviously, he didn't, so what's your point?
Post by b***@juno.comAtheists such as Stalin don't believe that God will punish them for all
their evil
actions, and therefore for them, it is just a naked struggle for
power, using violence, deception, and Machiavellian machinations to
get to their desired end result.... no matter if 20 million die as
Stalin did to the Kulaks......
That Stalin was an atheist is irrelevant. He was a communist idealogue and
a tyrant (most atheists I know are hard-core capitalists), and communism
was his overriding imperative, not the fact that he didn't believe in God.
He was, by the way, raised in the Orthodox Church.
Post by b***@juno.comHistory is very clear. It is only when the Atheists seize the reins of
power, that it is time to get really frightened. It is not for nothing
that we have "In God we trust" on our money, and have our Senators,
Presidents, and Judges all swear themselves in on the Bible.
As opposed to when religious zealots gain the reins of power (can you say
Ayatollah Khomeini?)?
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeThat's a very good question, and one that scientists are struggling with
as
we speak.
This is absurd. There is no way that we could use "science" to
understand how "science itself" is possible. That is like trying to
use the same branch you are standing on, to build another branch onto
itself. Won't work. Which scientific law could explain the existence
of itself? Can't be done.
Non-sequitur. The question was not the use of science to understand
science. The questions were "And how did this "Nature" come into being?
Did it just "happen to be there?" If so, why is it organized in a
scientific manner?"
Nature is not organized in a scientific manner. Science organizes the
results of its investigations of nature in a scientific manner. If you
want to understand how nature works, then you must use the only tool that
is available for understanding the natural world - science. That is
because science is designed to do just that; study the natural world. You
cannot explain the natural world if every result requires a "supernatural
agent" (i.e., "God did it") to explain it.
Post by b***@juno.comPost by GeorgeOne thing is clear, and that is if we resort to "God did it" in
trying to explain every phenomenon we encounter, we will likely never
find
out.
This is true. But it is also true that God in a certain sense "does"
everything that science observes. Regardless, we ought to study all
the causes and effects with as much precision as possible, using
naturalistic assumptions whenever possible.
Of course, that is a conclusion that begs the question, how do you know
that "God does everything"? If he does everything, then there is no
natural explanations that we can gleem from our studies of the natural
world. Since we actually can find testable, repeatable, falsifiable
natural explanations in the course of our scientific investigations, and
make practical use of them (i.e., send men to the moon and back), it goes
without saying that there is little, if any evidence in support of your
claim.
George