|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
 Posted - 04/17/2001 : 23:08:03
|
As I was going to reply before I learned that my modem is somehow incompatible with the new weboard...
Originally posted by JohnPaul Slater:
I've been at this Theist vs. Atheist game since the mid nineteen sixties, I've seen this same "thought experiment" dragged out many times. It is nothing but pure slander based on prejudice.
The philosophical question of where morality comes from and why we give it meaning and importance is not slander, except maybe to people who prefer not to think about anything. I am not asking why morality might exist, but why we rationally choose to practice morality, if you are offended by such a question then that would be your fault, not someone else's.
Now, some people do turn these types of questions into opportunities to be slanderous, ChristianSkeptic did this a little bit and so does everybody else from time to time. Unclean thoughts are a very common occurance in myself and other people, but this does not throw out all validity to all aspects of all thoughts.
JohnPaul, you have had countless thought experiments that you use to "slander" Christians or other people you disagree with, and I don't get all upset and start pouting about them. I try and look past your disrespect for me and learn something. It seems to me that if some people can't handle any sort of adversity, then they shouldn't dish it out either.
Atheism seems to ignore the question of meaning in anything. This is illustrated by your idea that "the meaning of life is whatever a person wants it to be". That still means that there is meaning to things. Morality requires meaning to operate, arguably more than any other type of action in life. When you try to shift meaning onto "evolution" or "wanting to survive" you are still under morality and thus hitting a dead end. Why would you want to "evolve" or survive, what meaning is there to such an action? If you can tell me how, under atheism, morality or anything else can have importance, then you will have answered my philosophical question. If your answer is that you have no answer, and that it is just a mystery of life or something else, then say so.
Michael, Koko and any number of subject chimps speak (spoke) standard American Sign Language. Nothing vague about it. Any educated deaf person in the US can chat with them.
There is no slight of hand here, they are thinking, feeling, non-human beings.
When I say that Michael the Gorilla cannot speak, I am meaning that he cannot speak on the human level. All animals communicate in one way or another with each other. But whether through visible signals or audible sounds, animals are very limited in what they can say. The amounts of different symbols or words that they can use are limited. Yes apes can use sign language, but I have not seen one use sign language in a way that even comes close to human capabilities. Now, I haven't seen anything related to this type of study in a while now, so I guess it is possible that the apes or chimps have learned a higher level of speaking since I last looked, but I doubt it.
As for animals in general, I believe they have the similar feelings and desires that we humans do. I believe that if we actually were able to get into the minds of animals that we would find many things that we humans could relate to, but as far as I know, this has not been done in any complex manner due to the lack of any substantial transfers of information. Perhaps you can educate me on any recent findings or developments that I might not know of.
The question eventually rises of "Who is God?" or "What is it that we would put our faith in?" God's nature and purpose reaches beyond our finite scope and sees all reality, even our free choices.
You have probably heard that statement so many times that you repeat it as though it meant anything. It is like saying "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The Great and Powerful OZ has spoken!!!!"
No I had never heard that statement before, at least as I am understanding it, until I had come up with it from reading the bible. I'll explain more at a later time.
Did you ever see "Hanna and Her Sisters"? The character that Woody Allen plays comes to realize that without God life has no meaning. He humorously samples different religions and comes to the conclusion that without meaning life isn't worth living. After botching a suicide attempt he winds up at the movies watching the Marx Brothers in "Duck Soup." There he comes to the realization that it is the experience of life that he really wanted and not some meaning.
The "meaning of Life" is whatever you, yourself, ascribe to it. If you want to go with an "off the shelf", pre-packaged meaning- hey, it's your life. Personally I prefer one that is supported by facts and not fantasy, but that's just me.
There is your slander again JohnPaul. I just don't understand what you have against people who follow the bible. Oh well, I won't make a big deal out of this. I don't need to be a big baby like some people.
Hey, if you want to get your meaning for life and morality from Woody Allen, then go ahead, but I find the bible to be allot more meaningful to myself, and how I ascribe to life through it. No offense, but I'd rather get meaning from something "off the shelf" of Christianity than off the shelf of Hollywood.
Are you saying that the human brain cannot do what computers do?
No, I'm saying that mechanical brains cannot (for the most part) do what biological brains can.
Lastly how do you know that the brain, all by itself, can rationally think about its own existence and rationalize what it does?
There is nothing to suggest otherwise.
I agree that human brains can do many things that mechanical brains do. That is not the point of my question. From a fundamental scientific basis, I am asking how brains can be different from computers. I have seen computer scientists who believe that when computers carry out actions and programs, that they are fundamentally no different from humans or animals. This defies my logic though. I know that I can rationally think about my own existence and actions, and I know with almost equal certainty that computers cannot do this.
When computers carry out actions they do everything that we program them to do. When I look at animals or other human beings apart from myself doing equally notable actions as a computer or robot would, it is easy for me to imagine that equally deterministic forces might guide them like a computer's program. This quickly draws to a close when I realize that I rationally think about the actions that I make; I think therefore I am. I know that my computer does not rationalize what it does. My computer does everything that I program it to do as a rational extension of my own mind. This is precisely what suggests that our brains should not be aware of themselves, unless of course you want to ignore science and believe magic.
Why do we rationalize our actions with meaning through what seems like free choice, while computers do exactly what they are programmed to do. If our brains are simply more advanced biochemical versions of computers, then they should not be able to recognize their own existence. Give me scientific proof for the existence of the property in the human brain that you believe gives us this capability. Don't just retreat to your unproven myth of how a series of accidents just happened to form a brain, and then just happened to endow it with capabilities that seem to contradict the deterministic forces of the universe from which it sprung.
As a being that is aware of myself, I assume that all people have a similar knowledge of themselves. Even if we ignore the science of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the known fact that I possess a rational mind is why I believe I am more than my body, and why I believe I have a spirit, or something similar. People in the past have proposed the idea that freewill and human existence is just an illusion, if this is what you believe then say so; I won't criticize you.
Well the brain, all by itself, cannot explain how we would be able to observe wormholes.
We have never observed a "wormhole." Although a mainstay of science fiction, wormholes (as far as we can prove at the present time) exist only as mathematical probabilities.
I know we have never observed wormholes. That is why I said "we would be able to observe wormholes" and not "we have observed wormholes." I decided to use the term wormhole so I could sound smart. Basically if the two ends of a wormhole were put at two different speeds and rates of time relative to each other, then we would have a "mathematically probable" pathway that would go backwards or forwards in time.
-if I go into a rocket ship, and fly around the universe near the speed of light, and return to the earth, I would have experienced a different rate of time relative to someone who remained on earth… The universe should not be able to observe itself and then experience two different rates of time, relative to itself. In other words, without possessing an observational property, time and space should not be recognizable to our minds.
This would be true if we were created out of whole cloth. Say if we instantly sprang into existence out of magic dust. (If you teach children that they are descended from monkeys they will act like monkeys. Then if you teach them that we are descended from dust will they treat people like dirt?)
Fortunately we evolved over eons and have acquired many faculties in that time.
I'm sorry but that sounded like nonsense. I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.
First you say that we are not cut out of the same cloth, which is basically what I am saying. I believe the reason we can observe time and space the way we do, is because we have an observer element to our mind that is separate from our bodies. This would be evidence for a spirit-like component in each of us.
Next you say that the reason we have this ability is because our minds evolved over eons from monkeys. Are you saying that monkey's cannot observe time and space? Personally I don't know the answer to that question, but if you think that you do then don't hesitate to share. The reason I would have trouble believing that animals can observe time-space the way we do is because I can't get into their heads and know exactly what they are thinking. They might just be incredibly complex machines that react to the universe in ways that they have programmed to.
Anyhow, if the monkeys, who we supposedly evolved from, evolved from earlier life forms that evolved from matter that spontaneously formed into life from the dead universe surrounding it, then we would fundamentally be a part of the universe. You are proposing a fantasy beyond any religion when you try and say that our minds magically evolved a magical property through spontaneous forces that allow us to observe the universe and time-space the way we do. I say, where is your proof?
You seem to have a common misunderstanding about what time is.
Do you think you could give me an example of what you "seem" to think my misunderstanding of time is? I am not anywhere near being a mathematician, so I would be very interested to hear any of my misunderstandings that you can think of. Keep in mind though, if you're just assuming that I have a misunderstanding of time because of the simple way in which I gave my example, then you would be wrong; I did that on purpose.
Commonly it (time) is treated as a dimension. The fourth dimension out of Einstein's seven. (The actual existence of 7 dimensions was confirmed by physical experiments performed during the First World War. This would put the kibosh on both Kants' theory of human limitations and Newton's version of gravity. Just thinking about any more than 3 or 4 dimensions sends me straight to the cocktail shaker)
I said that my ideas were similar to Kant's, but not at all the same. Kant seemed to be rather contradictory and there were a number of his ideas that I disagree with. Also I know that time is treated as a dimension, but however scientists think of it, using the mathematics of it is beyond my current capabilities.
The best way that I can think of a fourth dimension is to think of two spaceships that are independent of the universe and of any gravitational forces. When they are at rest, time moves at an infinite rate, then the two spaceships move. One spaceship goes twice as far as the first spaceship in the same amount of time. Thus the spaceship that went twice as far in its space-time would experience a half rate of time compared to the distance traveled relative to the first spaceship. I then imagine two spaceships that travel the same distance and then are frozen. The first spaceship took 4 minutes to reach the finish line and then was refrozen, but the second spaceship took 2 minutes to reach the finish line and then was refrozen. Relative to each other, the second spaceship would be two minutes younger than the first at the same finish point in time-space.
I know that I have an incredibly simplistic way of thinking about it, but that is the best I was able to do on my own. I suppose that if I had a teacher who had taught me this stuff, then I might currently have a better understanding of time-space. Also I am sure that I am most likely making a mistake somewhere.
One problem that makes me unsure of my examples is that they wouldn't work if we tried them here on the earth. I think that this is because of the gravity of the earth (weak as it is), and any other movements, such as the expanding universe, make any little movements, like the ones in my example, on the earth seem like virtually nothing. Again, if you see any problems with my thinking of time then don't hesitate to correct me.
Time is a side effect of motion and not a constant. Yes, the faster you go the slower time "moves". Conversely the slower you travel the faster time moves.
If you were able to divorce yourself of all movement-earth rotation, earth orbit speed, suns galactic orbital speed, galaxies sub movement and universal expansion- and remain perfectly still then all of time would occur simultaneously.
If that were what you seemed to think I was misunderstanding, then you would be wrong. I already knew all of that. I also know that if we could go the speed of light, then time would stop, and that in Einstein's General Relativity time and space somehow warp, bend, or curve around matter causing gravity and acceleration to an observer.
There is one thing that I have been wondering about that maybe you can help me with JohnPaul. In Star Trek and in other science fiction shows, humans fly around in spaceships that bypass the speed of light. It seems to me that if we could go beyond the speed of light then two things would happen (as far as I can conceive), either time would begin speeding up again towards infinite (possibly at infinite speed?), or maybe time would reverse and we would arrive at our destination before we left, or maybe both. This is giving me a headache so I'll go back to the main topic.
There is nothing "fixed" about time. Around these parts (earth) speed remains fairly constant so no real differences are noticeable.
Ok I think that might answer my previous question, but I'm not sure of that. I suppose it depends on what you meant. Maybe you can clear things up for me.
At any rate, yes I know time and space are not constants as you expressed. What I am saying is that time and space cannot exist, as we percieve it, unless we are separate observers from the universe perceiving time and space the way we do. You seem to be saying that we are not separate from the universe, but that evolution, working over eons and eons, has somehow given birth to a separate piece cloth from the universe that allows us to observe time and space. That point of view is not making much sense to me; perhaps you can clarify your idea and give some scientific proof for this phenomenon of "seperate cloth".
An equally if not more persuasive argument, for a separate observational property in our minds, is found in Quantum Mechanics.
I don't have the patience to teach Quantum Mechanics 101.
Timothy Ferris has done a fine job of that in his books already.
You are the first Christian I have met who has gone this route. Usually it is the "New Agers" like to equate a tortured version of quantum physics with magic.
Again, I am no mathematician, and certainly Quantum Mechanics is way over my head, so if you see any incorrect statements of mine, then go ahead and correct me. Don't just say that I am using a "tortured" "New Age" version of Quantum Mechanics. You need to prove what you say. And for your information, everything I said on this topic has come from science books, encyclopedias, and quotes from various scientists who are well versed in Quantum Mechanics. I do not know of these "New Agers" you spoke of, but I can see how they would want to tout Quantum Mechanics as proof for some kind of spiritual nature resident within mankind. Personally all I have ever heard New Age people speak of is weird stuff about mystical energies like the "Chi" in Buddhism, but I'll take your word on this.
I know many scientists want to reject the idea that QM's Uncertainty Principle supports, but that does not mean that it has been explained away or refuted by them. The fact of the matter is that we physically affect atomic particles/waves when we observe them. Also known as indeterminacy, it is impossible for us to simultaneously specify the position and momentum of a quantum. The more accurately we know one property the less we know of the other.
You may not like this, but the uncertainty we have when observing atomic particles is the result of observing them. Science has proven that observation is not a passive action on the part of the observer. Whatever the stuff that makes up our universe is, we physically make it real with our minds. The way I see it, when we perceive energy or matter, atomic particles crystallize or form at a point in space by observing them. If this is not wrong then I find it strange that our brains could have evolved such a process over eons of time from inanimate space dust. If it were not for experimental proof forcing us to admit this, many scientists would say this were impossible because it seems to violate determinism.
Now, I am not saying that Uncertainty Principle is proof for some mystical force that violates cause and effect. What I am saying is that we humans have our physical bodies and also some kind of second nature that is separate from the known universe. This is not magic nor is it twisting or distorting science. If you refuse to accept something that science has experimentally proven (which makes it far more reliable than something like biological evolution), then that is your problem. I personally don't have a problem with the idea that we are more than our bodies, because I believe that I possess a spirit.
This does not mean that our brains do not play important roles in our understanding of things, but without observing the universe as a separate entity, our unique experiences of time, space, and matter cannot exist. This works like a computer, we can program it to do one thing or another depending on various circumstances through measuring apparatus, but it cannot reason about or observe the universe.
This is sort of the reverse to the "intelligent design" argument. If we can't do it then nature couldn't.
Actually for the past seven years now we have had computers that reason and observe and react. These are not PCs mind you.
First off, the "intelligent design" argument only says that if we cannot do something, or scientifically prove that nature can spontaneously do something, then it is foolish for us to just assume that this something can take place without an intellect guiding it. The idea of biological evolution is the perfect example of something that falls apart under the "intelligent design" argument. Sure we can come up with hypothesis that try and explain various mysteries in nature, but without experimental proof, these hypotheses can be nothing more.
Now onto the idea that we have computers that reason, observe and react. This is ridiculous for reasons that I already stated earlier. I know from my own experiences that at least I, and most likely all other humans can reason, observe, and choose to react, while computers only do what we program them to do. They may seem to do the things that we humans do, but computers and robots are simply fulfilling the reasons, observations, and reactions of their human creators. It is entirely deterministic. A computer observes certain stimuli, because we want it to, and then reacts to them based on certain protocols that we program it with. A computer does not reason in its mind the way humans do, and then decide or choose to react in a certain way. Also computers do not have imaginations.
I know that there is meaning behind everything. I have plenty of proof that is demonstrated to myself in my own experiences.
Proof, you say? By all means share it. I've been looking for proof for decades to no avail. What proof do you have? Why didn't you share it with us before? How do we independently reproduce you experiment?
I see the universe and as I experience it, I find reasons for everything. Human beings appear to be at the top of everything. Everything in the universe such as physical laws, atoms and their building blocks, the periodic table of elements, the sun, the earth, plants, animals, and countless other things can all be given meaning in relationship to my own existence and the rest of humanity's. Take out any law of physics and human life would cease to exist. You say that this would be natural selection working and that we are not guaranteed survival; nothing has meaning; nothing has purpose. This sounds like a contradiction on your part. You use the idea of natural selection as and for a purpose for everything. You say that natural selection has given rise to complex creatures like humans and apes. That very statement is filled with the idea of purpose because you give it such.
I can reason things and thus expect everything to have a reason. It is not just a want on my part, but a fact that I know exists.
At first glance this would appear to be blatant anthropomorphism. But you say that it is a fact. If so then it should be provable-so…prove it.
That was blatant anthropomorphism, and it is either a fact or human beings are inherently contradictory. For me to explain this in more detail I will have to go into the definition of what it means to be rational. If I say that something is rational, I mean that it is agreeable with reason. Reason is the basis or cause for something. So someone who is rational is someone who does things for reasons and interprets the universe with reason in mind.
(The following is a very long thought that took me a long time to formulate. So even if JohnPaul or somebody else has an argument against it, just keep in mind that I had to use a large number of brain cells and allot of time to come up with it, and I would appreciate if you don't tread over my idea too badly or as if it were nothing. This would mostly be for my "self-esteem" and ego. Thank you.  )
My mind is a fact to me, and I assume that your mind is a fact to you. I give reasons for everything because I am one who reasons. All rational minds give reasons for everything. We see that the earth flies through space and around the sun. We ask why it does this and discover that the reason is gravity. We see gravity and we ask why it exists. Essentially all reasons ultimately reach the known universe. The reason why the earth revolves around the sun, and the reason why gravity exists, is ultimately because the universe is that way. It is here that I see all philosophies or points of view reach a question that can only have two possible answers. Why is the universe the way it is?
Atheism, which is the "non-belief" in a God, has a particular interesting dilemma with the question of the REASON for all existence. Theists and Deists will answer that universe has reason because of God; an intelligent being that is infinite beyond everything and self-sufficient. Mystics and Polytheists will most likely have a similar but more complicated explanation compared to that of Theists and Deists. Philosophical Humanists will answer that the reason for the universe is Humanity. Now Atheists can only answer the big question in two ways or variations of that. The first answer is to say that the universe exists just the way it does, it is self sufficient, and doesn't require any kind of Godlike ultimate being. The other answer is to say that there is no reason for the universe.
For both answers that an Atheist makes to the question of ultimate reason, he or she will have problems, especially if the answer is that the universe exists because it exists and is self-sufficient. If a person believes that the universe is the end of reason, it exists for the reason that it exists, then it seems to me that he or she has now turned the universe into God, and this would disagree with Atheism. This is materialism; the belief that all that exists is the universe and its various forms and motions (if one adheres to the big bang then this philosophy can get rather depressing). Anyhow, whatever term you wish to use, under this conclusion interstellar dust and everything else in existence becomes self-sufficient and not requiring any further reason in a person's mind. God.
Now if you want me to believe that there is no reason for the universe, then you also run into a rather nasty problem. Unlike the first answer, this one remains consistent with Atheism and has no God. The problem with this answer arises for an atheist when he or she realizes that without a reason for the universe as a whole, an intellectually honest person must realize that everything after that equally cannot have any reason. If there is no reason for the universe, then there is no reason for gravity, and if there is no reason for gravity, then there is no reason for the earth to revolve around the sun, and if there is no reason for the earth to revolve around the sun, then there is no reason for the earth, and if there is no reason for the earth, there is no reason for humans, and finally if there is no reason for humans, then there is no reason for you or anything you do, including morality.
If there is no reason for you, your actions, or anything else, then you must reject all rational truth. (The reason I fell over is because I bumped into the wall. The reason I am telling you this is because I care about ideas. Why?) To reject all rational truth is Nihilism. I can see two main types of Nihilists that form from this conclusion. One selectively chooses which truth it will accept, and the other rejects all truth. Thus you see why I believe that Atheism is identical to Nihilism.
To disbelieve one's own experience and say that we are merely machines that evolved from the universe, and that we have no extra properties is selective Nihilism and must admit to the contradiction it forms about human existence. I do not believe that my existence is as limited as you want me to believe it is JohnPaul.
We humans need reason, and this is the scientific evidence for the reason of everything, and if this fact were not true, we would have to throw out all of science. The rational mind is how we experience the universe and is what all of science is based on. It is REASON that allows us to discover General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and deduce that we have a property that is separate from the known physical universe. You want proof? I find plenty, but then again I also reject Nihilism and all its forms.
Science has already given us demonstrable proof for the existence of spirits and a God. While the idea of spirits and the God of the bible existing are not entirely provable, I think the underlying principles that they are based on are not only provable but also intuitively known.
You aren't referring to that article in some of the national science magazines "New Theory: God Did It" are you? That was written by Edward K. Lankford a senior at U of G. It's pure sarcasm-humor-not science.
First you say there is scientific proof, then you say it isn't provable, then you resort to "intuition." It sounds like it won't be too long before you are ready to admit the facts to yourself.
No, I have never heard of that article. I was referring to the areas of science, already mentioned earlier, that I believe support the idea that we have spirits and truthful reasons and meaning.
What I said was not entirely provable was the God of the bible, not God in general. This is because no scientific truth can be proven totally. There is doubt in every theory and law that science has ever proposed. This does not rule out the idea that through intuition we might be able to realize that the bible is true, but to me it makes no sense to believe some kind of intuitive truth that is not supported by scientific, statistical, and legal truth.
Now as for the intuition that I speak of, this is the knowledge of my own existence apart from my body. To me this intuitively confirms a spirit and some kind God that I believe (again) are confirmed by rational science. I also believe that this is why humans have, throughout all of history, clung to the idea of a type of God and a type of immortal element to man that is separate from physical reality. I also believe that the bible's truths are the most supported by analytical and synthetic truth. In other words I believe the bible is internally consistent with its ideas and philosophy, and I believe that the bible is externally consistent with science and history (to say that it has been proven by science and history is a little more complex).
Check your sources (concerning evidence for the bible). Use Carl Sagan's "Baloney detection kit" on all evidence.
I'm not sure what Carl Sagan's "Baloney detection kit" is, but I have been checking all my information through independent sources. I have also been checking a lot of my information and sources through the opposing side's view. Already I have noticed a number of flawed reasoning that people use to support the bible's authenticity. Although those truths that do check out are compelling enough for me to believe the bible.
As a side question, was it Carl Sagan who realized that certain people were able to predict the future with pretty good success rates and then said that the evidence for this phenomenon was compelling enough to at least acknowledge it? I know that whomever that statement came from was a big skeptic and I was surprised when I heard that he had said that. (I'm pretty sure that it was Carl but not totally.) Anyways this is not very relevant to this discussion.
There are many, many "truths" in the bible as there are in the mythologies of all the peoples of this world. I am not asking you to ignore Christian "truths" I am asking you to face "facts." You can keep both and be a better person for it.
I do try to face facts, and I believe that those I have so far uncovered support the bible. I'm not going to post them until I am satisfactorily completed with my study (there is a lot of information) so I certainly don't expect you or anyone else to take my word for the bible until then. Even once I have posted my information, whatever conclusion I draw will be mine and people can judge it however they want.
If I try to use history and science to back up the bible I will always come up short, this is for two reasons. Number one is that history is in the past and I cannot experience it in the present.
And with one fell swoop you wipe out all of history. This is reasoning that would negate any thought of Jesus. He lived (supposedly) 2000 years ago and since we cannot experience the past first hand we can only ignore him. I don't buy that you are serious about #1.
I did not wipe out history. I am saying that it is in the past and cannot be reproduced using science. I believe that history, all by itself, supports the bible and its Jesus. I was not trying to say that history should be ignored; but that it does have limits and we cannot uncover anything to the point of being infallible.
Number two is that to demonstrably prove the God of the bible, I would have to make Him my slave as He runs through my scientific hoops.
If this holds true for Skeptics then it must also hold true for Believers.
If you cannot, by your own admission, demonstrate proof of him then you cannot make certain claims. You can't claim to know his likes and dislikes. You can't claim to know his actions. You can't claim to "know" that he even exists.
And yet you do do all of these things, without the slightest desire of proof to back your claims up.
This becomes an ethical dilemma. It's like the truth in advertising laws-you cannot ethically make claims for your product that you cannot back up. (Carter's Little Liver Pills had nothing in any way shape or form to do with livers) It is not moral for you to tell people about what god requires of them if you have no proof that there is a god.
Your Number 2 seems more like a Catch 22.
I'm sorry; I badly worded Number 2. I believe that what scientific evidence there is regarding the bible is plenty reliable. I also believe that scientific evidence certainly points to the existence of a God, if not the God of the bible. I meant that to be able to carry out first hand experiments that I have conceived to prove or disprove the existence of the bible's God would mean that I would have to be able to control God. I did not mean to make it sound as if there is no evidence for God and that we shouldn't look to prove His existence. Besides, even if I could control God, any results from such experiments could still be disbelieved.
Face it, you require no evidence. In fact you imply that lack of evidence is a reason to believe when you say
-just because something may be beyond your realm of understanding, is no reason to assume that it is impossible.
It isn't beyond my realm of understanding at all. In fact it's painfully ordinary and not at all complex.
You, and a whole lot of other people, have been conned.
Occam's Razor at work.
That is the exact opposite of what I am implying when I make that statement. The lack of evidence is not a reason to believe, but equally does not provide a reason to disbelieve. I was simply referring to the bibles events and miracles. If people near this time believed these events took place in the light of supposed first hand accounts and hostile witnesses, and scientific inquiry does not contradict these events, then I believe that I have some reasons to believe.
To think that you would be someone to bring up Ockham's Razor is really surprising. How many times have you told me that non-belief is natural (evidence of your nihilism) and that wherever there is a lack of evidence or some other uncertainty we should assume complicated theories to explain away history and people's beliefs. If you want to apply Ockham's Razor to the bible, then the simplest explanation for its contents is that they actually happened. Once you start disbelieving the bibles account, you must start to invent baseless theories for events that might have formed these accounts. You also come up with baseless intents and unrealistic motives behind them that might have existed at one time.
If you want to extend my Razor conclusion of the bible to areas and topics outside of it, you still get the simplest explanations from the bible. For instance there is the question of the existence of complex life forms on the earth. Did they evolve through completely unproven processes that have been statistically refuted, or did God use his intellect to bring about what we see? Another example is the question of why the universe is the way it is. There is nothing simpler than: God created.
Also the way you kept insisting that I provide you with a scientific explanation for Jesus ascension into heaven is not consistent with Ockham's Razor. Movement is only the appearance of a thing in a different place, and without any other statements concerning how Jesus ascended, I find your bringing up of that topic to be rather unreasonable.
Here is a perfect multiple-choice question that illustrates Ockham's Razor:
Why do human beings possess rational minds and the ability to observe the universe?
- We evolved over eons, as one complex accident happened to occur after another until our minds somehow evolved into "separate pieces of cloth" from the rest of the physical universe, while still remaining a part of it.
- We possess a spirit-like property that is separate from the known physical universe.
Ahhh... Ockham's Razor at work.
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE
DON'T NEED NO MEANING
I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE
I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL
AND I LOVE IT
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2001 : 16:41:57 [Permalink]
|
Ahh you don't know what EUTHRYPHO means? Neither do I. I think Christian Skeptic made it up out of Euthanasia and some spare letters he had lying around.
Why would you want to "evolve" or survive, what meaning is there to such an action? If you can tell me how, under atheism, morality or anything else can have importance, then you will have answered my philosophical question. If your answer is that you have no answer, and that it is just a mystery of life or something else, then say so.
I was stopped in the Haight Ashbury section of San Francisco last week by a roaming band of religious tract waving college kids. They were convinced that there was a "creator" because, obviously, there was a "creation." You are more sophisticated than that but you are using somewhat similar logic.
There must be "meaning" and the only way for there to be "meaning" is a god. Ergo there must be a god.
What you don't address is why there must be "meaning" at all, other than your personal desire for there to be? And just what do you mean by "meaning" anyway?
It doesn't matter if you want to evolve. You are not granted options.
Creatures who possessed the "will to live" were more likely to survive to pass on their characteristics than those who didn't care if they died—those of us who have descended from them all have this characteristic.
I guess it is possible that the apes or chimps have learned a higher level of speaking since I last looked, but I doubt it.
You're right, apes haven't become any more human in the past few years. But they are more mentally advanced than they generally get credit for. For instance Michael would sometimes tell lies.
One day when his researcher came in she found the staff kitchen destroyed. The door was torn off the refrigerator. Michael was found in his "room" with the door unlocked. His fur was matted with raw eggs. The researcher asked him if he had made the mess. He said No, Karen, the 95 lb. intern, had done it.
Just think of the process his mind had to go through to come up with that.
The point that is reached is one that would kill the Gorilla Foundations funding. It is the realization that this is not a Human/Animal relationship. It is merely two species of great ape communicating.
My computer does everything that I program it to do as a rational extension of my own mind. This is precisely what suggests that our brains should not be aware of themselves, unless of course you want to ignore science and believe magic.
Your logic evades me, so if my reply is inappropriate please set me straight.
Biological brains have evolved over billions of years. For the vast majority of that time there was no concept of "self". It can be argued that the majority of species now on the planet are not truly aware of "self."
We have been knocking together electronic parodies of biological brains for less than sixty years. And yes we do have a handful here in Silicon Valley that are "self aware." There is no suggestion of magic in their construction. If you think that the thought of them is disquieting you should meet them. The experience is much worse that you could imagine. If you are ever in the Bay Area let me know and I'll introduce you.
Don't just retreat to your unproven myth of how a series of accidents
just happened to form a brain, and then just happened to endow it with capabilities that seem to contradict the deterministic forces of the universe from which it sprung.
By "unproven myth" I take it that you mean evolution. So I just did what you demanded I not do (I'm writing this reply as I read you missive and am not skipping ahead). That pretty much ties my hands. I can't give you an answer without mentioning evolution as that IS the answer.
And by the way, when did evolution become unproven?
People in the past have proposed the idea that freewill and human existence is just an illusion, if this is what you believe then say so; I won't criticize you.
I do not consider existence itself to be an illusion, as one would have to exist in order to perceive the illusion. Unless of course Vishnu is only dreaming that I don't consider myself an illusion.
Free will is a non–subject. There are no gods to control your destiny so you have no one to have your will freed from. One however is forced to reacted to the physical world and it's limitations, which would curtail absolute freedom of will. So..?
I believe the reason we can observe time and space the way we do, is because we have an observer element to our mind that is separate from our bodies. This would be evidence for a spirit-like component in each of us.
That is a teaching that is peculiar to Christianity and Islam. Your spirit (mind) and your body are separate.
You're discounting the ability of the brain and sense organs to function as well as they do (which isn't all that great) doesn't make any sense to me.
They used to say that it was aerodynamically impossible for bees to fly. Obviously the bees did not feel constrained by our lack of knowledge of flight. There is no need for a supernatural spirit to inhabit your earthly frame. The brain, demonstrably, works fine all by itself. Everything that you describe as spiritual has the simpler explanation of being an electro/biochemical reaction.
Anyhow, if the monkeys, who we supposedly evolved from, evolved from earlier life forms that evolved from matter that spontaneously formed into life from the dead universe surrounding it, then we would fundamentally be a part of the universe. You are proposing a fantasy beyond any religion when you try and say that our minds magically evolved a magical property through spontaneous forces that allow us to observe the universe and time-space the way we do. I say, where is your proof?
You've lost me again.
Sure, of course we are a part of the universe. As Carl Sagan once so poetically said, "We are made of star stuff." We are made of organic compounds, rather common stuff in this universe that is far from dead.
The fact that we can observe is not magical in the least. Evolution science covers that quite well, but you don't want to hear about that because it conflicts with your faith.
There is one thing that I have been wondering about that maybe you can help me with JohnPaul.. in other science fiction shows, humans fly around in spaceships that bypass the speed of light. It seems to me that if we could go beyond the speed of light then two things would happen (as far as I can conceive), either time would begin speeding up again towards infinite (possibly at infinite speed?), or maybe time would reverse and we would arrive at our destination before we left, or maybe both.
The speed of light, that is the speed of time, appears to be an absolute limit. Fortunately science has been wrong about absolutes before so hopefully we will be proven wrong again.
In essence time here on Earth goes at the speed that it does mainly because the universe is expanding at about half the speed of light.
The big problem with traveling "relatively" very fast or very slow is not so much that time, the fourth dimension, is tied into speed but the other three observable dimensions are also. I assume (though I don't know for sure) that the three dimensions that we are unequipped to observe are also directly tied to motion. One might use this as an argument in favor of existence being an illusion. The faster you travel the shorter you become in the direction of movement and the wider in the other dimensions. At the speed of light Captain Kurk should be infinitely thin and infinitely tall. Faster than the speed of light and who can say, probably his toupee would fall off.
This dimensional distortion is how they can say tha |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2001 : 21:15:54 [Permalink]
|
I don't have a lot of time here, so I want to make at least one comment:
quote:
Next you say that the reason we have this ability is because our minds evolved over eons from monkeys. Are you saying that monkey's cannot observe time and space? Personally I don't know the answer to that question, but if you think that you do then don't hesitate to share. The reason I would have trouble believing that animals can observe time-space the way we do is because I can't get into their heads and know exactly what they are thinking. They might just be incredibly complex machines that react to the universe in ways that they have programmed to.
I will disregard the comment about us evolving from monkey because we all know that's not the case and neither creationist nor evolutionist believes this.
But about monkeys being incredibly complex machines that react to the universe in the way they were programmed...
Basically, that's all humans do. We eat when we are hungry, we sleep when we are tired, we gather together in packs for protection and we have sometimes absurd rituals relating to procreation that we share with many other animals. Humans just react in more complex way because of that big brain thing.
I know it's not what anyone wants to hear because people always think of themselves as being special and above animals.
Well we are animals and we came from the same jungles and not that long ago.
I have seen and read some interesting material on thinking machines. No they are nowhere near as complex as we are but they do make decisions based on what happens around them.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2001 : 14:19:11 [Permalink]
|
The following is a very long thought that took me a long time to formulate. So even if JohnPaul or somebody else has an argument against it, just keep in mind that I had to use a large number of brain cells and allot of time to come up with it, and I would appreciate if you don't tread over my idea too badly or as if it were nothing.
I can certainly appreciate that. This is why I didn't go into it yesterday but took the night to consider your points.
Of course I am going to disagree. Even with your basic premise.
English is a damn silly language. A lot of people have a great deal of trouble with it's structure. I say that we continue the rest of this conversation in Irish Gaelic.
When I looked up REASON in my old, six inch thick, Websters' it gave me seven different definitions for the word. You seem in your argument to be combining several of them.
When we say that there must be A REASON for something we are referring to a cause that produces an effect. If one were to ask what the reason was that the Earth orbited the Sun the answer would be that the mass of the Sun warped the "fabric" of space in such a way that the elliptical orbit of the Earth was the only direction in which it could travel (I'm vastly over simplifying for illustrations sake)
Another definition of REASON is the application of analytic thought. Still another is INTENTION.
When asking the reason that the Earth orbits the Sun applying either of these definitions would be inappropiate as they each assume the thought process of an entity which cannot be demonstrated. No such assumption is warranted as it does not reflect observable conditions.
Atheism, which is the "non-belief" in a God, has a particular interesting dilemma with the question of the REASON for all existence.
Not at all. If one is looking for the Causes behind the Effects it is only "reasonable" to withhold belief in any unproven supposition.
Theists and Deists will answer that universe has reason because of God; an intelligent being that is infinite beyond everything and self-sufficient. Mystics and Polytheists will most likely have a similar but more complicated explanation compared to that of Theists and Deists.
Thus basing their conclusions on superstition and ignoring fact.
Philosophical Humanists will answer that the reason for the universe is Humanity. This is an unwarranted assumption.
Now Atheists can only answer the big question in two ways or variations of that. The first answer is to say that the universe exists just the way it does, it is self sufficient, and doesn't require any kind of Godlike ultimate being. The other answer is to say that there is no reason for the universe.
When an Atheist says that there is no reason behind the universe they are saying that there is no thought behind the universe. They are not saying that there is no reason, no cause behind the effect.
A definition of Magic would be an effect without an appropriate cause. Say a magic word (inappropriate cause) and a rabbit pops out of a top hat (effect). Science has the mundane duty of finding the actual causes to the observable effects. In the case of the bunny it would be someone stuffing him in the hat and not the use of a magic wand.
To enjoy a magic act you are required the suspend your disbelief, the exact same holds true if you want to enjoy a religion. The is precious little difference between saying Abracadabra–presto–changeo and having your beautiful assistant disappear and saying LET THERE BE LIGHT.
For both answers that an Atheist makes to the question of ultimate reason, he or she will have problems, especially if the answer is that the universe exists because it exists and is self-sufficient. If a person believes that the universe is the end of reason, it exists for the reason that it exists, then it seems to me that he or she has now turned the universe into God, and this would disagree with Atheism.
Not so. The answer "it exists for the reason that it exists" is not an answer whether one applies it to a god or the physical universe. It is not an attribute of god but an evasion of the question. Most Atheists that I know will readily admit when they don't actually know the answer to a question.
This is materialism; the belief that all that exists is the universe and its various forms and motions (if one adheres to the big bang then this philosophy can get rather depressing).
Facts exist apart from your emotional state. Cheerfulness or not has no bearing on their truth.
Anyhow, whatever term you wish to use, under this conclusion interstellar dust and everything else in existence becomes self-sufficient and not requiring any further reason in a person's mind. God.
This is not a complete definition of any deity that I have ever heard of.
Now if you want me to believe that there is no reason for the universe, then you also run into a rather nasty problem. Unlike the first answer, this one remains consistent with Atheism and has no God.
I have never heard an Atheist suggest that there were effects that had no causes. It is only when you enter the domain of theism that such an unfounded idea is even voiced. This is why theists place such importance on credulity, or as they like to call it, faith.
The problem with this answer arises for an atheist when he or she realizes that without a reason for the universe as a whole, an intellectually honest person must realize that everything after that equally cannot have any reason.
I'm not going to accuse you of another "strawman" because I think you are being honest. I also think that you have somehow mistakenly combined the definitions of causality and intellectual intent.
If there is no reason for the universe, then there is no reason for gravity, and if there is no reason for gravity, then there is no reason for the earth to revolve around the sun, and if there is no reason for the earth to revolve around the sun, then there is no reason for the earth, and if there is no reason for the earth, there is no reason for humans, and finally if there is no reason for humans, then there is no reason for you or anything you do, including morality.
Sigh….it is almost like you have been reading the replies from another group of people. Every time that you have asked us about the reasons for morality we have given them to you. You have been given several different reasons (causes of the effect that is morality) none of which were mutually exclusive. All of which complimented each other.
You are demanding a causeless effect (god) behind them. As you have repeatedly pointed out to us it is not "reasonable" for an effect to be without a reason (cause). Ergo, no rational person would entertain the thought of a god.
We humans need reason, and this is the scientific evidence for the reason of everything, and if this fact were not true, we would have to throw out all of science.
Exactly.
The rational mind is how we experience the universe and is what all of science is based on. It is REASON that allows us to discover General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and deduce that we have a property that is separate from the known physical universe.
Another definition for the word reason. Same spelling different meaning.
You want proof? I find plenty, but then again I also reject Nihilism and all its forms.
As does every person that I have ever met. As for your "proof" I am still waiting. Take your time.
What I said was not entirely provable was the God of the bible, not God in general. This is because no scientific truth can be proven totally. There is doubt in every theory and law that science has ever proposed. This does not rule |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2001 : 14:10:48 [Permalink]
|
My apologies to Christian Skeptic. His vocabulary is obviously broader than mine. I found this explaination of Euthyphro while snooping around on the web.
The "Euthyphro Problem" asks whether right and
wrong is because that's what God says it is,or whether God Himself is subject to a sense of right and wrong that is higher than Himself. In the former sense, morality is not morality but obedience to God; in the latter, God is not Supreme in all senses, being subject to (or subjecting Himself to) a sense of right and wrong that is greater than Himself, he having the choice either to submit to it or to ignore it.
...(It is) a theological argument dating back to a question raised by Plato: Whence cometh morality? There are two basic takes: (1) God decrees what is right and what is wrong, thus morality equals obedience to God; (2) right and wrong are independent of God, and thus God simply recognizes "good" and "evil".
Plato raised an intriguing question in his work Euthyphro, which is a dialogue between a character named Socrates and a fellow named Euthyphro. Plato, you'll remember, sought to honor the memory of his fallen teacher Socrates, so he gave the name "Socrates" to the character in his works who played the ultimate philosopher. Often this character thought, spoke, and acted as Socrates probably did or would have, but almost as often he spoke quite differently. I have not heard a convincing argument that the Socrates character de facto represents Plato's viewpoint; rather, I prefer the view that Plato favored the continuing discussion over the tendency to solidify "truths" into a codified dogma. This tendency came not long after Plato died.
In the story, Socrates meets Euthyphro, who is on his way to court to prosecute his father for the murder of a laborer. Socrates raises the question, "you have no fear of having acted impiously in bringing your father to trial?" On hearing Euthyphro's response, he then asks for a universal definition of piety. Euthyphro eventually asserts "that the pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer, be it about murder or temple robbery or anything else, whether the wrongdoer is your father or your mother or anyone else; not to prosecute is impious."
Socrates objects, reminding him that "I did not bid you to tell me one or two of the many pious actions but that form itself that makes all pious actions pious."
Euthyphro then announces that "what is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious."
Socrates suggests that the gods might differ as to what is loved by them.
Euthyphro asserts that "no gods would differ from one another, that whoever has killed anyone unjustly should pay the penalty." On Socrates's further objection, Euthyphro suggests a democratic (deiocratic?) method for determining the will of the gods: "the pious is what all the gods love ...what all the gods hate is the impious."
Socrates then asks The Big Question, and he asks it point blank: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" After a brief discussion on cause and effect, Socrates then asks again: "Is it [the pious] loved because it is pious, or for some other reason?"
Euthyphro responds: "For no other reason."
Socrates here has Euthyphro talking in circles, who has now told Socrates: (1) the pious is that which the gods love; (2) the gods love these things because they are pious. Socrates's goal is to raise a fundamental question that any thinking theist must face: Does God approve of something because it is right, or is something right because God approves of it?
If the gods approve of things because they are pious, we still don't know why they are right. But if things are right because the gods approve of them, then morality is arbitrary, is it not? Wouldn't incest and murder have been morally right if the gods had approved of it? To say that the gods would never approve of incest or murder is inadequate, because the point is that this alternative has the gods defining the pious, whereas the other has the gods merely acknowledging what is de facto pious.
Edited by - Slater on 04/20/2001 14:31:51 |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2001 : 01:46:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I know it's not what anyone wants to hear because people always think of themselves as being special and above animals.
Well we are animals and we came from the same jungles and not that long ago.
I have seen and read some interesting material on thinking machines. No they are nowhere near as complex as we are but they do make decisions based on what happens around them.
I do not have problems believing that animals are equal or above me. I am simply asking questions and looking for answers. Why do we do things, why do animals do things, and why do machines do things?
The question of the complexity or the nature of various actions is not what I am raising. As I pointed out, computers do many of the things that we can. The question is why? The only answer I can find is that we program them and build them to do these things. If we believe that we are equally programmed, and that when we program machines we are simply fulfilling our "naturally selected" programs, then we have no reason to want to hold our own drives important.
Under a system where everything consists of chaotically programmed machines, the programs of criminals would be just as important as ours. You and everyone else who thinks like you will just have to hope that natural selection smiles favorably upon you and your children by preventing the tolerance of other peoples programs from getting out of hand.
But wait, why would we want to keep our programs the dominant ones? A criminal's might actually be more beneficial to the survival of our race. But wait, why should we care if we survive? Oh yeah, that's right, it doesn't matter, were just programmed machines that have no purpose, and no meaning. |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2001 : 02:25:33 [Permalink]
|
JohnPaul,
I'm sorry but I am too tired, and I am do not currently have the time to respond to everything you said. At many points you ignored my point of view, while others you twisted what I said around to mean the exact opposite of what I was trying to express. I do not know if this is the result of my lacking adequate communication skills, or you purposely trying to twist my points of view into jibberish, but it will take me awhile to respond to all of it. (I admit we seem to have problems over a lot of word definitions.) Anyways I'll try and post something for you as soon as I have time. I'll hopefully have my reply posted by the beginning of next week. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2001 : 13:24:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
JohnPaul,
At many points you ignored my point of view, while others you twisted what I said around to mean the exact opposite of what I was trying to express.
I am sorry if I have done so, it was surely not intentional. All that I have to go on, to know your point of view, is what you write.
|
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2001 : 16:52:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater:
All that I have to go on, to know your point of view, is what you write.
Well that's what I have been assuming by default, so over the busy weekend I have been thinking of better ways to express myself. I suppose its good that I waited, I was rather in a bad mood on Friday after trying to type up my reply post for over an hour. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2001 : 21:30:49 [Permalink]
|
One tip that can save any message board goer a lot of grief is to copy a long post to your clipboard before posting becase glitches are common. Sometimes, if the post is long enough, I go so far as saving it as a text file in case I crash.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2001 : 00:45:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sometimes, if the post is long enough, I go so far as saving it as a text file in case I crash.
@tomic
I've been doing that ever since I typed up a post of why Moses' age mentioned in Genesis is not a contradiction. I couldn't get it to post so I sent it to He in an email. I should really post that sometime. Damn one thing after another. (I wish I wasn't such a procrastinator.) Speaking of He, I just went back to the original board and saw all of his latest posts. Hope he decides to come here soon if he wants me to continue. Also Bradley was making some points I would love to respond to.
By the way JohnPaul, I was watching a movie today that I thought was going to be good but ended up being a real letdown. It was called "Contact" and stared Jodie Foster. Anyhow, at the end I saw that Carl Sagan wrote the original story. First I want to say that I hope the book was better than the movie or Carl Sagan isn't as good a writer as people think he is. Second, the movie didn't seem as skeptical and atheistic as Carl Sagan was. (Either that or Sagan was trying to make some kind of “deep” observation or argument.) Third, I was reminded about the baloney detection thing, I never got an email for it. I double-checked the email I typed up in my profile and it is correct, so I'm guessing that something happened that prevented me from getting the email you spoke of. Anyhoo, try typing the address in manually or you can give me the address of a website or something if you prefer. My address is: tiptup3000@hotmail.com |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2001 : 16:23:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Sometimes, if the post is long enough, I go so far as saving it as a text file in case I crash.
@tomic
By the way JohnPaul, I was watching a movie today that I thought was going to be good but ended up being a real letdown. It was called "Contact" ... I hope the book was better than the movie or Carl Sagan isn't as good a writer as people think he is. Second, the movie didn't seem as skeptical and atheistic as Carl Sagan was.
Not to speak ill of the dead...but. The book was better than the movie, it was only bad and not gawd awful like the flick. The guy was not a fiction writer.
His non- fiction piece has be e mailed to you again.
As for the movie not being Atheistic or Skeptical you have to remember that in this society being openly Atheistic is dangerous. Remember "The Last Temptation of Christ"? People were murdered over going to that film.
Hell, my daughter had her car trashed just because she had a Darwin Fish on it.
Nah, you won't find Atheism in big budget films only in books.
Edited by - Slater on 04/26/2001 16:32:32 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2001 : 23:31:07 [Permalink]
|
Carl Sagan probably did more to popularize science in the last thirty years or so than any person I can think of. I loved him for that. He was also a great skeptic. I suggest you read his 1987 key note address to the annual CSICOP conference "The Burden of Skepticism."
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganbur.html
I also recommend his last book, "The Demon Haunted World."
|
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2001 : 00:42:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganbur.html
I also recommend his last book, "The Demon Haunted World."
I tried looking at the site and I got an "Apageism 404". It was kind of funny but didn't tell me much about "the burden of skepticism".
Also I can agree that about the more scientific aspects of “Contact”; that kind of stuff was cool. Unfortunately a work of art, the movie was not. I'll just stick with my Japanese Anime and Star Wars.
At any rate, I read through his baloney detection and found it very interesting. I understood all of his points except for his attacking of antacid commercials that claim their antacid contains calcium. Personally I could understand that a person getting older and takes antacids might want to get some calcium while he was at it. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2001 : 15:26:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
At any rate, I read through his baloney detection and found it very interesting. I understood all of his points [etc.]
So what do you think about the 'Invisible Dragon in the Garage' analogy, and how it relates to belief in gods/God?
|
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2001 : 18:46:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So what do you think about the 'Invisible Dragon in the Garage' analogy, and how it relates to belief in gods/God?
Although I don't remember that exact analogy being in his "kit", I disagree with the whole premise that there is no evidence for the existence of God. I'll try and continue this later. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
