|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 11/20/2001 : 10:03:18 [Permalink]
|
Now as theist I have a metaphyisical foundation for a UNI[ty]-[in di]-VERSITY.
The word universe comes from the Latin unisersum which simply means "the whole." There is no metaphysical foundation.
A rational God created…
You have not demonstrated the existence of any gods, let alone THE God.
Therefore you are not qualified to tell us what their mental state (rational) is, nor can you tell us what their activities are (creating the cosmos).
You made three VAST and UNGROUNDED leaps of logic in only the first four words of your sentence-that must be a new record.
…a rational cosmos…
This is an anthropomorphism. To be rational requires an orderly thought pattern. The cosmos does not think, that is a human attribute that you are imposing on mere objects. It is like saying that a rock is happy.
If you are misusing the word and instead mean that the cosmos is orderly that is also incorrect. The cosmos is mostly chaos with pockets of order sprinkled here and there (we just happen to live in one of these pockets--see: Sagan above). Just what you would expect to find in the aftermath of an explosion.
If you mean that the cosmos follows the laws of physics-- what is sarcastically called 'Einstein's god'-- at the moment, even that is under question.
…and endowed…
Again you are telling us of the activities of a god when you cannot even demonstrate that there is a god to have any activities. This is very dishonest of you.
…us with rational soul whereby we could investigate His Universe…
You have not demonstrated the existence of souls either. You are also attributing to a nonmaterial, unproven spirit the power of thought. This is straight out of the middle-ages. It has long been known that thought is a function of your brain, a very material organ.
(ie Kepler,Newton). Interesting that you should pick two brilliant mathematicians who were both religious nut cases.And both from the 1600's (no one more recent come to mind, Darwin?). Kepler tried to combine the teachings of the mystery cult of Pythagoras with observational science. He got himself excommunicated from the Lutheran Church for his troubles. Not only that but the courts used, in part, his book,Somnium(some say this was the first Sci Fi book) to convict his mother, Katharina Kepler (whom they kept locked in a laundry chest) of witchcraft.
To give the devil his due the court wasn't too far wrong. Katharina made her living selling drugs-soporifics and hallucinogens. She kept her boy Johannes well supplied…much to the determent of his teaching career.
The part in Somnium that was so damning was an explanation of how the Earth could spin on it's axis at about a thousand mph and no one would feel it. The bible, of course, says that the Earth stands still in the center of things. Odd that you bring Johannes up because if there had been an internet back then you would be calling yourself Kepler Alogos and complain that your son had text books that say the Earth rotates.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 13:17:36 [Permalink]
|
There are 4 options to the origin of the Universe:(1)The universe is an illusion(Hindu,maya);(2)the universe is self- existent(and eternal);(3)the universe is self- created;(4) the universe is created by something that is self-existent.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 14:08:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are 4 options to the origin of the Universe:(1)The universe is an illusion(Hindu,maya);(2)the universe is self- existent(and eternal);(3)the universe is self- created;(4) the universe is created by something that is self-existent.
And then.....
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 14:13:11 [Permalink]
|
This is a thread about evolution. It started with Rat talking about how the fossil record of whales is so complete.
What has that got to do with a misinterpertation of Hinduism?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2001 : 14:20:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is a thread about evolution. It started with Rat talking about how the fossil record of whales is so complete.
What has that got to do with a misinterpertation of Hinduism?
[Matlock]
Your honor, if you just give Darwin Alogos a little leeway, he'll show you how it connects in the end.[/Matlock]
Um, I dunno.
There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to god! - Jake Blues |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 04:43:06 [Permalink]
|
  quote:
Slater quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!You write it down so "orderly" one would think you were there
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm older than I look.
If by there you mean, if I have personally examined a stromatolite under a microscope, the answer is yes.
Still waiting on that proof of god's existence though.
I'll settle for a lesser heavenly being if that would make your life easier. A small angel would do. A fallen one is fine, it doesn't matter.
Anything "super" natural at all would be a good start.
quote:
darwin alogos There are 4 options to the origin of the Universe:(1)The universe is an illusion(Hindu,maya);(2)the universe is self- existent(and eternal);(3)the universe is self- created;(4) the universe is created by something that is self-existent.
Sorry I left you hanging.However,there is a reason for the above quote.It's the one before it by Slater.I suppose I should have put the options in a form of a question(if you rather discuss this on a different Topic posting that's fine with me, I tried to start a post but was unable). But now Dr. Slater in regards to your question about "proof" for God's existence would you care to take a stab at one of the options
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 11:38:31 [Permalink]
|
(1)The universe is an illusion(Hindu,maya);(2)the universe is self- existent(and eternal);(3)the universe is self- created;(4) the universe is created by something that is self-existent.
… I suppose I should have put the options in a form of a question.... But now Dr. Slater in regards to your question about "proof" for God's existence would you care to take a stab at one of the options.
I still don't know what you are getting at.
Your wanting to play a word game leads me to think that you have little conception of what "proof" means.
If you came to me with the complaint that my 100 lb. dog had taken a dump on your front lawn, I might not believe you. However , you would have little difficulty providing proof.
I don't require anything esoteric. The same degree of evidence that you would offer for the existence of a pile of dog shit would do just fine for the existence of Yahweh.
You can stick a scientific theory in a list of religious dictums and falsely decree that they all be given equal consideration. However you have mixed the apples with the oranges--make that pineapples, oranges are too close. No, make that rocks.
Religious dictums are based merely on fantasy. They have no bearing on the real world other than, perhaps, an appeal to the subconscious mind.
To explain circumstances the religious rely solely on their imaginations.
Small children, who spend most of their time in play, dip deeply into "make believe." But very few of them have the least bit of trouble telling the difference between "make believe" and the world they live in.
Adults who cannot understand the difference between their own internal musings and reality are deemed to be mentally ill.
Science puts no trust in fantasy, in make believe. What a scientist does is get up off his or her ass and look at whatever it is that interests them. If their senses aren't good enough to preserve what they want to study they devise instruments to enhance their senses. Then they devise tests to make sure that their senses aren't deceiving them. Then they get others to check their work. And even if they all agree on the conclusions, if at a later date with more advanced instruments or new findings in related fields, they will update or even discard them. Because they are interested in what actually is and not what they themselves might hope is.
Superstition (religion) only cares about hope (faith).
The chances of accurately describing the workings of the world by observing them and testing your observations are pretty good. It would be pure blind luck to do so only through flights of fantasy.
Mankind's childhood is over. "Put away childish things…" It's time to stop making believe and see the world for what it is.
Or count yourself among the insane, for there is little discernable difference between religious ecstasy and schizophrenia. (ie: Note the number of "Creationists" who complain that scientists are biased and prejudiced because they don't ((make)) believe in magic.)
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 11:59:17 [Permalink]
|
I think this post describes D Alogos's posts perfectly.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 13:21:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It started with Rat talking about how the fossil record of whales is so complete.
And quite frankly, I'm almost sorry I brought the whole thing up. But watching your utter devastation of DA has made it all worthwhile.
Take no prisoners!
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP! |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 14:29:21 [Permalink]
|
So is that answer #1
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 15:12:01 [Permalink]
|
First tell us why you think your 4 simple selections are all that are available. What special knowledge do you have that narrows the choice down to so few? And could you explain what you mean so I don't have to get a lobotomy to figure it out?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2001 : 15:36:53 [Permalink]
|
I've seen no indication that darwin alogos has any interest at all in a rational discussion. I'm puzzled why he's wasting his time, though I'm glad that the skeptics here like Slater are still responding with interesting stuff.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2001 : 06:41:40 [Permalink]
|
  I hope you all get enough emotional satisfaction from patting each other on the back because you sure don't want to debate your view (even when you have me outnumbered at least 10 to 1). I bring up thelaw of rational inference(without which science wouldn't be possible) and I'm told by Phd that it doesn't exist[sic].I bring up St. Sagan's rational observation that we live in a UNIverseand if we didn't we couldn't "do science" and I'm told by Slater that I'm being "Anthropomorphic"(I would like to see how Dr. Slater would describe any law of science in terms that DIDN'T use rational attributes to the orderliness of the "cosmos").And finally,I fulfill Slater's request by trying to supply (what I believe at least is "proof") for the existence of God and I get a rash of quote:
Tokyodreamer I've seen no indication that darwin alogos has any interest at all in a rational discussion. I'm puzzled why he's wasting his time, though I'm glad that the skeptics here like Slater are still responding with interesting stuff.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
@tomic First tell us why you think your 4 simple selections are all that are available. What special knowledge do you have that narrows the choice down to so few? And could you explain what you mean so I don't have to get a lobotomy to figure it out?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
The Rat quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It started with Rat talking about how the fossil record of whales is so complete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And quite frankly, I'm almost sorry I brought the whole thing up. But watching your utter devastation of DA has made it all worthwhile.
Take no prisoners!
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP!
@tomic I think this post describes D Alogos's posts perfectly.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Slater (1)The universe is an illusion(Hindu,maya);(2)the universe is self- existent(and eternal);(3)the universe is self- created;(4) the universe is created by something that is self-existent.
… I suppose I should have put the options in a form of a question.... But now Dr. Slater in regards to your question about "proof" for God's existence would you care to take a stab at one of the options.
I still don't know what you are getting at.
Your wanting to play a word game leads me to think that you have little conception of what "proof" means.
If you came to me with the complaint that my 100 lb. dog had taken a dump on your front lawn, I might not believe you. However , you would have little difficulty providing proof.
I don't require anything esoteric. The same degree of evidence that you would offer for the existence of a pile of dog shit would do just fine for the existence of Yahweh.
You can stick a scientific theory in a list of religious dictums and falsely decree that they all be given equal consideration. However you have mixed the apples with the oranges--make that pineapples, oranges are too close. No, make that rocks.
Religious dictums are based merely on fantasy. They have no bearing on the real world other than, perhaps, an appeal to the subconscious mind.
To explain circumstances the religious rely solely on their imaginations.
Small children, who spend most of their time in play, dip deeply into "make believe." But very few of them have the least bit of trouble telling the difference between "make believe" and the world they live in.
Adults who cannot understand the difference between their own internal musings and reality are deemed to be mentally ill.
Science puts no trust in fantasy, in make believe. What a scientist does is get up off his or her ass and look at whatever it is that interests them. If their senses aren't good enough to preserve what they want to study they devise instruments to enhance their senses. Then they devise tests to make sure that their senses aren't deceiving them. Then they get others to check their work. And even if they all agree on the conclusions, if at a later date with more advanced instruments or new findings in related fields, they will update or even discard them. Because they are interested in what actually is and not what they themselves might hope is.
Superstition (religion) only cares about hope (faith).
The chances of accurately describing the workings of the world by observing them and testing your observations are pretty good. It would be pure blind luck to do so only through flights of fantasy.
Mankind's childhood is over. "Put away childish things…" It's time to stop making believe and see the world for what it is.
Or count yourself among the insane, for there is little discernable difference between religious ecstasy and schizophrenia. (ie: Note the number of "Creationists" who complain that scientists are biased and prejudiced because they don't ((make)) believe in magic.)
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First,to Atomic: if you think my selections are so "simple" why don't you come up with some others? otherwise keep your mouth shut.Secondly,to Tokoy :as I've already alluded to above I'm the only one Defending Rationality on this post.And finally to Slater:stop talking like psychologist and do some damm philosophizing.I gave you some options,if you disagree like Atomic that it's insuffencent, then by all means 'add on bro'.
Edited by - darwin alogos on 11/23/2001 12:41:38 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2001 : 10:49:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater:stop talking like psychologist and some damm philosophizing.I gave you some options,if you disagree like Atomic that it's insuffencent, then by all means 'add on bro'.
The venerable Doctor does not choose number one, nor do I choose any from your crudely phrased list. It is quite obvious that you intend to switch your definition of god to match whatever answer is given. That is, I believe, what prompted PhD to ask you for your definition in advance.
We are not fools here and rhetoric is not proof.
In the year 1277 the Christian Church issued a volume called Condemnations in it, it was declared that neither scripture nor its interpretation by the Church could be reconciled with reason. One could choose to stand either with reason or with scripture and the church--but not with both. That is to say that all knowledge comes through authority and not an individuals thought processes. (This is just one more thing that closely ties Christianity with the Roman Military)
It was the reading of Condemnations, some time later, that set William of Occam off. The sheer arrogance and stupidity of this work caused Occam to declare "Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." A thought so wonderful, so clear and so self evident that it set the Western World free. Much the same as Darwin centuries later.
It was called "The Razor" because it slashed across metaphysics and introduced Europe to realism.
Of course he didn't get away Scot free-no good deed, or great mind, goes unpunished. On Sept. 25, 1339 his "nominalism" was the object of a special censure by the Paris Faculty of Arts. And the pious anti-intellectuals flooded the market with their books of, so-called Devotio moderna like Imitatio Christi or the dreadful Theologica Germanica that so influenced Luther.
Present day Creationists are such haters of science, seeing it as a "false religion" are completely in step with the dictates of ole' Martin. "Repent and believe the Gospels, all Christian wisdom lies in this."
But Nietzsche had you guys nailed, quote:
"The believer is not free to have any conscience at all for the question 'true or false': to have integrity on this point would be his end. The pathological condition of his point of view turns those convinced by it into fanatics--Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon-- the opposition type to the strong spirit who has become free. Yet the grand pose of these sickspirits, these epileptics of the concept, takes effect on the great mass. The fanatics are picturesque. Mankind would rather see gestures than hear proofs."
For myself I would rather hear the proof. Present it or stop your nonsense. As we say back in Ireland, 'Shite or get off the pot.'
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2001 : 13:21:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First,to Atomic: if you think my selections are so "simple" why don't you come up with some others? otherwise keep your mouth shut.
You miss my point. I am not so pretentious as to think I know so much about the creation of the universe that I can come up with a few simple explanations. You are the one that presented us with some. I asked you to explain them, but you try to turn it around and force me to make some claims I can't back up. I know better than that and apparently better than you.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
