Ovedya Posted June 20, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted June 20, 2006 So then atheists aren't atheists at all, but "anti-conceptionalists." Gee, and all this time I thought that there was this great urge to accept all forms of thought and philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer of dreams Posted June 20, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 (edited) Yes your right! A leaf blows in the wind but a tree is never uprooted unless the ground is soft. We all have our place. My understanding is dim but if I could only convey the message the same way it comes to me maybe I would have better understanding? Words are amazing aren't they? I can say "I love you" and it means one thing but if I say "I love you" another way It's called sarcasm and it loses it's meaning. that's wierd. anyways you are all awsome people. I will come back when I have better understanding of the things that come to me. "A mans' question is the source of his wisdom. A mans' answer is the source of his stupidity. My answers are stupid as the words do not match the wisdom. What I say is "leaf" when I mean "tree." The leaf is trampled on easily, though the tree stands firm." point taken Edited June 20, 2006 by Observer of dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 20, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Did I say anything about plants? Lepaca is pointing out that plants, like amoeba, do not have nervous systems. If plants do not need a nervous system to search for food, why would amoeba? OK - since you are determined to talk about plants - how do plant register the need to seek out the sun? BTW - how do amoeba know how to avoid predation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 20, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 20, 2006 So we give up trying? Science is about knowing the unknown, is it not? What if scientists thought there was no way we could understand light and gave up on the research to figure it out? So, why give up on understanding more of this "singularity" from which the Big Bang came from? First of all, I don't see how something like the singularity could have existed. I've always read it's an ideal limit, never in my life I read/heard a scientist say the universe could have come from somthing that has 0 dimensions Second, in a very dishonest way you are taking my quotes out of context and twisting them. I didn't say we give up trying, I said it's still an open field undergoing intense research and intense debate. For the first - "Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony)." Taken from Wikipedia . For the second - you said: "as far as I know there is no way to explain the coming into being of the universe," A statement like that usually means one gives up trying. . . or in this case, gives up questioning the idea. How about this? Imagine I am a student of yours, and I ask, "Why did the universe come to be?" When you say, "There is no way to explain," and I ask, "Why?" What would you say to the student? so we have to resort to Ockham's razor and the scientific method in general to select the best theories. So, we pick and chose what we deem best out of what we think we know. Why call this "truth"? More twisting. What I said is that out of all the theories available now the most likely is, in my opinion, that the universe came into being uncaused. This doesn't have to be the absolute truth because it's not a dogma, just my informed opinion. In the furture I may change opinion or be proven wrong depending of what comes from the scientific world but it will still be a honest mistake. The problem is, whenever someone questions the "most likely," they are treated as "whoo-whoos" (to pen a famous astronomer's term). On one hand it is claimed to be "the moslt likely" yet it is treated as if it were truth. This isn't twisting of what you said; it is my observation of science in general. If you go back home and find the door wide open you can assume that your mom forgot to close it or that a thief broke in. When you get in you see that actually the lock stopped working and the wind opened the door. Your mistake in that case was justified and you've been intellectually honest and consistent with what you know about the situation. However had you assumed that Elvis had come back from the grave and broke in your hose to eat a sandwitch in your kitchen, then you would be dishonest and inconsistent with everything we know about reality. Now tell me why the same doesn't apply to religion. Can you be any more insulting? I follow Jesus because Jesus made Himself real to me. If that were not the case, I would have given up on religion, as you term it, a long time ago. Elvis. Really. Why didn't you just look at the Ockham's razor? Wikipedia has a nice article. Actually, looking up the reference to "parsimony" explained it easier and better, but thank-you for the link. Now what were we talking about again? OK, seriously, I still fail to see how Occam's Razor necessitates the removal of God. There's nothing complicated about the concept of a supreme being creating the universe. Nor does that eliminate the search for the method of how this creation came to be. Did I say anything about plants? I was asking how the amoeba "knows" to search for food and consume it. Honestly, it's a valid scientific question. Did you say anything about nervous systems? Because if you think searching for food can happen only with a nervous system you should give a quick look at your science book. My mention of the nervous system was an attempt to clarify my line of thinking. Answering the question by refering to plants did not answer the question. Again, pretend I am a student asking you this question. How would you teach this student the answer to this question? you should give a quick look at your science book. Ok I'll help you: can you show any connection between God and amoebas? I fail to see how that will answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 20, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Did I say anything about plants? Lepaca is pointing out that plants, like amoeba, do not have nervous systems. If plants do not need a nervous system to search for food, why would amoeba? OK - since you are determined to talk about plants - how do plant register the need to seek out the sun? BTW - how do amoeba know how to avoid predation? Does it matter? What does God have to do with all this? Life. I hope this isn't your attempt to throw out a question you can't answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 20, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 20, 2006 First - OK I see what you mean now, it was a misunderstanding on my part about what singularity means. Second - I didn't mean to imply that I gave up, so sorry if I've been unclear. I would answer the question with "we don't know yet but here are the thories:...". Cool. OK, so if you were a teacher and a student wanted to understand the why's, and wasn't satisfied with, "We don't know," what would you say? Of course any theory contradicting what is widely accepted is bound to be met with resistance. However the crossfire of objections and questioning makes sure new theories undergo a serious and rigorous scrutiny; it's part of the strength of science. We go with what's most likely until something else has been shown more correct. I know, but it is still treated like "truth" rather than "what is most likely." Then you don't accept the scientific method when it comes to religion. The scientific method was never meant to apply to religion. The scientific method can't even be accurately applied to psychology because it is extremely difficult to limit all but one variable to test. Religion can't be run through the "if-then" hypothesis nor can religion be tested with a null hypothesis. So why should I accept the scientific method when it comes to religion? As far as it's about following a certain morality everything's cool and dandy but what about the coming into being of the universe? Should we accept as true what religion says, avoiding to apply the scientific method? I'm not advocating avoiding the scientific method. When it comes to the origin of the universe, though, science assumes there is no Creator. Why would assuming a Creator nullify the scientific method, though? One says the photons and such acted on their own; the other says they were guided. It doesn't negate trying to figure out what happened. And I wasn't implying Jesus = Elvis, it was just a silly example to show that you actually use Ockham's razor every time you try to understand something except when it comes to religion, which is also called specal pleading. No, because again it wasn't meant to be applied to religion. Science deals with the natural realm. Ockham's razor can't apply to morality or meaning of life or why people fall in love or how to fix a marriage. . . . It doesn't disprove God. It does show, however, that we have better theories than "God did it". That doesn't mean there are no better theories than those we have now, so of course you're right it doesn't eliminate the search for the method of how the universe came into being. Again, I'm not advocating, "God did it," and search no further. Recall that both Newton and Einstein acknowledged God. My mention of the nervous system was an attempt to clarify my line of thinking. Answering the question by refering to plants did not answer the question. Again, pretend I am a student asking you this question. How would you teach this student the answer to this question? Showing him where in the biology book it's explained. In other words, you don't know the answer to this question? Because it seems to me you are avoiding answering the question. I fail to see how that will answer the question. You're obviously implying that you need God to explain how amoebas feed. Where's the connection? No, you made an incorrect assumption on this. I am investigating the question of where life comes from, what makes life. This question is an expression of that. I have not seen science explain this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CellShade Posted June 20, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 397 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/22/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 20, 2006 No, I am not using The Bible to proof The Bible, I am using Historic events that have been registered, do internet searches and you will find a lot of the Bible events happening, and this told and acknowledged by non christians. Also your Circular Reasoning theory is incorrect, since that applies to science aswell doesn' it, after all, science looks for proof of it's theory in it's own science. ... While science is Pure circular reasoning since it lies in scientific methods, which means it lies in it's own science. ... Does it even mean anything? I mean... what did you just say? You mean if instead of science and scientific method they were named pizza and the spaghetti method it would be different, right? Because then you have pizza relying on spaghetti. That's not circular reasoning, right? How did you get to pizza, I'll never know. What I mean why start saying the Bible relies on Circular Reasoning, since it does rely on thigns on itself, it mostly relies on God which is a outside source , and it also relies on History and even some Science! To me Science relies more in circular and close minded reasoning more then the Bible does in Circular Reasoning, just stating this, you started it, just the fact that you have admit science just relies on science while the Bible has relied and been prooved throughout history and science aswell to be true . Like it not . Don't point fingers at someone or something when you have to point at yourself first . So then atheists aren't atheists at all, but "anti-conceptionalists." Gee, and all this time I thought that there was this great urge to accept all forms of thought and philosophy. ?_? A-THEISM means no theism, which means no faith in any divine entity. It doesn't mean "let's burn all Christians" so drop the "poor me" attitude already. You have nothing to fear from us, we're less than 5% of the world population. I know that isn't what atheism is, I know you won' try to burn me for being a christian ( thought maybe think of it ) . God Bless You All Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 20, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 20, 2006 We don't have the truth. Can I frame that? Atheist admits to no truth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 20, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I'm on limited time right now. Maybe tomorrow morning I'll have more time to delve. But . . . you've been sidestepping me, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted June 21, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted June 21, 2006 So then atheists aren't atheists at all, but "anti-conceptionalists." Gee, and all this time I thought that there was this great urge to accept all forms of thought and philosophy. ?_? A-THEISM means no theism, which means no faith in any divine entity. It doesn't mean "let's burn all Christians" so drop the "poor me" attitude already. You have nothing to fear from us, we're less than 5% of the world population. You obviously missed the irony in my statement. Read again in the context of the discussion at the time I posted, slooooowly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts