PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
Because science is impartial and not subject to personal feelings or beliefs, unlike people.
Can you think of a better one?
An un-biased tool that can help us assess the world around us?
This is an appeal to emotion. This is why we only accept scientific data for a deity. Our human emotions and perceptions can make it difficult to distinguidh between what is true and what we WANT to be true.
Beauty needs no definition, and is, in fact, impossible to define. It's a concept, and like god, it's different for everyone and it's all in your head.
It shows that there's no scientific evidence for a deity.
Begging the question. Science doesn't only use one kind of thought, one kind of method.
If x-ray didn't work, we'd try something else, we'd try everything that we have available to us.
You're straw manning the posistion simply because it's not turning out the way you want it to.
--------------------------------
Once again, you're assuming that science will only ever use one type of net, which is fallacious.
I know this is hard for you to accept, but the simple fact is that there is absolutely no intelligent reason to believe in something that is 'supernatural'. If something exists outside of space and time, is neither matter nor energy and does not- for all intents and purposes- EXIST in a tangible world, then what is the POINT of even arguing that it exists? I could say that a giant floating lamp made out of jello exists in the same sense....and you could NEVER EVER disprove it- but does not being able to disprove that lamp mean you should believe in it?
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
I'm sorry, that's just hilarous!!
Does the multi-verse, particle strings, or other dimensions exist? Many physists believe so.
And they have tangible, practical, empirical evidence on which they base said beliefs.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
All they have is Einsien's equations. The equations involve complicated mathematics and a mistake is easily missable. Besides, in my infinite God topic, I present that anything is possible if we have infinite universes like a 'giant floating lamp made of jello'
I can see what the topic creator is saying. What is red? Is it about 700nm wavelength or is it so much more? Describe red to a blind person, tell them it's wavelength is 700nm, they'll understand.
edit:wave length of red light. Violet is in the 400nm range >_>
Thanks for the reply. BTW, I got a java error when attempting to quote so apologies….
*** = quote
***Beauty needs no definition, and is, in fact, impossible to define. It's a concept, and like god, it's different for everyone and it's all in your head. ***
I think I understand what you mean but that is partly my point. Beauty, love, compassion, hope, kindness, ultimate meaning and purpose….all of these things fall into that category. Does that mean that these things don't truly exist outside the conception of our own minds? The implications of that seem rather menacing to me. No ultimate right or wrong, no limits on moral behavior (like genocide being a bad thing). Most of the things we think of as making us 'human' don't scientifically exist.
*** It shows that there's no scientific evidence for a deity. ***I concede it that there is no direct scientific evidence for the existence god….but that does not lead me to the position of atheism.
*** Once again, you're assuming that science will only ever use one type of net, which is fallacious. ***
In this example science IS the net, each possible method one strand of one rope to extend the metaphor.
***I know this is hard for you to accept, but the simple fact is that there is absolutely no intelligent reason to believe in something that is 'supernatural'.***
This seems to depend on how one defines 'intelligent'. One might consider it intelligent to believe in a god in spite of the dearth of scientific evidence simply for the order it provides.
*** If something exists outside of space and time, is neither matter nor energy and does not- for all intents and purposes- EXIST in a tangible world, then what is the POINT of even arguing that it exists? I could say that a giant floating lamp made out of jello exists in the same sense....and you could NEVER EVER disprove it- but does not being able to disprove that lamp mean you should believe in it? ***
How true. I'm definitely NOT saying you should believe in god, I'm saying I do. That was my question to the RRS, "what is the POINT of even arguing that it (god) exists". No way to either prove or disprove. So why the 'challenge'? Bottom line is that science is forced to remain silent on the question of god.
What about if science proved evolution was a fact? Would that not disprove the idea that the Judeo-Christian god created all animals as we see them now?
This is all getting into what reality and existence are, which is the subject of metaphysics. I agree that it's questionable as to whether a scientific basis of reality is the absolutely No. 1 best way of defining reality. That's just in the same way as questioning whether "technically" is the best way of living one's life. Sometimes, doing things technically is irrational.
I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.
A better question would be: is a giant floating lamp made out of jello or a giant orbiting teapot worth believing in when compared to a theistic concept of God? The answer is no since said lamp or teapot doesn't appear to have the qualities of being a fulfillment of all things positive like theism's God does. So, the fact that one can't disprove a lamp or teapot is not the standard by which one should determine whether one should believe in it or not. Rather, the standard by which one should determine whether to believe in it or not is whether the existence of something is going to have a major, positive consequence like theism's God does.
I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.
I make sure not to offend the teapot and so far I haven't been drowned in a shower of lukewarm Earl Grey. That works for me.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
From what I've heard, I'm sure the teapot wouldn't drown you nor harm you in any way, even if you did offend it. I hear good things about the teapot, you see, and it seems like a nice teapot.
I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.
These are all subjective. What one culture find beautiful may be ugly or disgusting to another culture. As an example, there are the women who wear multiple hoops around their necks to stretch them. This is considered beautiful to them. In America, it would not be considered beautiful.
While I say that morality and altruism is intrinsic in human behavior, there are cultural differences as well. Think about the 'morality' of the middle east. Women are thrown into prison for leaving their homes without a male escort. Those women are conisdered immoral. Now just think of how American women act and dress. Even a very conservatively dressed American woman would be considered immoral in the middle east.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
pariahjane wrote: These are all subjective.
I think we are in agreement in principle. Beauty, love, compassion, hope, kindness, ultimate meaning and purpose are subjective IF god does not exist.
However, IF god does exist, then beauty, love, compassion, hope, kindness, ultimate meaning and purpose can be objectively defined. Aside from that, people mostly agree on what is beautiful (sunsets), what kindness and compassion are....the exceptions prove the rule.
*** It establishes that god is purely a figment of the believers' imagination. ***
So, am I safe in assuming that you believe that anything that cannot be proven to exist using science is imaginary?
***Indeed, supernatural is defined as something outside of nature, so how is it then that anyone could possibly know anything about anything that is supernatural? You must agree that what ever is said about such a thing is wholly imaginary.***
I disagree with the last sentance. The only way one could know anything about something supernatural is IF that supernatural something was ready, willing and able to reveal it.
I'm new to this site, so I hope someone can give me some answers to the Big Bang or multiverse theory. I am a Christian, and I have a limited knowledge of what this theory is.
I believe that God never had a beginning because he is outside of time. Since time and causality are related, then I don't think that God needs to have a creator. It doesn't matter how complex God is because I believe He was never created.
I do not believe that the universe is eternal because it is constantly running out of usable energy due to entropy. The Big Bang theory would agree that the universe had a point of beginning, and this seems to be the general concensus.
With the above paragraph in mind, "Everything that has come into existence, was brought into existence by something else. If something did not already exist but then came into existence, then something had to bring it into existence because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence." I believe that this is very logical, and it therefore requires the universe to have something that brought it into existence. Why can't God be a possibility?
That is a summary of my belief. I came here to get some answers, so I hope someone can help me out with this issue. I'm particularly interested in the concept of time. Thanks.
***Indeed, supernatural is defined as something outside of nature, so how is it then that anyone could possibly know anything about anything that is supernatural? You must agree that what ever is said about such a thing is wholly imaginary.***
In multiverse theory, it claims there exists parallel universes in which exist outside of our universe and cannot be observed. So with the above concept in mind, wouldn't that make multiverse theory just imaginary? Just because something isn't observable or inside nature, then that doesn't make it imaginary.
I"m just curious how else can we judge arguments? Wha other kind of arguments are their?
In reference to multiverse theory we can see some effects, which is why we proposed the idea of multiverse, if i understand it correctly. one thing is the curious way that gravity is so utterly weak compared to all other fundlemental forces. So they proposed that gravity is leaking into another verse. If someone knows more about this please correct me but this is my understanding.
Wouldn't the 3" netting only catch things larger than 3"?
Metaphors don't support the point. You're attempting to clarify the nature of something that hasn't been demonstrated to have a nature at all. Why science? Look around you. You're in the house science built, baby.
Beauty, in terms of physical attractiveness in humans, actually has been quantified. There are formulas for symmetry and proportion established, which represent the attributes the average person considers beautiful. Coincidentally, the attributes considered attractive relate to health, fertility, strength, etc. I'm sure a study of objects would reveal similar results.
This is reductionism. It's like saying a Shakespeare play is nothing but words.
Welcome to the forums! We're glad you're here.
For the science discussions, check out the Yellow Number Five forum.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
How does THAT make any sense?
Peter: "expressionistic pictures are FAR MORE BEAUTIFUL than the dull impressionism you like so much!!"
Steven: "No impressionism the most beautiful art! Don't be a jerk!"
Marc: "You all don't have any taste at all, can't you appreciate the beauty of landscape drawings?"
Now I want to see YOUR god making that one objective!
I think he (or rather his fan club) would go about it like this (just a guess):
"Landscape drawings are the only TRUE art! Expressionism and impressionism can't ever be true, because it's the work of humans, your sins reflect in what comes from the human mind, only what depicts my creation can be considered TRUE art."
Or what the do you mean with "when God exists, everything is objective"?
And then, how do you tell that it is objective when your opinion about it is subjective? (I love circles, but it'd still love the hear an answer to that question... have fun comming up with one)
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
If not science, then what? Science is a process of observation and both inductive and deductive understanding. It's not technically limitted to the natural universe. If there is a super natural, then it's not really super natural except in relation to us. If it exists then it's natural. If it exists it can be discovered. I don't see how anything but a scientific process could accomplish anything in such a debate.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I really enjoy watching people describe the supernatural.
How about a formula for the use of words? If it can be said that Shakespeare had a "style," which I think is reasonable, that style could be replicated today without suggesting that the man himself had risen from the grave.
The idea of beauty, as we know it, even considering the margins of subjectivity, is a wholly human concept; either founded upon or incidental to human priorities. One that can be defined to an extent, and even justified and explained in the case of physical beauty.
I don't get it, why isn't science supposed to be able to study beauty? Is beauty not just something which triggers an emotional and/or biological
response from us? Seems rather straightforward to study things like human behavior, emotional response, brain function, etc.
This theory has not, in any way, benefited science. It has, however, influence generations of people in a way that has stunted it's progress, and even destroyed prior progress. It has not lead to any discoveries that can be observed as true, and has not added to our understanding of how the universe behaves or functions.
The scientific hypothesis is that in the same place there may have been some simple and inert forces or particles/matter that do what we know they can do, and it resulted in something that, a few billion years after the fact, resembles the behavior of an explosion. This hypothesis has a logical basis that can be explained to a fairly fine degree and stands up to the strictest scrutiny by thousands of peers who would have a LOT to gain by disproving it. This theory (no longer a hypothesis after said scrutiny) has lead to many other hypothesis that have been observed and proven correct. Thus far expected results of this event have been observed to be present and accounted for and may even solve other mysteries with no direct relation to this particular question. They ultimately add a great deal to our understanding of the universe in which we live. This understanding may directly enhance the lives of everyone in the future in real and tangible ways. It may even lead to discoveries that could potentially resolve direct sources of conflict and suffering without interfering with any individual's personal feelings or beliefs. It also stands universally observable despite any cultural differences, opinions, experiences, and so on, and can be verified by anyone.
The multiverse theory has mathematical proofs that are coherent and can be demonstrated, and stand up to scrutiny. It's not an accepted fact yet as there's no way to test it beyond the math (afaik), but it would, in fact, help to make sense of many things in physics, and if it's proven could drive things like physics forward. The concept of a god would not, there would be no tangible benefit.
It should be pretty obvious which one has the higher probability. If the multiverse theory is correct, then it's hypothetically possible that we were created by intelligent beings like ourselves, but that still wouldn't equate to "god", and wouldn't, in itself, really explain anything. We'd still want to know how it happened.
[Note: I'm just a layman when it comes to science, so I welcome corrections to any scientific misconceptions I may hold.]
A formula for word usage?
I have a thought experiment: How would you describe the colour red to a blind person who never saw red?
I saw that exact question in a movie, although I don't remember which one.
The seeing person put a very warm rock in the blind person's hand and wrapped their fingers around it and said that red looked like the hot rock felt.
I thought it made sense.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Science has limitations.
logic and Reason the foundations of scientific principles can still be used to explain that which the scientific method can not.
Example
A small child tells you of an invisible friend they have. science cannot dismiss the possibility of this invisible friend existing. logic and Reason tells you it doesn't. logic and Reason should also tell you the motivation for a child to fabricate the existence of an invisible friend. the history of the child would suggest it craves for more companionship
Now when an adult tells you of an invisible friend that they call god. and science cannot dismiss the possibility of this invisible friend existing. then one should look into the motivation and the history of this adult before accepting this probable fabricationn on faith.
For example Christianity the Bible was created by the Roman Emperor Constantine in a place called Constantinople. Constantine was a power-hungry serial killer.his motivation for creating the Bible was to unite the crumbling Roman Empire with a single religious doctrine. which he did by the most ruthless and bloody means. thus the Roman Catholic church. from which all Christian movements are founded.
logic and reason. tells us that the Roman Emperor Constantine's invisible friend is a fabrication.
There are lots of invisible friends. and I'd be happy to explain the history and motivation of the main ones. history is a fascinating subject
logic and reason. like science cannot disprove negatives. ie invisible friends. but they can show the motivation behind there creation
Does a person blind from birth have a concept of color?
Ooh! Does an atheist have a concept of spirituality or GOD!!!!????!!!11
I've posted something about whether spirituality really is a qualitative term in the philosophy forum. I honestly don't know whether “spirituality” has a meaning. I tend toward the simpler answer, that “spirituality” is a feeling with biological origins. It's not definitive, but unless better evidence arises for spirituality as an actual thing we're in the business of creating false dichotomies.
Science can't be tested to 100% accuracy so all propositions are on equal footing. Is that right?
STFU with this already.
That wasn't my point.
I was talking to the other guy.
If god exist then he/she/it gets to deside what is beautiful, lovely, good, ect. Therefore, those things are objective through the lens of Ultimate Reality (god) . (I realize we disagree on the existence of god, but my statement about objectivity presumes god's existence.)
jive Turkey
"presumes god's existence"
May I ask for the source of this presumption ?
I'm not trying to convince you that God exist nor do I entertain the notion that I could if I wanted to. But to speak directly to your point, I have found that evidence for God is highly personal and really only good evidence for the person who has it. Sort of like if I asked you to prove that you love someone. We would end up with anecdotal evidence. I personally believe in God for a variety of reasons but the short answer is 'because I want to'.
We (theist) take as a given that God is outside of what we refer to as nature, that there is a deeper reality that we have not the capacity to grasp. This may be the sort of claim that drive atheist crazy because there's no way to prove or disprove a given....it is simply a given. But that's the best way I know to say it, we just accept it.
Here's an analogy I posted in the Philosophy forum that elaborates on this position:
********
I'm writing this post on Windows XP SP2. The windows kernel's job is to provide a framework in which other processes can 'exist' and perform functions. To do this, the kernel directly interfaces with the hardware resources like the RAM and CPU and allocates them to other processes. However, in my case, XP is not sitting directly on top of the hardware, it is running as a virtual machine on top of a virtual OS. Now, XP 'thinks' it is sitting directly on top of the hardware (it is a 'real' instance of XP) and everything works precisely like it would if XP were interfacing the hardware directly, but in fact, it is not. It is still the job of the kernel to know what resources it has and allocate them to other processes and it still does this job just as well as an installation of XP that really does sit on top of the hardware. However, there is a deeper layer that XP has no means of accessing.
********
/peace
The idea that something exists which is impossible to percieve in any way is incoherant. It doesn't matter whether it's within the universe or outside of it. Anything that exists, exists. The only given of something that exists is that it can be discovered and explained. Even the suggestion that we don't have the capability to comprehend something lies within the limitations of todays technology and knowledge. If I went back 5000 years in time and showed someone a television they'd think I was a god. The invention couldn't even be explained to them as not magical, since all the parts of a television depend on inventions and concepts based on inventions and concepts based on inventions and concepts that wouldn't exist for thousands of years. You'd have to educate them in the basics of light wavelengths, electronics, glass and metal working, vacuums, etc before you could even begin to expect them to understand the television. But they could understand it if they learned all those things that they needed to.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.