Confused on Religion! Need Insight

real life -- get a real life.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

... More to the point of the actual argument, apparently you do not want to try to produce an example from nature of complexity arising spontaneously from simplicity, which is after all, where the rubber meets the road.

I respectfully would suggest you open your eyes and look around - before the rubber meeting the road rolls right over your shell. One more example - on a massively macro scale - galaxies formed from gas and dust.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

real life -- get a real life.

I think real life should hang in there and keep refining his arguments. That's the purpose of the board, right?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:
real life -- get a real life.
I think real life should hang in there and keep refining his arguments. That's the purpose of the board, right?

How long is one supposed to keep on arguing after the argument has obviously been lost? There is nothing left to "refine"; real life is simply repeating the same argument over and over, after having been shown, quite clerly, why his argument holds no water. There is such a things as conceding gracefully.

0 Replies

I suppose you are right, Andrew. I went back to look at his first post. Perhaps he should refine his premises somewhat; I don't know. I do wish to offer him encouragement, however.

I'm reminded of Bertrand Russel's observation regarding the many religions of the world with their diverse teachings - that only one of them can be right. He chose none. I submit there is one which can be discovered by honest study.

The simple fact of our disagreement cannot be given as proof it does not exist.

0 Replies

Well done Neologist:

By the authority invested in me(by me :wink: ); I hereby appoint you, Sherriff & Officer, ....Can I hear some YAYS out there? Very Happy

0 Replies

Yer all in a heap 'o trouble, y'hear?

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/police.gif

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
... More to the point of the actual argument, apparently you do not want to try to produce an example from nature of complexity arising spontaneously from simplicity, which is after all, where the rubber meets the road.

I respectfully would suggest you open your eyes and look around - before the rubber meeting the road rolls right over your shell. One more example - on a massively macro scale - galaxies formed from gas and dust.

Timber,

How clever you and Merry are. When you run out of things to say , you resort to personal attacks. Same as your posts in other threads, Timber. Sad when your argument has deteriorated to this level, guys.

I asked for verifiable evidence which another poster insisted happens "all the time" i.e. complexity arising of simplicity by self arrangement.

Timber, seriously do you expect anyone to believe that you have verifiable evidence of a galaxy --stars , planets, moons, etc-- forming itself from dust?

Now I am quite familiar with this as theory. However , that is what it is. Unprovable theory. Neither you nor anyone has verifiable confirmation of this and you are well aware of this. Is this really the best you can do?

I was told this happens all the time. No big deal. Common as can be. Surely you can do better if this is the case.

0 Replies

So-o-o.....Sherriff Neologist just happened to have a cap on hand..Hmmm.
.....It's destiny I tell you. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

When we reach a contradiction in our arguments, the fault must, of necessity, lie in our axioms. Consider real life's first post which contained this statement:

Quote:

There is either no God, one God, or many Gods. Only one of these can be true.

Let's leave the idea of many gods aside for now. The proposition then becomes:

Quote:

Either there is an omnipotent God or there is not.

One more:

Quote:

God would not allow us to remain ignorant of why we have war and crime and sickness and death.

If these statements make sense, we might progress to understanding. If not, we should begin with more appropriate axioms.

I suggest a conclusion we might reach from the first proposition is that God is not subject to the same rules of causality as are we. This might mean we would have to scrap some of our more recondite scientific arguments in His case.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Timber,

How clever you and Merry are. When you run out of things to say , you resort to personal attacks. Same as your posts in other threads, Timber. Sad when your argument has deteriorated to this level, guys.

I submit your person has not been attacked, your argument has been challenged. I note, however, you have engaged, as cited above, for example, in personal attack - and I submit you have done so by way of evading challenge to your argument.

Quote:

I asked for verifiable evidence which another poster insisted happens "all the time" i.e. complexity arising of simplicity by self arrangement.

Timber, seriously do you expect anyone to believe that you have verifiable evidence of a galaxy --stars , planets, moons, etc-- forming itself from dust?

Now I am quite familiar with this as theory. However , that is what it is. Unprovable theory. Neither you nor anyone has verifiable confirmation of this and you are well aware of this. Is this really the best you can do?

I would respectfully suggest you broaden your reading. The stellar lifecycle is a well documented phenomenon.

Quote:

I was told this happens all the time. No big deal. Common as can be. Surely you can do better if this is the case.

Here's a very simple treatment of Stellar Evolution The discussion is quite understandable. Don't let the math scare you; it works. The pictures are pretty, too.

0 Replies

Quote:

I asked for verifiable evidence which another poster insisted happens "all the time" i.e. complexity arising of simplicity by self arrangement.

So let me get this right
a) you believe that complexity represents a more organized system(star) as compared to a simple starting random system(stellar gas).

b)then you further propose that this rearrangement cannot happen without intelligent direction.

c) You then suppose that this intelligent direction has to be god.

In general complete systems go from less randomness to more randomness..actually according to the second law of thermodynamics, the randomness of the universe as a whole increases for every given actual process. This doesn't mean that structuring or ordering is not possible, just that the net effect is still an increase in overall randomness.

As far as sub-systems which order themselves naturally go, a common example is sand in water. Take sand, throw it in water, stir to your hearts content, then sit back and watch. The random distribution of sand particles settles back down to an organised layer of sand at the bottom of a glass of water.

Also while we are at it, the fact that the earth was part of the same stellar gas that composed the sun is not really in any doubt, nor is the fact that stellar evolution is a theory which has so far held up to inspection. It can be investigated by looking at emission/ absorption spectra from stars..which happen to be at different stages of evolution. This is just one technique, and this is not my field, but physics is pretty confident in stellar evolution.

Also, I believe in god, Christ actually, I'm anglican. Does that mean I believe in creationism over evolution, nope. There are certain tenets of religion that one is expected to take on faith. But faith is never meant to be counter-intuitive. Science can answer a lot of questions, but it does not attempt to answer the question of whether there is a God. This is not a scientific question, it offers an untestable hypothesis.

Like neo said

Quote:

The simple fact of our disagreement cannot be given as proof it does not exist

My belief in god is a matter of personal faith, I don't waste my time trying to fabricate science to fit my belief system. My faith in God is based on instinct, upbringing and the desire for a higher purpose. If evolution challenges your belief in God, then you need to ask yourself if It is God you believe in, or is it only a book?

0 Replies

Also I'm completely unaware of any mathematical proof that god exist..so if someones aunt published a paper on it, I'd like a reference.

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

Also I'm completely unaware of any mathematical proof that god exist..so if someones aunt published a paper on it, I'd like a reference.

If you are looking for proof for the existence of God in science or mathematics, you may search interminably.

I can't prove this assertion, either: If an omnipotent God exists, He is not subject to the same rules of causality as are we. He either sets the rules or somehow controls them.

If that is the case, efforts to question God, His qualities, His purpose or His love for mankind may only be satisfied through examination of the preponderance of anecdotal or cicumstantial evidence He provides.

I submit that one must prepare himself for this undertaking with complete personal honesty. If one's goal is to find a convenient license for sin, he most certainly will find it.

0 Replies

As so many of the religionist bent founded in the Abrahamic traditions are wont to do in other respects - reference their selective approach to their Bible, or their Qu'uran, there are those who accept only so much of Science as may be not inconvenient to their agenda. There's no point trying to distract sucj with facts,reason, and logic; they're as unlikely to give up their prejudices and superstitions as are pigs to sprout and use functional wings. Intellectual achievement is beyond the grasp of some, and intelligence is no shield against ignorance. Pigs are comfortable in mud, rabid religionsist are comfortable in ignorance.

Science need not preclude faith - in the truly well ordered mind there is room aplenty for both to flourish, even to reinforce one another. Truly well ordered minds appear to be relatively uncommon is some quarters. Perhaps those so afflicted are bred to it. Might predisposition toward blind acceptance of religionist myth and superstion be a genetic flaw?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

physgrad wrote:
Also I'm completely unaware of any mathematical proof that god exist..so if someones aunt published a paper on it, I'd like a reference.
If you are looking for proof for the existence of God in science or mathematics, you may search interminably.

Thats what I thought, except someone on this thread mentioned that some math implied the existence of God. I find that hard to believe, so I asked for a reference before trashing the claim

0 Replies

Quote:

Might predisposition toward blind acceptance of religionist myth and superstion be a genetic flaw?

Is that a serious question? I believe there is a correlation between upbringing and faith/religious tendencies..i'm the child of two religious ppl..but does that mean that my faith was predetermined by genes..a "faith" gene..total bunkum!!

Faith and lack therof are products of social interaction, period.

0 Replies

By judicious selection, one may establish a set of conditions which will permit calculation of damned near anything. A favored creationist ploy is to claim math rules out the non-existence of conscious direction of the universe. The two flaws of the employed methodology are misapplication of the concept of randomness and a thorough disregard of the rule of chaos.

0 Replies

Not really a serious question - a mere rhetorical device. Prolly a cheap shot, too. The target renders itself extraordinarilly easy to hit.

0 Replies

UH OH, I appear to have offended timber's sense of reason. Well, look at it this way: The bible was written for the unlettered and ordinary. Would they be satisfied with Job's observation that the earth is suspended in space? (Job 26:7) or Isaiah's description of the earth as a circle? (Isaiah 40:22). I think maybe they would. (though the clergy was willing to keep them ignorant for centuries).

I suppose I should add this proposition: The bible will not provide information contrary to legitimate scientific discovery. Now before you inundate me with contrary asseverations let me serve notice that if you give me one, I will deal with that one; if you give me 500, I will choose the ones I want to discuss.

0 Replies

Confused on Religion! Need Insight

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know