Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 8:32:48 GMT -5
The Big Bang doesn't suggest a point of origin. It only suggests a big bang.
By definition, it DOES suggest a point of origin, Joseph.
As for the remainder of your comic book fantasy account of life and evolution, it simply asserts the homoerotic fantasies of such wishful dreamers as Robert Ardrey.
The fact is that life is NOT as you wish it was any more than it is as I wish it was.
If your absurd religious beliefs were true then the only rational behaviour would indeed be a Hobbesian war of all against all.
Nature shows two things - firstly that BOTH competition AND co-operation operate as survival mechanisms, and that the HIGHER you get up the tree, the MORE the co-operative reflex kicks in.
Secondly, Nature is NOT indidividualist. It is always the survival of the SPECIES and NOT the individual that is important to it.
I'm sure it's comforting to you to have these cosy religious fantasies but you've yet to learn to put forward anything approaching a rational argument to defend your position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 9:00:46 GMT -5
By definition, it DOES suggest a point of origin, Joseph. If it did, it would also suggest that nothing came before the big bang. It makes no such suggestion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 18:16:46 GMT -5
That is simply an INTERPRETATION of what is ALSO nothing more than a THEORY. It is NOT a statement of FACT.
I will wax philosophical for a moment?
Kant's antimonies address (though fail of course to answer) many of the questions still dividing modern scientific thinkers.
Did the world have a beginning in time and space? That is the relevant antimony in this particular case.
The jury remains out on that particular issue.
I would vastly prefer the steady state theory to be true and hope that some day it may yet turn out that the Big Bang is simply a misconceived hypothesis.
In the meantime, I reflect upon the simple fact that to be either a theist OR an atheist is to presume too much and to make unwarranted inferences from inadequate knowledge and insufficient data.
The agnostic position is the ONLY truly 'scientific' attitude towards the problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 20:28:18 GMT -5
That is simply an INTERPRETATION of what is ALSO nothing more than a THEORY. It is NOT a statement of FACT. No, it's the point of origin that's theoretical. You cannot prove that there is one. Period. Absent such proof there is no basis to hypothesize either creation or a creator. All you can demonstrate with absolute certainty is the need, the craving, of people to believe in a deity. That's all based on fear, not reason. Kant's antimonies address (though fail of course to answer) many of the questions still dividing modern scientific thinkers. You mean antinomies. Antimony is a metalloid. Actually, from what I read, Kant had no problem with the concept of infinite space-time. Did the world have a beginning in time and space? That is the relevant antimony in this particular case. The jury remains out on that particular issue. But there really isn't any "jury," Mike, since the issue can never be determined. You cannot prove or disprove a point of origin, so there's no reason to believe in one. Theism is therefore irrational. I would vastly prefer the steady state theory to be true and hope that some day it may yet turn out that the Big Bang is simply a misconceived hypothesis. The big bang isn't necessarily a misconceived hypothesis. You simply replace the big bang with a big bang. to be either a theist OR an atheist is to presume too much and to make unwarranted inferences from inadequate knowledge and insufficient data. Theists presume too much. Atheists do not. A theist discovers a quarter under his pillow and declares "I have no proof of a natural explanation for the quarter under my pillow -- a supernatural force must have put it there." An atheist discovers a quarter under his pillow and declares "Absent evidence of either, a natural explanation is much more likely. I will go with that." An agnostic discovers a quarter under his pillow and cannot make up his mind either way. The agnostic position is the ONLY truly 'scientific' attitude towards the problem. No, it's not. It's chickens#hit. The agnostic only has doubts because he accepts as true a premise that can never be proven true -- that time and space are finite.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on May 20, 2010 23:26:35 GMT -5
"God(s) can be myth, but demons must be superstition. Believing in Gods can't harm us really."
Then, of course, there's the women (men, too, I suppose) who have been *told* by God (they believe or say so) to kill their children... So, belief in God *can* be harmful.
Now, many think they're either nuts or lying bytches. But, if God exists, who is to say demons cannot? Who is to say that a demon didn't infiltrate her head, and play 'god'? Why would she know the difference? Afterall, the bible she reads tells her that God has asked this same horrible thing of (at least) one other faithful servant.
Or maybe it was god... Why not? He has (according to the bible) done this before. Then again, if we think such an act (killing one's own children) is evil, then is God actually a demon?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 21, 2010 2:21:18 GMT -5
"God(s) can be myth, but demons must be superstition. Believing in Gods can't harm us really." Then, of course, there's the women (men, too, I suppose) who have been *told* by God (they believe or say so) to kill their children... So, belief in God *can* be harmful. Now, many think they're either nuts or lying bytches. But, if God exists, who is to say demons cannot? Who is to say that a demon didn't infiltrate her head, and play 'god'? Why would she know the difference? Afterall, the bible she reads tells her that God has asked this same horrible thing of (at least) one other faithful servant. Or maybe it was god... Why not? He has (according to the bible) done this before. Then again, if we think such an act (killing one's own children) is evil, then is God actually a demon? Er, didn't god tell Bush to go to Iraq!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2010 10:05:29 GMT -5
No, it's the point of origin that's theoretical. You cannot prove that there is one. Period.
Not true. It's a matter of elementary logic. By virtue of its very definition the Big Bang DOES require there to be a point of origin. Period.
Absent such proof there is no basis to hypothesize either creation or a creator.
Agreed - but there is EQUALLY no basis to hypothesise that such does NOT exist.
All you can demonstrate with absolute certainty is the need, the craving, of people to believe in a deity. That's all based on fear, not reason.
If that is truly all that you believe can be demonstrated with absolute certainty then the degree of knowledge which you permit human beings to possess is limited to the point of nearly zero. It is actually a statement that is completely at variance with the facts!
I assume however that you are referring to the putative religious claims of believers.
Not for the first time, I am curious as to why you automatically assume that there is such a degree of certainty regarding your own beliefs when the facts do NOT support your claims. I am also frankly baffled as to why you persist in imputing beliefs to those with whom you disagree which in fact they do NOT hold and never HAVE held.
It is certainly true that theists make claims for the veridical nature of their beliefs which I do not share. It is also dubious to claim that the sole basis of religious beliefs is fear; the elements of wonder and awe are not negligible factors in that respect.
People choose to believe or not to believe on primarily irrational grounds. Atheism is every bit as impossible to demonstrate as theism.
People choose to be atheists for many, purely emotional, reasons. The most common ones are jealousy, resentment, arrogance and the desire to act in an immoral fashion. Perhaps the classic formulation of an atheism based upon arrogance and resentment are the words of Nietzsche: 'If there were Gods, how could I endure NOT to be a God? Therefore there are no Gods.'
You mean antinomies. Antimony is a metalloid.
Actually, from what I read, Kant had no problem with the concept of infinite space-time.
I apologise for the typing error. Actually Kant pointed out that BOTH the antinomy that 'the world had a beginning in space and time' and 'the world has no beginning in space and time' were EQUALLY valid and EQUALLY impossible to prove or disprove.
But there really isn't any "jury," Mike, since the issue can never be determined. You cannot prove or disprove a point of origin, so there's no reason to believe in one. Theism is therefore irrational. Joseph, you CAN prove or disprove a point of origin. It happens every day in normal lives when, for instance, a baby is conceived.
And, of course, as a point of elementary logic, the Big Bang DOES require a point of origin.
I am totally in agreement with you that theism is irrational but the reality is that atheism is ALSO irrational.
The big bang isn't necessarily a misconceived hypothesis. You simply replace the big bang with a big bang.
I did not say that it necessarily was; I simply said that I would PREFER it if the steady state theory was true.
As for the notion of replacing the big bang with a big bang, it makes little difference.
I haven't even begun to raise the problems of the infinite regress with the big bang theories!
Theists presume too much. Atheists do not.
A theist discovers a quarter under his pillow and declares "I have no proof of a natural explanation for the quarter under my pillow -- a supernatural force must have put it there."
An atheist discovers a quarter under his pillow and declares "Absent evidence of either, a natural explanation is much more likely. I will go with that."
An agnostic discovers a quarter under his pillow and cannot make up his mind either way.
BOTH theists AND atheists presume too much.
A theist discovers a quarter and suspects that someone other than himself must have put it there.
An atheist discovers it and assumes that he must have put it there in his sleep.
An agnostic suspects that EITHER he put it there in his sleep OR someone else put it there.
See how unscientific BOTH the theistic AND atheistic attitudes are contrasted with the agnostic one?
No, it's not. It's chickens#hit. The agnostic only has doubts because he accepts as true a premise that can never be proven true -- that time and space are finite.
I don't accept that time and space are either finite or infinite (though I lean towards the view that they are more likely to be infinite and temperementally I HOPE that is the case.)
The agnostic has doubts because he does NOT choose to believe what CANNOT be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Theists and atheists are BOTH prepared to come to conclusions on insufficient data.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2010 10:07:41 GMT -5
"God(s) can be myth, but demons must be superstition. Believing in Gods can't harm us really." Then, of course, there's the women (men, too, I suppose) who have been *told* by God (they believe or say so) to kill their children... So, belief in God *can* be harmful. Now, many think they're either nuts or lying bytches. But, if God exists, who is to say demons cannot? Who is to say that a demon didn't infiltrate her head, and play 'god'? Why would she know the difference? Afterall, the bible she reads tells her that God has asked this same horrible thing of (at least) one other faithful servant. Or maybe it was god... Why not? He has (according to the bible) done this before. Then again, if we think such an act (killing one's own children) is evil, then is God actually a demon? If you believe the Bible, 'God' seems to like nothing better than killing as many people as possible, especially women and children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2010 13:51:25 GMT -5
Not true. It's a matter of elementary logic. By virtue of its very definition the Big Bang DOES require there to be a point of origin. The big bang only relates to this universe. It does not suggest the creation of any of the others. Neither does it suggest finiteness of time. Agreed - but there is EQUALLY no basis to hypothesise that such does NOT exist. One cannot hypothesize non-existence. One simply accepts it, pending proof of something's existence. One cannot hypothesize, for example, the non-existence of the tooth fairy. If one wishes to postulate the existence of such, it's up to him/her to present evidence of it. Short of that, the reality of the tooth fairy cannot be logically argued. If that is truly all that you believe can be demonstrated with absolute certainty then the degree of knowledge which you permit human beings to possess is limited to the point of nearly zero. Of course. The collective intellectual capacity of the human race is insufficient, by several orders of magnitude, to grasp the true nature of existence. The more we learn, the less we really know. There's a reason for that. It is actually a statement that is completely at variance with the facts! No it's not. The distance between quantum physics and cosmology is only getting larger, not smaller. If something truly can come from nothing, as quantum physics now suggests, all cosmological theories are valid and theology becomes pointless. I am curious as to why you automatically assume that there is such a degree of certainty regarding your own beliefs when the facts do NOT support your claims. I am arguing that nothing is worthy of belief. Even without proof, the mere possibility of infinite space-time is enough to cast suspicion on any cosmological theory premised on a point of origin. Humankind is motivated by an irrational craving for psychic comfort, and by ego, to embrace finitude of space-time. The pursuit of truth is tainted by that motivation. The question isn't where we come from. The question is why we do we have to know. It is also dubious to claim that the sole basis of religious beliefs is fear; the elements of wonder and awe are not negligible factors in that respect. It's mostly fear. There are some religions in which the temporal life is all there is, but not many.
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 21, 2010 13:56:51 GMT -5
"God(s) can be myth, but demons must be superstition. Believing in Gods can't harm us really." Then, of course, there's the women (men, too, I suppose) who have been *told* by God (they believe or say so) to kill their children... So, belief in God *can* be harmful. Now, many think they're either nuts or lying bytches. But, if God exists, who is to say demons cannot? Who is to say that a demon didn't infiltrate her head, and play 'god'? Why would she know the difference? Afterall, the bible she reads tells her that God has asked this same horrible thing of (at least) one other faithful servant. Or maybe it was god... Why not? He has (according to the bible) done this before. Then again, if we think such an act (killing one's own children) is evil, then is God actually a demon? Er, didn't god tell Bush to go to Iraq! I thought that was a lesser demon. Grand Master Dick.
|
|