This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Proving/disproving Atheism.
This conversation seems necessary because there are similar conversations out there that are trying to prove otherwise.
If you're accustomed to the religious debates here on TED you'll get the point...
Please, provide some proof!
EDIT: PLEASE, PLEASE start new threads instead of commenting on really long ones!
Closing Statement from Jimmy Strobl
Since I'm an (still) Atheist a summary would be unfair to many... Instead I've done this!
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3898023/Summery_of_TED_Conversation_about_Atheism
Jimmy Strobl 30+
There's only 23 hours left until this conversation closes and I'd just like to make this "pre-closing statement", you're all welcome to do the same!
I've had a lot of fun and learned a lot form reading your thoughts and discussing Atheism and many other topics on this conversation. I'm astonished by the mental endurance that many of you have shown here.
And I would like to thank all of you for giving each other insight into thoughts that we (or at least I) didn't know existed.
It's going to be quite a challenge for me to make a good closing statement to this conversation so I would really appreciate if you'd like to share your thoughts on what this conversation has meant to you and what you've learned.
I'll wait a couple of weeks before writing the closing statement, you are welcome to Email me (as always) if you wish to help with it!
Adam Leeson
We know what an Atheist is, and we know what a Theist is.
And we also know that they're never going to agree on certain issues.
Lets just live in harmony, y'all..
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Adam Leeson
Jimmy Strobl 30+
I know that it's a big conversation and you might think that every argument has been said, but that's no reason not to share your thoughts on the topic!
I'd love to have you here the last three days!
Adam Leeson
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Just share your thoughts and there is sure to be some debate!
Gabo Moreno 100+
Adam Leeson
haha
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Helen Hupe 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Helen Hupe 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
How does your statement fit into proving/disproving atheism? Sorry...I'm confused:>)
Helen Hupe 30+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Now, of course, under selection pressures changes in allele frequencies cause changes in the species, and so on ... anyway, the point is, that there continues to be evolution does not mean we as humans will become smarter, but that we just continue to change (in terms of allele frequencies, maybe in some physical appearance too). Then, technology is also evolution, only epigenetic evolution, that is evolution where the information changes are outside of our genetics. In that sense we have become way much "smarter." Our collective knowledge is much more. That does not mean we are smarter as individuals, but that our species has lots at its disposal ...
Anyway, now I am just rambling, but hopefully you get the point: natural evolution is not always "progress."
Adam Leeson
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html
Adam Leeson
E G 10+
"Does everyone here accept that the most intelligent human ape has reached the end of the evolutionary process and there will be no further progress in intelligence ?" Do you talk only about progressing in intelligence ? Isn't it somehow related with our body/ physical progression ? because in this sense I think yes :"there will be no further progress in intelligence".
Helen Hupe 30+
E G 10+
Thomas Jones 100+
I know of several such people (and my findings are replicable) so I have just "proven" atheism.
I can prove theism the same way.
Now, if you want to prove there is, or is not, a God ... well ... that's a little harder.
Gabo Moreno 100+
For evolution there is no faith involved.
1. We notice evolution in real life, what your quacks would call "microevolution."
2. We notice that we can bring about extreme differences in dogs, cabbages, corn, whatever.
3. We thus extrapolate that if this happens in "real time," its consequences could be much bigger in the longer time, which would explain why, for instance, we look so similar to other apes, and why would there be a group like apes to begin with. We could think, could it be that the same processes we witness, and the differences in dogs/whatever we can attain, explain apes as descendants of a single species?
4. We don't stop there, we could then ask, if this is so, where should we find evidence about this? Well, the most similar apes to us are chimps and gorillas, which are African, maybe we can find fossils of other apes, more and more similar to us in Africa?
5. We visit Africa, and, lo and behold, we find those fossils. We have also found some semi-human/semi-other-apes in Europe and Asia, but the most striking series has been found, and continues to be found, in Africa, with many more specimens showing more stages of intermediate features.
As you can see, that justifies evolution without any faith involved.
Of course, this is very simplified, and there's many more details confirming our common ancestry with the other apes. The example is simple, and does not go into more details about other species, and other evidences, for explanatory purposes.
Entropy? As long as there is energy from the sun, there is no reason to think that evolution goes against entropy. Remember, Harleys are not doable without energy, just as evolution would not happen without energy. Neither works against entropy at all. That would be impossible.
Peter Law 30+
It is agreed that natural selection can hone a creature to suit it's environment. The quacks would say that this is because the dna code exists already in the creature & is selected or deselected as appropriate. Is this wrong ? Say you bought an SUV. It came with a spare set of winter wheels, a soft top, & a hard top. You then have an opportunity to customise it a bit. What you couldn't do is fit a set of cat' tracks; they are not part of the SUV.
Apes have lots of different shaped skulls as do humans. It may convince some if we lined up modern skulls in an fully ape to fully man fashion. Often all we have is bone fragments to work with, which makes it harder. You really have to accept the evolution theory in order to see it. Not to mention all the hoaxes, frauds, & mistakes that litter the history of hominid reconstruction.
Energy from the sun by itself is a lethal force. Harleys are made by carefully harnessing this energy in a carefully designed & constructed factory. Even then the sun will ultimately destroy the factory & all the Harleys.
Certainly the sun can produce babies, but only through the supremely complex medium of mum & dad. What have the factory & the Mum/Dad machine in common ? Complexity. Which is the more complex ? No contest; MumDad machine. If the factory didn't evolve, why should we believe MumDad did ?
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
You are missing the point. Regardless of whatever quacks say, we observe actual adaptations bringing changes, sometimes quite spectacular, to populations, even speciation, even new structures. Often in nature, very prominently in domestication. This inspires the idea of evolution, and thus we reason what would that entail and search for evidence (for or against). No quack dismissals changes these facts at all.
Scientists don't align apes to their liking, they have to go by scientific data, such as dating, geography, environment. Then by observing which anatomical features reveal what. If fossils were aligned to someone's liking, we wouldn't see so much overlap between hominid groups, with species of australopithecins, for example, living at the same time as species of Homo. Frauds have been discovered to be frauds, and thus rejected, by scientists, not by your quacks. Despite frauds, there are plenty of trustable fossils, with clear intermediary features. I insist also that your complains don't not change the very fact that if evidence confirms the prediction, then evolution does not take faith. That you manage to dismiss the evidence because your quacks say so is a different problem, and does not change what I explained. I am not asking you to believe evolution, but to understand why it does not require faith.
-------
The sun is not always a lethal force. None of my plants outside has any problem with the sun. The carefully designed factory required energy to be carefully designed, the babies required energy to be built. You will find no single point where energy is not needed, and thus nothing in human tasks, nor in natural tasks, that goes against entropy. All of them, including evolution, use energy. Otherwise they would not be possible. Evolution uses exactly the very same processes as life itself. Evolution is the natural consequence of life itself. Thus, if life does not break any rules, evolution does not break any rules. Simple.
Gabo Moreno 100+
The problem is that as technology has evolved we have lost sight of its connection to natural laws, and that we tend to anthropomorphize based on our limited experiences. Just like fire can be both natural and intelligently produced, "designs" can be both natural and intelligently produced. When technologies were closer to what nature did, we still anthropomorphized and believed that gods were responsible for, say, natural fires. But now we know that there is no need for such a belief. Today we have evolution and natural laws to explain natural "design," and the only reason you don't believe it is because you don't understand it (thanks to some quackery and to your faith), the same way you understand combustion. You hold to misunderstood human technologies and what makes them possible, compounded with our human inclination to disjoin ourselves from the rest of nature. It is nonsensical to assume a need for intelligence for natural "designs" without a philosophically sound reason to separate what makes our technologies possible from what makes natural "technologies" possible, where natural laws and their consequences easily explain apparent intelligence. There is no sound reason to separate life from other natural processes either. If asked, have you seen "design" being built without intelligence in nature, I would say yes: look at life. If asked "other than that?" Yes, look at planetary systems ...
I hope I managed to present these ideas clearly. It is hard to convey these ideas in a few words.
:)
Peter Law 30+
I do understand your perspective, & realise it must be frustrating that I don't agree; irrespective of quacks. Let's assume that evolution/millions of years is all true.
We can look around at the universe; it's beautiful & in perfect balance. We can see it because our atmosphere just happens to be transparent & breathable, & we are well placed in the galaxy to have a good view. We can look at atoms & see little solar systems, again, in perfect balance.
Our world has hundreds of natural systems, all perfect for our survival. Our world is a battleground between good & evil, our inner being is also involved as we constantly fight temptation; not always successfully.
When I look around I have to admit that if there is no God then there are an awful lot of co-incidences. When the Atheist looks around he concludes that out of all the multiverses we are lucky to have arrived on this particular planet, in this particular universe. Maybe we don't see the wood for the trees.
.....
I found this definition of Entropy "All systems will tend towards the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganised" (Harold Blum. Times Arrow & Evolution. 1968 p.201)
Both babies & plants have complex mechanisms to channel the sunlight. They provide a mathematically probable route. The formation of these systems from naturally occurring materials; I would contend; is mathematically & statistically most improbable.
Some hominids that didn't make the headlines.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2007-08/msg06073.html
Some time ago I was discussing (maybe not with you) the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaurs. This shouldn't be of course as the tissue should have rotted or fossilised over this period. I took my usual drubbing because the scientist was a christian.
Well, her boss is on TED with the same story.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken.html
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
It is not frustrating that you won't agree with me. It is frustrating that you miss the point, and the point is that we don't require faith to accept evolution. I showed you but a very simplified example of how we get to accept evolution, and that such thing does not require any faith. Just reason and data. The most you might say, if you were right, is that it took defective data to accept evolution, but defective data and faith are very different.
As for your comment. well, the atmosphere is transparent and breathable, and our planet that good for us, because we evolved in this environment. High-temperature life-forms could think that high temperatures are there for them, and that this planet was made for them because it has places at such temperatures. Environment first Pete, then adaptation. Atheists don't think we are lucky to be in this universe, but that we could not be in a universe that would not produce us (tautologically true). Water is not lucky to find a puddle, puddles get naturally filled with water.
---
The definition of entropy is somewhat right, but, as most simplified definitions, incomplete and misleading. That entropy is due to a tendency towards a more mathematically probable state, does not mean that things will end up random and disorganized. For example, given gravitational forces, it is more probable for a sufficiently high amount of hydrogen to collapse under its own mass, and start the fusion process, thus building more otherwise "improbable" atoms, such as helium. At the same time releasing energy at such high state that its flow into more probable states allows for complexity to arise. Like water flowing down allows us to produce electricity.
Did you read the bottom line on those "hominids that didn't make the headlines"?
More on dinos and soft tissue later. Preview: it is not what quacks want you to believe.
:)
Peter Law 30+
Jack Horner in his TED address talked about turning on some genes in the chicken which would give it teeth. This would be neat & change the chicken to something new; but doesn't the tooth gene have to be there in the first place ?
I know from experience that the more we breed dogs, the more fragile they become. `You eventually reach a limit, where no further change can take place. Then if we let them breed naturally, they will revert to mongrel. We hear that dino's became birds. How did they breath when their lungs were changing ? Why would it be of benefit to have a mixed up lung ?
I don't need quacks. It just isn't sensible to believe such things.
I asked my perennial question on a BB site & no-one answered. By what process does hydrogen 'clump'. It seems entirely at variance with the gas laws. "Gas will always expand to fill the volume available to it". Even more so if is ejected by an explosion into a void.
There are loads of guys pushing the infinite number of universes scenario to get round this problem. I agree with you to an extent, certainly more than the multiverse gang, but when you get all statistical about the odds on our universe, it's impossible. Just one little adjustment slightly different, & it's not going to work.
Yes I read the bit at the end. Either it didn't happen, or no-one reported it; weird!
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
Chickens have the genes for teeth, only "turned off." I think the omni-powerful intelligent designer had not decided yet if chickens would have teeth or not. :)
Sure pushing dogs too far gets them sick-prone because of over-inbreeding (we select for genetic uniformity), but the observation was how much we can reshape dogs within little time, not whether we imitate evolution perfectly.
I did not know that the lungs of dinos changed during their evolution into birds. Interesting.
Here: http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm
I found this:
"even in modern birds, there is a mixture of unidirectional flow through the so-called palaeopulmonic bronchi and bidirectional flow through the so-called neopulmonic bronchi."
Which seems to suggest there is no problem with "mixep up" lungs.
I told you the process for hydrogen to "lump." Randomness in space expansion and gravitation. You are thinking about gases in this planet, in small quantities, in recipients, rather than unimaginable amounts of hydrogen with such collective mass as to have great gravitational pulls. Man, our atmosphere is nothing in comparison, yet I doubt you think that air is uniformly distributed.
I don't believe the "odds" against our universe. Nobody has shown me anything but speculation about what could or could not have been. If I were to accept that speculation, then there is nothing stoping me from accepting the multiverses too. Why? Well, for fine-tuning, constants are assumed not to be constants, but variables (does not sound right). For multiverses, the initiation of our universe is assumed not to be a unique event (sounds reasonable). Thus, no problem.
About those hominids, there is another answer linking to a page about those hominids that clearly debunks the creationist interpretation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html
:)
Peter Law 30+
I guess that if chickens needed teeth they would evolve them. They have the dna, it just needs turned on. I guess now & then a chicken is born with teeth, if it had an advantage then it may be healthier & leave more young. Job done; but only because the dna is there. What I need to see is something appearing for which there was originally no dna.
If the dogs get sicker as they change from the original, why would naturally evolving creatures get healthier ? The fruit fly experiments would seem to confirm this trend.
With the dogs we are using unadulterated dna, with natural macro evolution we are using mutated dna. Why should damaged code be better than original code ?
We can conjecture about hydrogen in space, but the hard science tells us that if you try & push hydrogen atoms together it resists. The gravitational pull between atoms is constant & totally unable to pull them together. Only the gravitational pull of the earth itself keeps our atmosphere here. We have about 14psi at sea level all over the planet. The wind moves to keep the overall pressure stable.
The multiverse thing just shows me how desperate folks are to deny the obvious design in the universe we have. These things are all very well, but why ignore the obvious ?
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
I told you why the dogs get sicker. We select for genetic uniformity, thus carrying a higher probability for deleterious versions of genes to get together. In natural evolution selection is survival alone, and the genetic diversity keeps the species healthy. When not, species get extinct (this has happened many more times than have species survived). It is a question of numbers, the more individuals in a population, the lowest the probability for bad combinations to occur. Mutated does not mean damaged. Means modified. I told you too that there is plenty of demonstration that the hypothesis that most mutations were harmful has been falsified (it is simply not true).
The hard science tell us that the gravitational forces of humungous quantities of hydrogen will make them collapse into each other and eventually start fusions. Ask the sun if it is not having its hydrogen fused. Physicists have done the math. If our planet's gravitation keeps our atmosphere here, what would you expect from thousands or millions of times that pull? You can't win this one Pete. Reality beats misinformation.
The multiverses is not about any desperation. It actually opened the door to newer analyses that seem to be making much better sense of the universe's origin. There is nothing obvious in the assumption of a designed universe. It relies of constants being variable. That alone is contradictory. If we then asked "designed for what" we would have a very hard time showing that it is designed for us. As far as we know we would not survive in most of our own universe. We can't even hope to reach it. Thus, which design? Design for what exactly? It looks obvious to me that design is not a proper description of reality even at less contentious levels. We can't even say that about our solar system. We can't live in most of it either. So, what's obvious about the universe being designed?
:)
Peter Law 30+
With you on the dogs, but not on the mutation. If a piece of code is working well & we randomly change it, surely the odds are stacked against any beneficial effect. Have you got a link that I could understand ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060703163148.htm
This is cool. Apparently hydrogen 'clumps' by falling on to 'Dark Matter' to form a 'blob'. I love it, the answer to my dreams! I'm sorry, but this is hilarious.
So now we have Dark Matter AND Hydrogen forming at the BB. There is the slight problem of not having a scoobie what DM actually is, or even IF it is. Together with Dark Energy & Dark Flow they remain a mystery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agqjaX2_QVI&feature=related
Biblically speaking :-
The universe is designed to introduce us to the designer. It is awesome & maybe eternal. One thing I get from it is that we are capable of working it out to some extent. So we have the ability to see how the designer achieved at least parts of it. He is sharing the knowledge with us. There is no evolutionary reason why we would understand these things. It is designed that we can understand.
We are children. When we are grown we may well be able to travel the universe at will. Jesus could pass through walls, levitate out of sight etc. At any rate it seems we are to have a new universe, which may or may not be similar to this one. I can hardly wait .
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
Answering here to avoid having to look for our exchange among so much of a mess already.
1. Geological columns deposit in many different ways, not just streams of water.
2. Nobody would be able to publish a result and write methods where each column requires to change many variables to make them fit into a chronology. That's preposterous. In my own field, when I need to change a variable for some particular situation, I have to justify it very clearly before reviewers would let me publish my results.
3. All the geological columns show obvious eroded surfaces. That's one of the things that person in the video showed. For instance, shales inclined at an extreme angle, with sandstone on top (different angle), where the surface between the shales and sandstone shows signs of erosion.
4. Sorry, I misunderstood one part of what this quack was saying.
5. Erosion is very common. It shows as discontinuities that on closer inspection show signs of erosion.
The layers I saw during the only one course I took on geology did not show grain sizes big at the bottom and small at the top at all. The layers I have seen look quite uniform within. (Physics shows the opposite of your claim. Fine grain tends to find its way down thus pushing big grains up. We made the experiment in physics, we put stones at the bottom and sand at the top, and shakind brought some stones to the surface. I have also observed big stones appearing after an earth quake.)
6. If real life would have more processes happening, why base everything on mistaken stream experiments?
7. Transcontinental layers happen in places that were together once.
8. The guy showed deposition happening sideways, which is consistent with streams, but still one layer was on top of an older one. Scientists would notice the patterns and conclude "stream deposited, thus also older within a layer going upstream." Nothing contradictory to geology as we know it.
Peter Law 30+
Nearly missed you, I normally go from my profile.
1. Agreed.
2. For radio' dating we need to know such things as; amount of original radioactive material; the amount of the original daughter material; amount of materials that are lost by solubility in water etc. over the period; (A global flood would certainly distort readings); decay rates have remained constant; possibility of contamination after excavation. Impossible to be sure of any degree of accuracy with so many arbitrary variables.
3.-5. Need to nail down your suggested mechanism of deposition. Does each layer take a long time, or short time? Is there a long time or short time associated with the gaps in the layers ? Are the majority laid down wet, or dry ?
6. The vid guy started with real life core drillings. Lab work is a necessity don't you think ?
7. This makes sense, but if the plates have taken millions of years to get where they are today then why are there not lots more layers on top that are associated with the separated continents ? If the layers were laid as the continents were in transit a different picture would present.
8. I guess a tsunami is just a very wide stream. the same sideways deposition would apply. Certainly at any given point the lower deposits are older, but at the upstream end the top layer is older than the bottom layer at the downstream end. This would make it impossible to 'date' fossils chronologically.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
3-5. Several rates of deposition. Most layers containing fossils come from swamps, not from rivers.
6. Real core drilling of stream deposited materials, not of any geological layers.
7. There are more layers on top. Actually sometimes "equivalent layers" are much closer to the surface in one part than in another (because of either local erosion, or lack of much further deposition on one place, much more deposition in other places.
8. Maybe a tsunami is a much faster "stream," but I doubt it would deposit layers as in the video. It would also leave behind flooded places where deposition would happen slowly. What about swamps Pete? There is plenty of evidence of huge swamps in the past. Would layers be deposited as if rivers in swamps?
Fossils could be dated chronologically as long as we followed layers vertically, and corrections would have to be made as one moves upstream or downstream. How strong the corrections? As strong as whatever evidence tells scientists to do. Again, not every layer is stream-deposited. Scientists (geologists) know these things Pete. They can determine if layers are swamp-deposited, stream-deposited, flood-deposited, volcano-deposited, quickly deposited, slowly deposited ...
One more note: that this geologist does not know what each and every creationist accepts (such as an ice age), does not mean she does not know her stuff. I don't know what every creationist believes, I know they vary a lot in what they believe. I still know my stuff (molecular biology) very well. Creationism is neither required for me to understand my stuff, nor to understand geology. Clear?
:)
Peter Law 30+
I would have thought that any swamp fossils would be in shale layers, as mud becomes shale under pressure (I think). Moving water would normally give sandstone, although some layers will be a mixture. We live close to the beach and the rocks are clean sandstone with very clearly defined thin layers. The sea is at present converting the rock back into sand.
"Fossils could be dated chronologically as long as we followed layers vertically, and corrections would have to be made as one moves upstream or downstream."
That's not the way it is done though. Fossils are aged by what layer they are in. The assumption is that each layer is laid vertically on the other, & that each layer is a different age. As you say, this scenario is probable in swamps, but most fossils are in sandstone as far as I know.
The flood hypothesis would make rivers & swamps secondary though. We would have water a mile deep sloshing back & forth over all the land carrying the silt from land & sea-bed around the globe. If we look on the top of Grand Canyon there are Butes several hundred feet tall which are testimony to previous layers which have been swept away en-mass leaving only the Butes. These will erode by wind & rain fairly quickly by your time scale. How could such masses of sand be transported by anything other than very deep & very fast water ?
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplateau/lexicon/esplanade.htm
Great subject,
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
I don't suppose for a second that paleontologists would not know what kind of rock they are working with. I don't think that any layer would necessarily have been deposited uniformly all along, but rather that it solidified mostly as a piece if it were to be identifiable as a single layer. If stream-deposited, then the differences between upstream and downstream might range in time maybe by decades, maybe centuries at most. Thus, geologically ridiculously small differences to become a dating problem. In other words, the precision against millions of years would be pretty good. If there were huge upstream/downstream differences, scientists would know and correct accordingly. Other scientists would not allow them to publish otherwise.
While, I have read that most fossils are found in swamp-deposited layers, that seems inconsequential because scientists have to openly say what they did, how they did it, and so on. Not all the details make it into textbooks (they are voluminous as it is), that does not mean scientists don't know their jobs. I would trust scientists because I know about the rigour for working and for publishing, and I can't believe that quacks are trusted when they say that things are done in obviously wrong ways as if quacks knew better than scientists themselves. Quacks have pretended to teach me about molecular biology, and I insult them with gusto for their pretence. Since I know how much they prostitute what I do, I don't expect them to be any more respectful about geology, paleontology, or any other science. That they would tell you that paleontologists don't know about how rocks form, or the types of rocks that would be formed under which circumstances, or that some layers might need corrections for dating, does not surprise me. What does surprise me is that you would believe such things.
Best as always.
Peter Law 30+
You talk about layers & fossils forming in a stream. Surely a stream cuts into the ground, so a build up of layers would be impossible. The chances of a fossil forming are remote indeed.
I was trying to get an idea of what size of areas fossils are normally found in, but haven't succeeded so far. I get the impression that if you get the correct rock layer then fossils are possible throughout the layer. Don't know.
Maybe it's because you are in the trade that you get wound-up over quacks. Personally I try & learn from everybody, but some things make sense & some things don't.
What about the Butes that I mentioned. We see them in all the old western films sticking out of the desert like fingers. Some are deposited & I guess some may be volcanic. It seems obvious that an enormous amount of earth has been taken from the surface of the land & dumped many miles away; leaving only these stone fingers. Some are so thin that they will not last long, suggesting this may be a recent event. I have never read about this from either side, I just wonder myself. What do you think ?
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
I said that most fossils form in swamps. But to your point about streams forming layers, didn't then that guy in the video that you asked me to watch show layers being formed by deposition of debris carried by streams? Have you seen the deposits at deltas?
I would find you a link to fossils and the sizes of layers where they are found, but no time now. Try some real places rather than quacks. I don't know, maybe national geographic. That lady I pointed to before has some excellent material too if you can get past her style.
Anyway, yes, I detest the quacks because I know they lie about my area of research, and that this is not a matter of interpretation. They show that they have no idea of what they are talking about. I detest imbeciles who have never done any scientific work (worse for the few who have done some scientific work, because they should know better) coming and displaying their ignorance with pride while pretending to know better than me how I work, how I verify my results, what results I have and have not, and, to top it up, my "motivation" to keep the "Darwinist dogma." As if I would not notice their cherry-picking, their ignorance, and their lies. That's why I get "wound up." Since I know that they lie about my scientific area, why should I think they don't lie about everything else?
I don't know about those Butes. I kinda remember them being formed by wind erosion, but not sure. Note that I took just one course of geology long ago, and in Spanish. I will check when I have time. Which is not now.
Best and see ya in another conversation.
:)
Peter Law 30+
The apparatus the guy used could be likened to a stream in that it was narrow. I guess it is all to do with the speed of the water how much is deposited. He is trying to simulate a flood/tsunami type condition. If this was in a stream I guess the silt would eventually back-up like a dam; the water would be held for a while & then overtop in a rush & move the silt farther downstream. The long-term action of a stream is to gouge a track for itself.
I found this photographic site with bute like structures; hoodoos. The caption says wind eroded just like you remember. They are obviously deposited structures & therefore not particularly hard. Obviously today they are being eroded by wind. If we look at a desert we find lots of sand & sand-dunes; the wind treats the sand very like the sea,it piles up in great waves. We never find a bute. To me millions of years of wind erosion would have leveled these butes as the level of the land lowered. Also where is the sand ? Why is it not piled up in waves like the desert ?
My money would be on a massive rush of water that washed the sand well out to sea & left these butes sticking up very precariously as we find them today.
http://kengillespie.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/hoodoos-and-badlands-drumheller-alberta/
Catch you later
:-)
Abhiram Lohit 10+
I have been a science and engineering student through graduate school and even now I try to keep abreast of the latest discoveries and theories. At the same time, I have studied the mythologies of Greeks, Romans, Celts, Vikings, Native Americans, Egyptians and Indians. I have consistently found recurring and identical storylines. The names are different but the specific situations, the underlying intent and concepts are utterly identical. What does that indicate? Vastly separated peoples having identical themes? This indicates that there is a well-defined and well-understood language of myth that is so fundamental to the human psyche across the world. Adolf Bastian pioneered the concept of elementary ideas "Elementargedanke" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Bastian where he shows the 'psychic unity of mankind', which influenced Jung's theory of the 'collective unconscious'.
It is not mumbo-jumbo if you know how to read it. If Newton were to time-travel to present-day, he would immediately declare relativity theory as mumbo-jumbo unless someone explained everything.
I can refer you to Joseph Campbell and his book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" or "The Power of Myth", but I'm sure you will consider it, because I know you are not so dogmatic about "the scientific method" and close-minded.
:-)
Abhiram Lohit 10+
I don't think you have judged me correctly. I did not make a direct personal attack on those two gentlemen, but was only trying to point out the archetype of such individuals. Moreover, if you carefully look at the comment of Mr. Gabo Moreno:
" Abhiram,
I have not bothered answering to you because yours is a set of rhetorical figures somewhat based on some loose understanding of science, logic, and what-not. You will always manage to invest it of some sound of deep wisdom, and of philosophical rigour that is just not there. I can agree with many of those loose things you say, but that's exactly the trick and the issue. There is no reason for the layers of mysticism. "Science will never know," "there is an unexplainable ground." "myths are figurative representations of some fact," leaving it so open to interpretation that it could mean from "myths refer to real gods" to "myths refer to real things that people have mistook for gods." Nothing, again, but rhetoric trying to pass for wisdom. Hyperboles, probably in the hopes to sustain a mystical belief in some unfathomable god. A beautifully adorned vase with no bottom. Mumbo-jumbo indeed."
He unreasonably attacks my views in scathing terms. His attitude is of supreme condescension that his views are somehow superior to my views. He does not try to approach my views from a path of curiosity, or discussion, but from "high above". And if you look at his further replies, he has a habit of inserting in quotation marks words that I have never said, but it appears as if I said them.
On the other hand, Mr. Jim Lloyd is respectful even in disagreeing and as you can see my replies to him have also been respectful.
I will want to post this email (edited) on the website to defend myself. I hope you understand and will not delete it.
Thanks,
Abhiram.
Gabo Moreno 100+
You could have kept your answer to the TED admin a bit cleaner, but you had to "guess" both my "intentions" and "superiority attitude," just as you "guessed" my "science-ist dogmatic fundamentalist linear thinking." None of which you said, and none of which is "condescending," I am sure. I must have imagined it. Of course, that you mentioned that as an answer to me does not mean it refers to me, despite it started with "You typify the category of people I call science-ists ..." I should go back to school and re-study semantics, because there is something I am just not getting. Silly me. Now, I am sure, your reference to my attitude and "false" quotations (like those I made here), do not refer to me either. Right? Please forgive me, I shall learn this very slowly, because it is not clicking. Must be that linear science-ist analytical thinking that lacks the synthesis of mysticism.
At least in the comment that was deleted I admitted my mistake at unnecessarily guessing your level of knowledge. I also admit that I did not look (and will not look) at your comments with any respect, and that's because they deserve none. I rather call mumbo-jumbo by its proper name (nothing unreasonable about it) than sweeten it up so much that you would miss the point (yet, you still missed a few things, ahem, "grossly and obscenely").
As I said, you can disguise your comments as if reasonable and wise. But I can see through them. Many people might be impressionable by mumbo-jumbo. I just can't be. Such is life. I should have stayed away like my first instinct indicated. Lesson learned.
Dan Willis
Gabo Moreno 100+
Starting new thread because now it takes forever to find your comments.
1. Anyway, let us be clear. Whatever you think your criteria to be based on, if it is not known, and if it is not possible to prove reasonably, then you cannot claim it to be objective. Calling it "objective" is complete, unadulterated, and extra-pure nonsense.
2. What exactly is nonsensical about having a feeling for justice if it will not be fulfilled? Do you think everything we feel is fulfilled? If so you must be a teen (and up to some painful surprises). Having a sense for justice helps us distinguish those persons who we can trust and thus associate with. We are gregarious animals. Other animals have this feeling too. Do you think all animals have their own heavens where they get their desire for justice fulfilled?
3. Wouldn't any reasonable person doubt the existence of a god if such god is not approachable by reason?
4. Wouldn't any reasonable person doubt the existence of their particular god by looking at how many other people believe in either a different version of the same god, or in a completely different god? Have you read those things by Ahmadi? He is as convinced by Islam as you are about your version of Christianity. As immutable. Why would he be right and you wrong? Why would you be right and he wrong?
5. Amplification of 4. Wouldn't any reasonable person doubt of their god after looking at the many gods humans have invented throughout history?
6. Wouldn't a reasonable person doubt of their god if people believing in other gods are going to hell because of being born in the "wrong" religion? Wouldn't a reasonable person doubt that their god is "all-good" given this?
There's more. But that should show you that if you don't find reasons to doubt your god, it is because you are willingly blind. But reasonable people would certainly doubt.
Will you dare to say that no reasonable person would doubt their god now? (thus redefining reasonable)
Peter Law 30+
You make much of the fact that people have many & various gods. Does this make it more, or less, likely that there is a real god ?
There are over 100 worldwide flood stories. Does this make it more, or less, likely that there was a real worldwide flood ?
There are hundreds of dragon stories. Does this make it more, or less, likely that there were real dragon type creatures (Dinosaurs?) ?
I suspect that you would answer in the negative, & I in the positive. However, which do you think would be the more scientific approach ?
I would say that god is perfectly approachable by reason, sometimes you have do dig through lots of smoke to get there though.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
That people have many gods makes it implausible that a god in particular is real. That we are surrounded by Christianity is but a geographical accident. There is no reason why Christians would be right and Muslims wrong, nor vice versa. That's the start of a doubt. It does not mean that all gods are nonexistent, but it can make a reasonable person doubt their own god at the very least. It can lead later to complete disbelief once the issues are further explorer. But the point was about arguments that would make a reasonable person doubt. Not about whether that alone made all gods false.
That there could be hundreds of thousands, or millions, of flood stories does not increase the likelihood that a global one occurred because no amount of myths trumps reality. There is no geological evidence of your global flood. That's the scientific approach.
Dragons? Besides other things, the existence of dinosaur fossils might be inspiration for such stories. Such fossils don't need to be alive in order for people's to make stories about what those animals could have been. Again, no amount of stories trumps reality.
Eduard said that there were no arguments that would make any reasonable person doubt the existence of "God," and he is the one who said his god could not be proven reasonably. I know that not all Christians think that. I note however, that so far every argument for the existence of "God" I have heard or read is faulty once you "dig through the smoke." :)
Peter Law 30+
You really need to check out the beliefs & see if any are reasonable. ie. confirmed by empirical data... history, archeology, science etc. I believe Christianity ticks the boxes, but I know you disagree; that's cool.
To me layers of waterborne mud, silt, & sand laid down on a worldwide scale screams flood. I have never found a workable hypothesis for the resulting column having been formed by a slow process. The fossils would not be there. The fossil layers must have been formed quickly; there is no erosion between layers, how did it happen ?
Dragons were well established before dino's were discovered. Science had always denied their existence, so when they started to be excavated we had to come up with a new creature, so the term dinosaur (terrible lizard) was coined. Folks were drawing dinosaurs before they were discovered by science; seems strange.
I feel that I came to believe quite reasonably by weighing up the facts. In the end though I had to make a commitment based on faith. Not blind faith, but based on the available evidence. Subsequently any lingering doubts were dealt with & now I am as certain as it is possible to be. I am still open to evidence though, as it is the Truth that matters, but the evolution scenario seems to require even greater faith.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
I don't want to be too condemning, but your comment about layers is obviously taken from creationist quacks. Of course there is erosion among layers. Many signs of erosions happening several times in geological time. Not only that, often the erosions leave columns a bit sideways, which show better that erosion has actually happened, not only that, sometimes the columns are very much slanted and erosion too obvious. This you learn the very first time you learn about sedimentary rocks.
Fossils don't form just anywhere, and there are more fossils of animals who lived close to water such as lakes, few of animals who lived far. This alone talks against a single event burying all the fossilized animals. The bottoms of lakes are good for fossilization because of lose sediments that could bury animals quite quickly, not always, but often enough for there to be fossils. The most abundant fossils, diatoms, sedimented through millions of years into very deep chalk layers. They also show erosion and such between layers. Again, myths don't trump reality.
Dinosaur fossils were discovered before scientists re-discovered them and named them dinosaurs. But myths about dragons don't come from dinosaur fossils alone. Myths can come from crocodiles fossils, from actual crocodiles, from big lizards, from giant salamanders, from ...
That you would give me an argument and then not understand my answers tells me that you don't understand the facts other than via creationist quacks alone. I am not trying to be harsh, but this is the only thing I can conclude. Sorry. That you would repeat that creationist quackery about evolution requiring more faith only affirms my conclusion. You are far from open Pete. I understand that you might have no time, but all that means is that simple lies will weight more than complex truths for you because you might not even want to learn enough to understand the complex truths.
Best as always,
:)
Peter Law 30+
Sorry Gabo, but the flood thing makes much more sense to me; regardless of quacks. Can you direct me to a site that would explain in simple terms how the layers were deposited; ideally with water tank (or whatever) experiments that would support the existing strata.
My problem is that the deposition needs to be quick to form fossils, but slow to support a long timescale. That's just common sense; no quack required.
:-)
Peter Law 30+
""We've mentioned cherry picking several times. You have somehow concluded that (evolution) is true and your world view now hinges on the truth of (evolution) You find isolated facts that you can explain with (evolution) and you use those facts as evidence of the truth of (evolution). But for each such isolated fact, you interpret the fact through the worldview of (evolution) meaning you see a distorted view of the fact. And, when other facts disagree with(evolution) you interpret them also through the worldview of(evolution), and find ways to discredit them.""
We're not so different.
""Many fossils are due to mud slides and volcanic ash. "" So they are, but not the majority.
In children's books dragons are fire-breathing monsters, but in cave paintings etc. they are known dinosaurs.
:-)
Comment deleted
Peter Law 30+
Interesting. The meanders of the river certainly agree with the river theory, I'd need to check for rebuttals. However to accept that the uplift happened in sequence with the river eroding the canyon takes a bit of believing.
I think we have to go with what the evidence is telling us overall; to accept an overall theory in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary is not wise. Neither can we be an expert in all fields.
I do wish these guys would cease from the childish mockery of the 'other side'. It in no way instills confidence in the weight given to their opinion & raises doubts about insecurity in their own position. I guess you were just unfortunate in the vid chosen .
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
Pete,
I agree, to accept an overall theory in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary is not wise. This is why I don't understand how despite we show your quacks wrong again and again, you still hold to their words. Here I explained to you that the layers of sedimentary rocks certainly show erosion, that they show movement, inclines, eroded inclines, new layers in an angle respective to the eroded layers below, long et cetera. Now you see meanders in the canyon, and I am sure we have presented you more than just that. Yet, there you are, believing a "flood theory." So, what happens then with the debunked "no erosion" part? Gone and ignored? What happens with different environments revealed by fossils at such layers? I insist with no intention of being insulting. You did not become a believer because of evidence. You just happened to listen to quacks and believed what they told you never checking what actual science and evidence had to say.
You talk against the mockery against the quacks. Well, your quacks show a complete lack of respect, not just towards actual scientists, like myself, but towards their clientele (such as you). The mockery is very well deserved, and I think that in this video makes the points extra clear. There is another video where potholer54 shows some trees and little plants running away from the flood following the flood "theory" to explain the patterns in the fossil record. Does that not make the point that the swim-faster explanation is too ridiculous to be taken seriously? Would you remember the point without such mockery? Pete, when creationist propaganda proposes ridiculous things, they have to be shown by how ridiculous they are. Otherwise we would be giving them a status of respectability that they simply don't deserve.
Peter Law 30+
OK Humour me.
You claim there is erosion between the layers, indicating a long period of time. Let's leave that for the moment.
1. Are the layers water deposited (for the most part) ?
2. Can we assume that fossil bearing layers were deposited rapidly ?
3. Is the scenario then a quick flood, followed by a long period, followed by another quick flood etc ?
4. Assuming yes for 1-3
4a. How do we explain fossil trees continuing through many layers ?
4b. How do we explain a global continuity sufficient to postulate a standard column ?
I am trying to get at what you see is the mechanism responsible for the results we observe. Is there any solid experimental data to support this ?
Sorry to exasperate you old buddy, but I really want to understand what you guys think. This sort of information is not easy to nail down.
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
(There are not just a few erosion marks in those layers, but many.)
1. Sometimes water deposited, sometimes volcanic ash, sometimes wind accumulating sands in valleys, sometimes ... but even water-deposited means different things, sometimes deposited at the bottom of swamps, bottom of lakes, sometimes at the end of rivers (deltas), sometimes meanders, sometimes floods ...
2. Probably. But that does not mean that deposition happens at a single rate.
3. Sometimes a quick flood, sometimes things sinking to the bottom of swamps or of lakes, sometimes buried by a mudslide, sometimes buried by volcanic ash ...
4. Well, things are a bit more complicated as you can see. But:
a. Most fossils don't span several layers, and are most often found sandwiched. If they were deposited by a single hyper bunch of sediment we would see all kinds of fossils everywhere, in any position, trapped in a single kind of sediment, right? Not ordered strata, with different kinds of fossils, mostly sandwiched as if flattened, with fossils and materials indicating climates consistent within layers, different across layers. For different climates entrapped you need very long periods of time. I doubt 40 days and 40 nights would do.
b. Exceptions, such as your trees, cannot be presented as if the rule. In the most consistent scenario with your preferred conclusion, they would indicate a local flood rather than a global one. In other words, you can't dismiss most fossils and geological evidence because of a relatively few vertical fossil trees. Exceptions are explained by exceptional circumstances, not the other way around.
There's lots of solid experimental data for sedimentary rock formation, for distinguishing flora and fauna from different climates, and for distinguishing different materials. Long et cetera.
:)
Peter Law 30+
I think that if the methods of deposition were as many & varied as you suggest, that it would be difficult to make a good case for a global 'geologic column'.
Now I am in difficulty as I have to grovel & ask you to check out a quack......
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6969084415434797659#
Just hold your nose & find the deliberate mistake in his approach.
:-)
Comment deleted
Peter Law 30+
On the mockery; I just have no time for it; it's childish & an attempt to demean a person. We are all the same, even if we disagree, & should 'do unto others.......'
There are technical works on the feasibility of Noah's Ark for those who can look beyond their prejudice. Best to bone up on the subject before debating it.
I think the guy who first came up with tectonics was a Christian & he reasoned that as the bible says that the land was one at the beginning, it must have moved, but it was rejected for ages. We don't need an old earth, fast plates would do; maybe they are just coming to a halt today ?
Radio Isotope dating is, as far as I can see, inaccurate. If God made the rocks originally; He would be the one to decide on the elements included.
The flood left us moving tectonic plates, the so-called geologic column, fossils, oil, coal, & lots & lots of water.
YECs as far as I know are quite willing to talk about anything. What can I help you with ?
:-)
Gabo Moreno 100+
(I add to Jim's comment that the first time a geologist (Lyell? I don't remember!) found that the Earth was much older than previously thought, he tried hard to minimize the number (but really hard), because the number contradicted the bible. He did not want to accept such thing, but the evidence was too much to keep denying.)
Pete,
I had the most boring time listening. Can you please tell me what this guy is getting at?
My questions would be:
1. Is he claiming that his experiments represent exactly how all those geological layers were formed? (by Noah's food?)
2. If so, how does he explain that radiometric dating dates the layers as older as we go deeper, consistently. No matter if you don't like radiometric dating, the key here is consistently older as you go deeper down.
3. How does that explain several obviously eroded surfaces, with inclines to one side then flat layers on top?
4. If all (most?) deposition was as he experimented, how then most layers look so nicely horizontally deposited?
5. Why do real layers show actual erosion between them, not just differences in particle sizes? Did the flood stop for a few millions years, then restart, then again stop, and so on?
6. Do you think that linear and thin streams, or glass walls, really represent what a global flood would do?
7. How is it that deposits have so many different patterns, many as if deposits in a swamp, others as if deposits in deltas, meanders, et cetera?
8. Did you notice that he contradicted himself because he showed layers being deposited in chronological order while saying this was not so?
I don't know man. Some experiments look kinda ok, animations look tricked. But I don't see how even the ok experiments would represent the larger and varied geological reality.
I just discovered a geologist at youtube, but you might not like her style:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NmujSlRqXA
:)
Peter Law 30+
1. I guess he is making a hypothesis, that this is one possible explanation for the column. In the flood context we would need to add volcanic & tectonic features as well.
2. As the variables are set by the scientists themselves, they can come up with any date they like.
3. Would need a 'for instance'. Remember even after layers have settled; & they do form on slopes; the rock is still soft & vulnerable to currents etc.
4. Don't understand. Why shouldn't they look horizontally deposited ?
5. I haven't been able to find instances of erosion, don't think its common.
You know the sort of thing, tightly fitting layers with well defined edges; ie no jaggies that would indicate wear.
On the particles. Most layers have grain sizes large on the bottom, grading to small at the top. How on earth could this happen by slow & gradual superposition ?
6. No, real life would be much more random, but the basic principles should still apply.
7. The earth is a variable place, surely we should expect anomalies. That said, many of the layers are transcontinental, so something big happened.
8. Didn't notice, I guess they are chronological, but growing mainly sideways.
I have seen other similar experiments, but wont bore you further. What would be cool would be a vid giving the conventional scenario, so we could compare. Let me know if you come across one.
Your right; I'm not keen on folks who are mocking & disrespectful. She did make a comment about Ice Age Till. If she knew her stuff then she would know creationists agree there was an Ice Age.
Thanks for taking the time Buddy.
:-)
Comment deleted
Peter Law 30+
I agree entirely with your points. I would make three points in regard to debating on this site about these worldviews.
1. The YEC position is treated largely with derision. It is dismissed out-of-hand by the majority.
2. Ultimately all 3 positions are faith positions. We were not around at the crucial times in question, so little can be done as far as empirical evidence is concerned.
3. The arguments are well documented on sites such as TalkOrigins & AnswersInGenesis, so it is really not necessary to regurgitate them at each other.
Gabo ran through all the detail on cells, dna, etc with me; he's a patient guy. That is his subject, & I defer to him entirely on that. However he is not able to prove how it came about in the first place, that has to be faith based on his understanding. At that point we diverge because my common sense wont let me accept his interpretation. At one time I would accept it as the most likely scenario, but now I have an alternative which I believe fits better. Gabo of course takes the alternate view, which is fine by me.
I see all this as engineering. My hobby is my Harley. The cell is like a special Harley. It can run around & make a nice noise, but it can also produce the entire Harley range at will. Each of the Harleys it produces comes complete with mega Milwaukee Factory built into it so it can reproduce. That's how I see biology & why it is so difficult for me to accept evolution.
I am intrigued as to why you guys accept it, given how impossible it seems to me. I think this subject is the only one that really matters, & love to discuss it with anyone. Unfortunately for you, I am not an intellectual & you may find my reasoning reflects that, but I am willing to go as deep as I can on most subjects.
ctd......
Peter Law 30+
On the YEC/OEC thing. I have faith in the bible, & if God says he did it in 6-days a few thousand years ago, then that's fine. Get any 6yr old to read it & they would get the same result. A theological professor may come up with something else entirely; I think that's why Christ chose fishermen.
I firmly believe that death is only the beginning of real life. It is crucial that I draw folks attention to this possibility; that really is what it's all about. I don't care if I lose an argument, or am called ignorant, or whatever; the stakes are far higher than that.
Not sure what we mean by 'higher level' argument, but I will do my best.
:-)
Comment deleted
Peter Law 30+
The video may be accurate or not; it is double dutch to me. I guess if it passed muster with it's peers & could be tested then that would help. To date however the creation of life from non-life has not happened under lab conditions, so we speculate.
When we look at the world around us we see everything degenerating. The earth's rotation is slowing, the magnetic field is decaying, deserts are expanding, our cells are getting corrupted, our cars are turning to dust. Everything is bending eventually to the 2nd law. Life starts with a burst of energy, then succumbs. As our bodies mutate, we are getting more & more illnesses. I see no process on earth that would benefit from being left for millions of years. So for me to accept a long age scenario would not encourage my belief in evolution.
You are giving me your view of how evolution took place, but none of it is verifiable by empirical science. I understand that it supposedly takes place too slowly to register, then how can we say that it is happening ? It is your faith.
The human body is mind-blowingly complex; more complex than all the electronic/mechanical gismos we have ever produced. The simplest gismo takes careful planning & execution to have any chance of success. No gismo has ever been produced by 'natural forces'. The human body is a masterpiece of design & execution of the highest order, complete with spiritual abilities of love, joy, hate, worship, etc etc.
We even get a workshop manual explaining what we are, where we're going, & the history of the world from beginning to end. Together with the usual manual stuff about how to keep us running sweet. It even tells me that I am very unlikely to persuade you; still a guy's gotta try.
:-)
E G 10+
1.I didn't claim that , that was '...' ; you also can't say that my criteria isn't objective , that was my point, and that was for sharing you that you didn't talk against my perspective (as you said).
2. I was just interested to know your opinion as atheist , and I was reffering to the sense of justice as like something objective , something abstract which exist whatever we do and in this respect the atheistic position is a weak one.
3.Yes , that's one of my points , the god by definition can't be known reasonable=isn't approachable by reason , it's a foolish thing in my opinion to try to know god=to try to approach god by (human) reason so to doubt god because it isn't approchable by reason is in my opinion as I said foolish and nonsensical .
Only thinking there are many ways of knowing things, the reason is just one of them.
5. here at 5 you have to prove that the humans have invented the CGod (that's for me) , I can agree about the rest being invented.
6.You have a wrong understanding of what said CGod , first of all the hell in my opinion isn't something what perhaps you and the most christians imagine , in my opinion (and this is simplified now) the hell is rather a process of destroying the evil , second : the people don't go in hell because they believe in other gods, that's according to the Bible , the people 'go in hell' (partially it is a metaphor) because they can't go in heaven , noone can whatever the religion that person was born in , for going in heaven you have to be considered and to try to be somehow .
'noone can go in heaven whoever he is' it's normal, the heaven is supposed to be God's place , for a human to live there he has to have the same nature with God , the same nature with the heaven (the humans by birth don't have it) , that was Jesus Christ work about . How it is possible and how really it happen ? if you wanna know I'l talk about it in the next post.
An all-good will destroy an all-evil , don't you think so?
Gabo Moreno 100+
2. I don't see why atheism would be in a weak position at explaining a sense of justice. You have hidden premises there (as everywhere else). The moment you say things like "in this respect the atheistic position is a weak one" you are not "just asking for my opinion," you are saying something so utterly wrong that I had to point it out. You did say "why have it if it will not be fulfilled?" That has the hidden premise that if we have it, it has to be fulfilled, which is ridiculous. So I answer to your hidden premises. Otherwise it will be like admitting that it has to be fulfilled. The sense has a function, and the function is not "to be fulfilled." It is derived from a natural necessity given our belonging to a gregarious animal species.
3. If you can't see how nonsensical your point is, then there is not much more I can say. I repeat, if it can't be approached by reason, there is no reason to believe it. Thus, it is not nonsensical, nor foolish, to reject it for this reason alone. So, if you have nothing to add here just stop it. You might love accepting things that are not approachable by reason, but that's you, and that is not objective.
5. I don't have to prove that your god is invented. Since we easily accept that other gods are invented, there is no reason to think that yours is not.
6. I know this excuse. But if you observe Ahmadi, he is as utterly clueless about the falsity of his religion as you are. Thus he goes to hell because he cannot believe as you do. Thus, it is not because he is not "like God through Christ", but because he cannot be because he was born in the wrong place. Had he be born in the same place as you, he would be as clueless but a christian clueless, rather than a muslim one. Thus, his condemnation comes from accidental birth of place. No excuse will change this. Think it carefully and you will see.
E G 10+
2.I don't hide anything , I just fill myself when I see that it is needed . Man , you didn't understand: I wanted to know your opinion, I say you again stop imagining/guessing what you think that I think or what you think that I try to say or to do ... you never got it until now . After I found it I can critisize it.
"That has the hidden premise that if we have it, it has to be fulfilled, which is ridiculous" it isn't at all ridiculous , the justice won't be just if it wouldn't be fulfilled , the justice have the function of being fulfilled, it is not a natural necessity of us, it is rather a intrinsec part of the justice.
3.it's not about what I see man here (I said you the difference) ; "if it can't be approached by reason, there is no reason to believe it'' why do you think that we must have rational reasons in order to believe something and why it to God ?
5. There are many reasons for accepting that the CGod hadn't been invented ; the fact that we agree that it's possible for us to invent a god and that many are invented doesn't mean that an other specific god is invented , so if you wanna keep your point prove it firstly.
6. I don't have what to think carefull at this: "Thus he goes to hell because he cannot believe as you do" I said you he don't go in hell because of that , no one goes in hell because of his birth place. You just keep your position which (like the first mine about atheism ) isn't about the christianity but only what you imagine about christianity .
Gabo Moreno 100+
2. I did not say you hide it on purpose. But "being fulfilled" is a premise that you accept intrinsically. so, instead of answering "why we have it if it will not be fulfilled" I question your premise, which is wrong. "Justice" is something we would like to see fulfilled. But that does not mean it has to be. How much clearer could this be? Why wouldn't a gregarious animal naturally need a sense of justice?
3. Maybe we don't have to have rational reasons to believe something. But that does not mean that we should accept anything without reason. Your god is among many myths I don't see the need to believe without a reason, and this is reasonable, no matter your preferences, which are just that, preferences.
5. And many more reasons to think your god is like any other god, just as invented. Thus, I don't need to prove anything. Your blindness notwithstanding. It is you who has to prove that it is not invented. Good luck with that since your god is not approachable by reason.
6. You are the one not being careful. I got it, he goes to hell because "he can't be pure like God." But you keep forgetting that he "can't be pure like God through Christ," because he was born in the wrong place. That extra step does not change the contradiction. That talks about a very unfair and evil god, or an inept one at the very least. Thus, your god is a square circle, a contradiction of terms. not all-good, and/or not all-knowing, and/or not all-powerful. That you can't see the contradiction does not mean it is not there. Just open your eyes.
E G 10+
The existence of more versions are easy explainable : knowing that God can't be known rationally and that the single main way (usually used) to know Him is by revelation ; we are different people , with different capacities of understanding, with different experiences........... .
"Why would he be right and you wrong? " for many reasons , you notice for explaining my position I used the reason even though I don't recommend to someone to try to know God by reason ; I've talk with SR Ahmadi too , I wasn't too satisfied of his explanations and I found some strange things somehow contradictory in his posts (I said him that then ) :
but why?:(only this two now) -the Bible prophecies , is the single religious book with historical prophecies that was fulfilled , the Koran don't have something like .
- (using the 6) I found that the Bible is the single book which has presented an way to 'go in heaven'= to have a nature similary to God (to escape of sins) , the most rational one , the single one , I can guaratee it and I can prove it for everyone .
In other words for every theist who think rationally I can prove that the Bible is the single way possible. (Idk what's the point in doing it for you as an atheist , so I limit myself only at that two)
Gabo Moreno 100+
Remember, you said that you had heard no argument that would make a **reasonable** person doubt. Here you are giving me excuses rather than reasoning about wether these could make a reasonable person doubt. I don't care about your excuses. Ahmadi can give me as many as you can. The question was about reasonable. Not about blind to their own arguments and self deception. Do you think you don't sound exactly as Ahmadi? Because you are plainly wrong. Just think about it. It does not matter if you think that you are right, but if you can see that you sound identically wrong.
Don't regurgitate. Think about it. Think about it. Think about it.
E G 10+
4.So do you say that whatever I try to say this problem exist ?
What I said is proved, it's not only what I think :"you think the bible has fulfilled prophecies"
But you think that all what I said are excuses , why ? share it more clear and I will explain myself or I will agree with you (I don't try to say anything now before being sure of what you are expecting) ,"The question was about reasonable" explore it a bit comparing with what I said .
("A reasonable person should be able to ask herself, could it be that I am just as clueless as this muslim is?" when I know something and I can prove it, it's not need to see if I'm able to ask myself if I'm wrong or not .
I don't parallel myself with Ahmadi and I don't care what I said sounds like as long as you don't prove it wrong.
"Not about blind to their own arguments and self deception" I could say the same thing about you.)
Gabo Moreno 100+
Bible prophecies are as proven as koran prophecies, and as any horoscope prophecies. Self-fulfilled prophecies when detailed enough. Post-rationalizations when not detailed enough (just like horoscopes), or when the bible is forced into referring to actual events. No surprises when referring to things reasonable humans could have predicted if you put the writings in their proper historical context, and so on and so forth. I have heard about those prophecies Eduard.
I know you don't care if you sound exactly as Ahmadi. That's part of my point. He does not care if he sounds like you either. But you do sound like him, and you are unable to acknowledge that because of this very fact it is reasonable to at least doubt. I am not talking about you Ed. I am talking about reasonable persons. You should be able to make this distinction. Suppose, for the sake or argument, that you know something I don't know. That does not mean that "no reasonable person would doubt." That would mean that someone knowing what you know would not doubt. Thus you are wrong about what would make a reasonable person doubt, unless your definition of reasonable is "someone who knows exactly what I know." Is that how you define reasonable? because that would not be reasonable at all. Thus, your old point number 2 is also false, and atheism is not a joke at all. We would be done with that.
Trying to unreasonably shift the burden of proof? Ahmadi can do that too.
Yes, you can say that I might be blind to my own arguments. Still, that does not change the very fact that a reasonable person should be able to accept this possibility and thus doubt their god(s).
Please now stop and think a lot before giving any answers
E G 10+
I'll answer now considering my 2 (and not only):
1."That your basis "isn't known" is enough for this." first of all it isn't known rationally but it can be known by other means , I don't see any reason to doubt God's existence only because I can't know Him rationally , I can't known Him as I said by other means.
2.I know what you done. "Justice" is something we would like to see fulfilled. But that does not mean it has to be" wrong , justice is something which has to be fulfilled, otherwise it won't be justice ,it doesn't matter if our needs overlap with what is justice .Justice is something which exist whatever us , it is more a matter between good and evil which also exist whatever us , we are just some 'players' in the middle of it , it's absurd to reduce all this stuff like justice (good, evil) only at us when in fact we don't matter too much (we don't know what is justice in it's absolute meaning either ), so it should make us to doubt atheism rather than theism.
5. you claim that the CGod is invented , the burden of proof stays on you (I claim that He's not and I can prove it even using this:"god is not approachable by reason").
6."I got it, he goes to hell because "he can't be pure like God." But you keep forgetting that he "can't be pure like God through Christ," because he was born in the wrong place" you didn't get it yet, because you made a very childish and easy claim : everyone can=have the possibility to accept the CGod as long as he have heard about the CGod , it doesn't matter the place where he was born as well as I can be atheist like you now if I want to after I heard your version of atheism . Until now your supposed CGod is a square circle. So this shouldn't make anyone reasonable doubt.
4.Here I accept your ctiticize because I missed the all idea :
E G 10+
" Why would he be right and you wrong? Why would you be right and he wrong?" It doesn't matter if he would be wrong or I would about our specific gods for atheism.
And, why do you think that I don't doubt the existence of the CGod ? but even if I do it I don't reach at a sensible conclusion like: there is no god . I doubt , the theists can doubt and do it .
(My argument was that no contradiction would make us doubt in such way for reaching at the 'sensible conclusion' that there is no God ) .
It's good to know and that first version of answer by the way.
E G 10+
Gabo Moreno 100+
2. Now you are playing semantics. You asked about our sense and search for justice, and presumed that for us to have such feeling it had to be fulfilled. That's what I answered. That "unfulfilled justice is not justice" has no weight on why we would have a sense of what is just and what is not. There is nothing wrong with my answer, and, as usual, a lot wrong with your question(s) and premises. It is nonsensical to criticize atheism for not supporting your religious belief in transcendental justice.
5. I claim that your god looks just as invented as any other. If you think that your god is not invented, and thus exists, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
6. Nope. Not everybody can accept Christ. Nothing childish about it. You are born of Muslim parents, they will indoctrinate you to believe as a Muslim. Thus god's ineptitude, thus square circle. I was born with enough intelligence to question my beliefs, to understand myths, to understand contradictions, logic and science. Thus, if your god existed it would be its fault, its ineptitude, its deception, getting me far from Christ. Thus square circle.
7. We can add: why can't we be pure like god except through christ?
because we have a sinful nature.
Who made us?
God
Then god made us that way. Thus inept, thus square circle.
You don't understand, sinful nature is not god's responsibility, but original sin and fall.
Why did creation fall?
because of sin.
could god create so that sin would not cause a fall?
if no: then not omnipotent
if yes, but did not: then evil.
Thus compounded reasons why your god would be a square circle.
If you doubt the existence of your god, then just as you can doubt one god, a reasonable person could discover other square circles and thus decide it sensible not to believe in any. Again, I did not say it takes one step. It might take more. But doubt starts somewhere and reasonably. Thus atheism is not a joke.
E G 10+
5.Ok (even though is still on you the burden of proof) the CGod can't be invented because there are many things said and about Him which aren't irrational surely but neither rationally can be understood.
6. 'Not everybody can accept Christ' well no , I did say that everybody can accept Christ in terms of having this possibility, and everyone have this possibility as long as he hear enough about this Christ, we all have reason;and even using what you said, someone being indoctrinated , it doesn't mean that that person can't use his reason and so to have the possibility of accepting Christ("they will indoctrinate you to believe as a Muslim" so what? you have reason), so no square circle .
7. Let's see what you had:
-you don't have an understanding of what are you talking about , just keep some ideas which vehicule the most, usually in the crowd (but you are a man with intelligence...)
'God made us with a sinful nature and the original sin and fall was cause of it' The original sin was the Lucifer's sin : the proud . God created the the all things good being an all-good God.
My symplified explanation : the sins are good things in their very basis , the sin is basically a good thing which has broken the equilibrium state (for example a sin is an in excess good thing or in less) , another way of saying : the sins are the perversion of the good. Knowing it is easy explainable how the original sin appeared everything being good , and why it affected the God's creation .
"could god create so that sin would not cause a fall?" yes and no.
"If you doubt the existence of your god, then just as you can doubt one god, a reasonable person could discover other square circles and thus decide it sensible not to believe in any."
E G 10+
So no square circle yet .
2. a bit later.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Not much more to say. So I try this last once:
1. I did not want to start over something else. You are going in nonsensical circles. No complement there. If your basis is not knowable it is not objective. If you can "know it by ways other than reason," then it seems to very precisely be a subjective basis. Unless you can prove this thing, even if "irrationally" in a way that anybody could see it. Check the definition of "objective" before going on.
5. I will not repeat again, you are the one who thinks this god exists, thus you have the burden of proof. In the meantime, your god looks as invented as any other. Live with it or prove that your god exists. If you can't, then I see no reason to think that your god is not invented. Study philosophy and universal negatives before trying this again. Enough is enough.
6. A Muslim will say that you have the opportunity to hear about Islam, and thus be saved. But you probably can't become a Muslim, just like most Muslim's can't become Christians. Simple accidents of birth. Then you contradicted yourself. You said before that reason can't take you to your god, thus reason can't help. Thus clear square circles in both your answers and your god.
7. You solved nothing. Can you see how nonsensical you have to become in order to try and deny the obvious? Not only is your god a square circle, your justifications are square circles too. "yes and no" = square circle; "sin is basically a good thing" = square circle. It does not matter if you can "explain" how sin affected creation, what matters is that if it did then your god was either inept (not powerful enough to make a resistant creation), or evil (he wanted to have lots of souls suffering and lost). No way around.
Ready to accept that atheism is not a joke?
If you offer little else, then I will just say so, and we are done. Hopefully you can at least admit that atheism is not a joke.
E G 10+
1." If your basis is not knowable it is not objective" : two definitions: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
-intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book." so if my basis is not knowable I don't know if it is objective or not and you don't either (I didn't claim that my basis is objective).
5. " If you can't, then I see no reason to think that your god is not invented." I can't, but if you don't see no reason for it, it doesn't mean automatically that my God is invented (and thus I said you to prove your claim......anyway....).
6."But you probably can't become a Muslim" I can if I want to .......so no arguments from your part.
"You said before that reason can't take you to your god, thus reason can't help" I didn't say that I said only that we can't know God by reason (what is supposed to be said by God can be known reasonable) , in your mind there are this square circles but not in reality (how would it sound to say you now:'open your eyes'?).
7."what matters is that if it did then your god was either inept (not powerful enough to make a resistant creation), or evil (he wanted to have lots of souls suffering and lost). No way around." Going straight: He made a resistant creation and He made it so resistant that created some beings with free-will who can broke the equilibrium state therefore He wasn't neither inept nor evil (this last your argument at least, is made from an position(yours) which don't have understood the very things about what is supposed to be CGod and what He've done , as I said before: this ideas are spread among the usual christians who don't have an understanding too ) .
Look at many scientists with a theological training (Alistar McGrath for example), why don't they turn to atheism ?
You will have to admit that these (up) aren't arguments against theism.
Gabo Moreno 100+
1. You did claim that your basis was objective. Again, I claim it is not unless it is knowable, which is part of the definition of objective.
5. Since all I claimed was that your god looks as invented as any other there is nothing for me to prove. Again, study universal negatives.
6. No, you can't become a Muslim. If you say you can, then you don't believe in the CGod. Simple. But go ahead, become a Muslim, and defend the faith as Ahmadi does. But then you will have proven that your god is a square circle. You can jump from any into any other, thus no salvation is possible, and people are condemned because there is no way to distinguishing one square circle from another.
7. How can you claim that a creation is "perfect" because its equilibrium could be broken to the point of condemning all humanity to a sinful nature, suffering, hell, condemnation by accidents of birth? What would you call an engineer whose building falls if only one of its bricks is broken killing many people inside? I would not call the building "so perfect that it would break at the first attempt." I would call the engineer either inept or evil. There you have it. Square circle by your own understanding. No other Christians necessary.
I showed that your god is a square circle requiring worse square circles in order to avoid admitting its contradictions. Atheists don't have to invent cumbersome excuses for square circles at all. Atheists just conclude what seems more reasonable. Thus atheism is not a joke.
I would tell you what I think about Alistar McGrath, but that might get this comment deleted. I can say that he is one of the most boring speakers I have ever heard. All he does is go in circles and circles without any meaning. No wonder he would not turn to atheism.
So, agreed that atheism is no joke? If not, so be it.
As for theism, some form might be reasonable. But I have not heard about any.
Adios and see ya much later. I don't see any reason to continue.
E G 10+
1. I claim that I don't know if it is objective or not (rationally) and you don't as well , that for sharing you that you didn't prove my basis a subjective one .
5.I don't have to study anything now , it's very simple , how do you know that CGod is invented (you claim it you have to prove it)? perhaps He is not an invention but He isn't something real too, why He is not a hallucination at so many people ? why don't you claim it for example?.... it's so simple.
6."No, you can't become a Muslim" really? it's senseless to say anything more.
7." What would you call an engineer whose building falls if only one of its bricks is broken killing many people inside? "........laugh ........going on it : you didn't understand anything from what I said , none of the bricks it's broken , all are perfect , just that some are so perfect that they have free will ............. no square circle by my understanding , maybe one by yours of 'mine' .
You didn't share anything about my old 2 with all this arguments, so summarizing : according to my first arguments excepting my old 2 atheism is not a joke , it is a rational possibility . According to my old 2 ( and this above arguments) atheism is a joke .
We don't invent 'cumbersome excuses' , I just said you what theism (christian theism) is about , you don't know it , you know only 'the colloqiual' face of it . If on it rest your atheism (so it seems)........... it is a bigger joke .
Adio and perhaps will meet at the others converstaions, study more a philosophical/theological understanding of theism , you won't find contradictions , not some that would lead you to a sensible conclusion as atheism ...........the reality is a complex one , we all our life have to study ...... take care and good luck.
Abhiram Lohit 10+
God is not God without the universe. The universe "created" God as much as God "created" the universe. Just as a father becomes so only when he has a son. The son is his father's father, ie, creator. God does not have a random free will. His will is the laws of physics that govern the universe. God's Godhood does not extend beyond the universe. Thus he cannot be merciful or give grace, because that is a violation of his own laws. If then the laws of physics are sufficient, why is there a God concept?
The God concept is an unchanging absolute platform on which the laws of physics that WE discovered, operate. The one flaw of the laws that WE formulated is that it's based on the logical tracing of effect to its cause. Now it's clear fact that tracing of effect to cause is an "absurdum ad infinitum" process. Every cause has its own cause, etc. As a result, what we call understanding the universe is just more naming with names. No doubt our experiments will find "evidence" because we name that evidence for what we have formulated. Moreover, the laws of physics are local - they are different within black holes than within nuclei. Physicists are working on the Grand Unification Theory and the TOE... well, what are these but attempts to find an unchanging, absolute platform on which the local laws operate?
Except, this logical back-stepping will not lead to a final theory, because of its very nature. This is where the ultimate use of the God concept comes in. Meanwhile, the talk about the "God of the Gaps" is so naive. The gaps only keep increasing with more and more theories.
Comment deleted
Abhiram Lohit 10+
"Everything else just sounded like mystical mumbo jumbo"
Well, is it because the language is not linear-logical, but "Mobius strip-like"? I tried the best I could to express what I felt. Outside of our mental systems, there is nothing logical about the universe. So, I feel that our science should just have that as a wallpost, and then continue scientific study. All I want is an acceptance by scientists that they are working within a finitely-explainable field, and that there is an unexplainable ground that will remain forever.
" redefine God in a way ... If so, do you acknowledge that the God of Abraham is myth?"
I will put it this way: I do not believe in a patriarchal, linear, historical, morality-enforcing, worship-demanding God. Are you satisfied? :)
Well, myth as in "myth", a figurative representation of some fact. Which will always involve some fictionalizing.
Gabo Moreno 100+
I have not bothered answering to you because yours is a set of rhetorical figures somewhat based on some loose understanding of science, logic, and what-not. You will always manage to invest it of some sound of deep wisdom, and of philosophical rigour that is just not there. I can agree with many of those loose things you say, but that's exactly the trick and the issue. There is no reason for the layers of mysticism. "Science will never know," "there is an unexplainable ground." "myths are figurative representations of some fact," leaving it so open to interpretation that it could mean from "myths refer to real gods" to "myths refer to real things that people have mistook for gods." Nothing, again, but rhetoric trying to pass for wisdom. Hyperboles, probably in the hopes to sustain a mystical belief in some unfathomable god. A beautifully adorned vase with no bottom. Mumbo-jumbo indeed.
Abhiram Lohit 10+
"because yours is a set of rhetorical figures somewhat based on some loose understanding of science, logic, and what-not" - You don't have enough information about me to make judgment about my understanding of science, logic and what-not only from the way I have chosen to express my views in this context. Your statements only show how grossly and obscenely you have missed my point. You typify the category of people I call "science-ists" who are just as equally dogmatic in upholding science as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are in upholding their religions. You are not open to the possibility of parallel or circumferential explanations of the universe. It appears you are rabidly ignorant of the different ways of explaining the universe: the "essential" and the "descriptive". To give a "description" requires precisely defining terms and then using them - analysis - dissection - like science does. To give an "essence" requires taking the whole into consideration - synthesis - unification - finding commonality - like mysticism does. Although I don't claim "wisdom", I will say this much: wisdom is mystical in nature, whereas knowledge is scientific in nature. Wisdom is a synthesis of several SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES whereas science is an analytical list of several OBJECTIVE OBSERVATIONS.
Abhiram Lohit 10+
I'm disappointed that you have misunderstood me even after we've had similar discussions before.
"whereas for some specific problem domains I think we have." -- Yes, that's because the problems have been defined to be specific, not open-ended. Chemistry does not ask beyond covalent bonds, Gibbs free energy or the quantum orbitals. So as far as chemistry is concerned it has arrived at ITS final solution. However, for areas like cosmology, quantum theory, topology, set theory, group theory, etc there are starting point assumptions, "axioms" and frontier point conclusions that are explanations unto themselves.
Science "describes" the workings of things by going from observed effect to observed cause. I see two limitations there: 1) you are forced to stop somewhere in the chain of effect-to-cause and call the last observed cause the explanation. Is there a limit on observation? No, because you can continue to build finer and finer tools for observation. 2) How much of the universe is observable? We don't know. Example: dark matter & energy which is 70% of the universe, which we OBSERVE. As we build finer tools, we will be exposed to more universe, I suspect.
See Planck units: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units which are jokingly called "God's units". Quote from the article: "The strength of gravity is simply what it is and the strength of the electromagnetic force simply is what it is." So the buck stops there. Do you see that?
That "simply is what it is" I call God.
You know very well from other discussions with me that I don't believe in organized religion. So although I might be labeled an atheist, I refrain from calling myself that, because that will again become a dogma in itself, a religion in itself. It will make me mediocre.
Abhiram Lohit 10+
Thanks for your link. I will however say that I have probably read Asimov's sci-fi novels more religiously than you can ever imagine.
I intensely admire Carl Sagan. Watch this youtube video "God and gods". Listen very carefully to Carl Sagan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E-_DdX8Ke0
Gabo Moreno 100+
Anyway my comment was beautiful and I will never understand what TED's rules might be. But I hereby protest to an unjustified comment deletion.
Abhiram Lohit 10+
Alright, I agree to not use the word "God" because my definition is very different from the definition that you are against. What I was trying to do is to give an analogy of an "ultimate unexplainable" in science, and say that "God" was conceived to be such an "ultimate unexplainable".
I will make peace with you by saying this:
1) I am not trying to discredit science, but only trying to look at its furthest logical conclusion.
2) Logical method is infinite, and so scientific research is infinite. I am trying to reach a psychically satisfying endpoint for my own life.
3) The truth discovered by science is relative, and will change with more research. It is not what I will experience from the depths of my being, but from observations of the external world.
4) Mysticism is not objective truth, so in that sense it is "unscientific". But it is subjective experience, which is as real as I am. See TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
5) Science is a process of making discrete, while mysticism is a process of making continuous.
6) Science needs clear definitions, but mysticism does not. Science is "left hemisphere" whereas mysticism is "right hemisphere" . See Dr. Taylor's experience in the above talk.
7) I've been saying this again and again, but nobody seems to take it seriously: Science is ANALYSIS, mysticism is SYNTHESIS. Analysis aims to study details, synthesis aims to blur and unify details.
8) I don't see a conflict between science and mysticism, but only as parallel paths.
Abhiram Lohit 10+
Quote from article: "In philosophy and science, a higher a priori process than analysis." Synthesis is what exists as a whole, before analysis breaks it down into convenient parts for specific detailed study. In Physics we have seen synthesis as an attempt to get back to the Whole from the Parts. We want a Grand Unified Theory. When two things, ideas or theories are combined there is a blurring of previous boundaries.
In subjective "happy, blissful, trance" experiences, blurring of things happens. When blurring happens, you see things merging into one another, and things emerging from one another.
Do you know what Meister Eckhart says about Mary: " Blessed art thou, Mary, daughter of thy son."
According to the church that is blasphemy. But there is no religion there, just the realization of the ultimate unity of all things. When Jill Taylor said she couldn't tell the boundaries between her body and the wall, she is having such an experience of unity.
"The reason I mistrust mysticism is that it decoupled from any testable reality... subject their claims to any objective tests."
Jim, what do you think is the outward result of an experience? Bliss? "Lovely"? That's all. The mystic is not out to dupe people into giving him money or power. If someone claiming to be a mystic does such things, then he has not had such an experience, he is a liar. A mystic doesn't need anything in exchange for his experience, he's just happy he's had one. Being so, I don't see a point in objective tests to see if the mystic is being honest. Instead I would see his social behavior. A true mystic is free from the pairs of opposite mental emotions - love&hate, fear&aggression, happiness&sadness, etc.
On the other hand, I would love to see objective tests on mystics to learn more about the brain.
Abhiram Lohit 10+
Jim, if you "study" some of the mystical writings carefully, you will see no wild claims. Or, I don't know what sort of mystics you are talking about. Certainly the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu mystics do not make wild statements. They talk about their right-brain experiences in terms of left-brain language using everyday words as symbols. Symbols are very powerful and pervasive, even in daily life. Words like "maverick" and "casanova" are exact symbols - they were originally personal names.
"I think it is true that poetic metaphors sometimes are the best way to convey right-brained experience using left-brained communication, but as I said before, the mystic makes a mistake when the metaphor is nailed down and treated as a fact." -- Again, all the books that I've read actually define the meaning of words used by the mystics so accurately that there is no mistaking.
Please, look up JOSEPH CAMPBELL, and ANANDA K. COOMARASWAMY. The first author is a lighter read than the second. Campbell makes a wonderful study of experience systems around the world. The second author AKC, makes a very academic-scholarly comparative study of Christian, Muslim Sufi, Buddhist and Hindu Vedic texts, as well as a deep study of the philosophy of art which is connected to right-brain experiences. If you have Netflix, there are some good documentaries where Joseph Campbell gives lectures at Sarah Lawrence College in New York.
Perhaps, we need to add "mysticism" to the list of words that are semantics-confused: "God", "belief", "consciousness".
Comment deleted
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
I think you are absolutely right..."people on ted are not interested to hear...sermons". If you ever get to the place in yourself when you can have a reasonable discussion, without sermons that promote your own limited belief, people may be interested in discussing with you. I'm not seeing that in you.
You write..."when women enter a debate hyjack it to emotional talks instead of logical".
What is your point in making that statement on this thread? You are criticizing half the TED population, and it has nothing to do with this topic.
You state..."Mullah's have beard...one day a Mullah shaves his beard..."
That has nothing to do with the topic
The fish understands what water is....has nothing to do with the topic.
You too S. R. Ahmadi..."have a nice life and a nice death".
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
The pot is calling the kettle black...
Women hyjack debates with emotional "stuff"??? Are you kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!
It's pretty emotional to tell everybody who does not believe in his/her god over and over and over again that s/he is going to hell, don't you think?
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
Consider yourself thumbed up...I'm maxed out for you this week:>)
Abhiram Lohit 10+
The situation that we are in is like electrons in an electric field. The electron generates electric field as well as experiences it. It is soaked in it. But without electron no field, without field no electron. The electron cannot go outside of the field to look at it "from above" to decide in totality what it is.
Daniel Hehir makes some points that are striking and considerable.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Edit: just doing an edit so that this comment will end up on top!
Colleen Steen 500+
I commented in the middle of the long thread...
This will put your comment on top again:>)
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
It definitely has slowed down a bit. Is it because of the long threads? Because all is said and done? Perhaps people are simply taking a break?
I think it's very hard to prove or disprove Atheism. We can certainly prove that it's a belief/concept that is embraced by many people who have rational arguments. I agree with some of the comments that suggest that to prove Atheism, we need to disprove Theism, which is also a difficult belief/concept to prove or disprove. Does this challenge cause the discussion to go round and round with the same old arguments? I'd be interested in seeing some new information:>)
Jimmy Strobl 30+
I'm going to shorten the closing time on this conversation so that we can do something more productive. However if it does pick up again I'll lengthen it.
Colleen Steen 500+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Which did I close by the way?
Colleen Steen 500+
p.s. Good thing I had my brain re-adjusted, otherwise I would never have remembered that:>) LOL!
Jimmy Strobl 30+
"what is love" wasn't meant to close but at the time I was new at creating conversations and simply forgot to make it open-ended, when I checked back later it was closed and I wanted it to continue so I made "what is love (part 2)", Admin closed it and reopened "part 1" instead...
I try not to mix with closing times or to edit explanations too much or in a misleading way.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Enjoy!
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Some where in this incredibly long chain, Jim Lloyd posted a link to an MSN article reporting that 1 in 8 U.S. High Schools still includes in school curriculum what they described as "positive" presentations of intelligent design and creationsim despite the 2005 Court ruling in Dover (Pennsylvania) that its unconstitutional, that it violates the separation of church and state.
Thanks for that Jim (I can no longer find it and ask you to restore it if it's gone)It's not really surprising. I would doubt my island school board would know about the Dover 2005 Court Decision. But the constitution does still work or rather we as citizens can make it work. Invest some time in your local school system..become a mentor or school volunteer, be willing to run for school board youself.
That's how we keep creationism and intelligent design out of our schools. On the front lines. Start and support science web sites for little ones..help write curriculum for these web sites.I caused a huge stir at my elementary school. In the context of a celestial navigation curriculum I wrote for little one's ( 2nd and 3rd graders) a girl asked where the moon came from. I gave her the current thinking..that it is actually a part of earth that broke off in a massive collision , explained that the moon was actually very important to the earth keeping us on a smooth rotation on our axis without which the earth wouldn't support life. It's true. It's current science. The kids loved it of course but it really spooked the teacher because she herself wasn't very current in science.She felt very insecure and uneasy about my giving the children factutal scientific information that she herself had no command of.
Those of us who want our children to be properly educated have to be actively involved in that..whether or not our own children are in public schools.That's where we can make a real difference..thats how to keep the teaching of religion and bunk science out..
Austin R 20+
The primary reason I consider myself Agnostic rather than an Atheist is because I have no reasonable answer for how the Universe [and reality as we know it] started. What initiated the whole causal chain that has led to the creation of our Universe?
Could it have always existed? No, that would exempt all matter from needing to have a primary cause (or causes).
Did it spontaneously appear due to purely arbitrary happenstance? Purely arbitrary event = inconvenient impossibility
Is our Universe merely the result of a fluctuation of "nothing"? (along the lines of Krauss' theory) I don't know, seems semi-plausible I guess.
P.S. - I'm not arguing that the only other option is a deity. I'm just laying out some theories and looking for feedback. I'm on the fence.
Comment deleted
Austin R 20+
"Why/How do you think it is a concept that is often difficult for people to embrace?"
Possibly because spontaneity has no guidelines, no rules, no laws!... (which can be scary and disconcerting to many of us!)
"And I think the idea of spontaneity is linked to what we call 'inspiration', of which, is the starting point of creativity that at times leads to the musings/concept of 'free will'. Is there a scientific explanation for this process? What do you think?"
From what I've heard... scientifically speaking, that moment of creativity results from neurons firing in a drastically new and unique way due to exposure to new environments. (I heard this in a TED talk a couple months ago.)
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
,Your exchange is getting right at the heart of why belief systems become so rigid ( including the memes that float around TED Connversations)
There seems to a sense of security in shared knowledge right or wrong
I agree with both of you that being comfortable with randomness, with spontaneity, with the unknown and unknowable the seeminggly impossible and inexplicable is vital to all human activity not just to art and poetry. ( And by unknown and unknowable I refer to big questions in science e.g. what is the other 95% of te universe made of and why is it invible? what is gravity anyway and why is it so weak? What makes an individual human cell spontaneoulsy change ?)
The TED talk on surrendering or judgment to "Experts" was really pointing to that as well, I think. The "Filter Bubble" referred to at another TED Talk feeds that. Tom Atlee has been exploring that in a series of essays at his posterous blog and also at the website for the Co-Intelligence Insitute.. Atlee calls it "The Commodification of Narcisissim" and suggest in part that it s caused by disenfranchisement and a sense of powerlessness. Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Waldorf Schools emphasizes the importance of intuition in developing human intelligence and in discovery and interpretation.
The question is if you are so locked into your belief system ( and here I am including our Dawkinists who repeat the same phrases over and over and over with a dogma that is as limiting and mystifying as the creationsist and the Tea Party Republicans)..how do you change that? How do you move whole cultures out of this lock step way of thinking? Out of passivity into being engaged and creative in reshaping our culture?) I was trying to explore that a bit in my conversation on updating our belief systems.What you are pointing to is key.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
See you all tomorrow!
Christophe Cop 500+
@ Karthik Mishra
"So, for you to believe in God has to himself appear in front of you, to make you believe in God...do you know how arrogant that sounds to the ears of a theist??"
I did not say that, you asked for an example... I gave you one... A very explicit one, for sure... Please try and refrain from concluding things like you say here.
An example is not arrogance... I could do with less information, but I do need evidence. No evidence = no reason to assume existence
"I too am an atheist, but I make sure I don't hurt peoples feelings.I remember, a while ago, I trying to argue with my mother, just as you are now arguing. And the pain it causes to hear what I said, I decided not to say that anymore, because my mother lives in a perfectly moral world just as I do, perhaps her ideas are not correct, but her own ideas make her do good things and for me that is more important than the ideas themselves.I hope you understand. :)"
I do.
I have similar experiences. I don't push my thinking towards people who don't start a debate with me, or don't make truth claims that are utter nonsensical to me. And I don't push my ideas if that causes to much damage towards people I care about.
I do think you missed my point though.
Comment deleted
Christophe Cop 500+
I come from the opposite direction... I gradually stopped the quest. As a kid I prayed and read a children's bible. I gradually became doubtful, and stayed a seeking agnostic by age 18. I delved into other religions and new age, only to find out there were no good answers there... I became a skeptic and learned more about science and philosophy during college, to finally conclude that a god belongs to the realm of myths. I do like fantasy, but I separate it from reality...
As the odds for any given god decreased as my knowledge about reality increased, I would not seek for it anymore as my quest to find a population of golden dragons on this planet... or spaghetti-monsters...
I must admit I don't delve too deep into quantum physics either, as I don't understand all the math...
so I leave it up to the brighter minds to discover. If they find out, then I'll try and understand and adopt it in my worldview.
Currently, my worldview is based upon thermodynamics, cybernetics and statistical inference. It describes a set of possible worlds that (according to my knowledge) includes ours. I know how it can be falsified, but I have not seen any proof of it thus far... making it a quite solid worldview that I uphold for at least 8 years by now.
On that account, I keep searching. Not for a god, but for a better understanding of the cosmos, my life and what it is to be a human, and experiencing along the way...
I feel a great sense of joy when contemplating life. I do dismiss improbable ideas, as they are a waste of time (I only live so short, so I wish to learn things that are somewhat more certain first... as well as nice pieces of fantasy)
Tim blackburn 30+
Comment deleted
Tim blackburn 30+
Tim blackburn 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
That was the summary until recently.
Further more, evidence (as expected) has been claimed by many, in many ways... What to think about that is entirely up to you...
Thanks for asking, maybe someone else can give a more concrete summary for you...
Tim blackburn 30+
Austin R 20+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
daniel hehir 20+
We have just come down highway 61..... 3654.32 km.. and still going strong.
Colleen Steen 500+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Comment deleted
Jimmy Strobl 30+
daniel hehir 20+
I am packing for vacation just now... and seeing the ruckus that I have created, am leaving the computer with great inner despair ... I feel like a cat in the dog kennel... What would Homer Simpson do in my situation...?
Jimmy Strobl 30+
And also the Admin was a bit to strict with the rules, but you did break them.
Don't be afraid to come back here later on!
Colleen Steen 500+
As you say, we were starting to get along...there was, and still is, an opportunity.
I also understand that we're participating in discussions for which there are certain rules, so I understand why the comments were removed. Like Birdia says...there is still unfinished business...and hopefully, everyone will stay at the drawing board:>)
Comment deleted
Colleen Steen 500+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
"How about crossing other's boundaries and giving out unasked advice towards other's choice of words? Do you agree with that?"
You know very well that we're not allowed to have that discussion... We all agree to the terms by being here, I don't think that's the issue here, it's that they're being misinterpreted in this case...
Edit: I'm assuming that you're talking about Admins' behavior...
Jimmy Strobl 30+
I like you both and I see the misunderstanding that you're having with each other!
Colleen Steen 500+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Is it alright to say that an Admin seem inexperienced?
Colleen Steen 500+
Colleen Steen 500+
Are you refering to my previous comment in which I said I agree with everything you said except calling people "dim-witted"?
If that is what you are refering to, I do not feel I crossed anyone's boundaries, and I'm sorry if you feel that. I don't agree with name calling, and I think you know that by now. If you choose to use it, and you think it strengthens your argument...so be it. I gave absolutely NO advice. I simply wanted you to know that I agreed with everything you said except the name calling. I say what I mean and mean what I say:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
I'm not over-reacting. I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about. I haven't looked at the Wiki page, so I have no idea what you're refering to. Please be clear?
Colleen Steen 500+
If I am agreeing with certain parts of your comment, I'm going to clarify EXACTLY what part I'm agreeing with and EXACTLY what part I do NOT agree with. After this, it's probably unlikely that I'll agree with you anymore. Jimmy is absolutely right...I was giving you a compliment, and you turned it into...I don't know what!
Colleen Steen 500+
I am a kindred spirit and friend to Birdia, regardless of how she feels at the moment.
Hope this clarifies:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
Colleen Steen 500+
Colleen Steen 500+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Comment deleted
daniel hehir 20+
daniel hehir 20+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
daniel hehir 20+
God said to Abriham "Kill me a son"
Abe said "Man you must be puttin' me on"
God said "No"
Abe said "What"
God said "You can do what Abe but,.... The next time you see me comin' You'd better run
Abe said "Where do want this killin' done?
God said" Out on highway 61"
daniel hehir 20+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg7xqJ1gYWU
Classic Dylan... The condition of our time..
Colleen Steen 500+
Get with the program...do some research and get the facts...LOL:>)
Edit: I'm pretty sure Gabo knows I"m just kidding Jimmy...I hope!
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Edit: She's just kidding Gabo ;D
daniel hehir 20+
and I that thought I was following the yellow brick road...
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Did you get my Email?
Gabo Moreno 100+
As for the clean up. Maybe someone felt offended by our exchanges, but if so, then they should grow up. It is obvious that in this kind of exchange there will be a complete lack of respect for beliefs, and that atheists will also be attacked a bit because of such lack of respect. People who can't deal with it should just refrain from coming to these kinds of discussions. In any event, I remember that TED used to issue a warning before deleting.
Did any of my comments disappear?
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
The yellow brick road is under reconstruction at the moment:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
If your anger is about the fact that my comments do not get deleted, perhaps that is an issue you can address with the ted administration. I will consider your advice regarding likes, dislikes and styles.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
The reason to me is perfectly clear, Colleen stays (reasonably) within the Terms of use and Daniel did not.
Name calling, of persons or opinions, is usually not okay according to the Terms...
So when you say "Dim-witted" It's not considered mature or constructive and is even taken as offensive by most.
The same goes for many of the remarks that Daniel made...
Base line - Name calling is really de-constructive = destructive for the good feeling that we all want from TED conversations...
Colleen Steen 500+
If you don't see why Daniel's comments were removed while mine were not, that is an issue you can address with the ted administration. I respect your opinion. I also think Daniel's comments were/are very relevant.
Edit in response to your last question:
I am here to learn...and you? Birdia, I said I agreed with all of your comment, except I do not agree with calling people dim-witted. If you are not expressing anger right now, what is it?
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Will you please, PLEASE stop this!? It's breaking my heart!
Edit: not to mention that the It's really off topic...
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
I did not see that conversation...
It's not your problem, you don't seem to mind at all... this is my problem...
Colleen Steen 500+
The "main point", as mentioned above by you, is that my comments do not get deleted.
Please be clear.
I will consider your advice, and in the meantime continue to make nonjudgemental comments, which are relevant to the topic, to the best of my ability.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
And the conversation hasn't been able to recover from it yet...
J Ali
Maybe he is a Theist...
Tim blackburn 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Have "faith" people ;P
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Some of the comments will be restored soon!
Now, we all need to our very best to avoid that this kind of thing happens again, let's all think twice and thrice before making personal remarks!
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
TED 10+
Several comments in this thread have been removed according to the TED.com Terms of Use (http://www.ted.com/pages/conversations_terms ). TED Conversations is a platform for mature and respectful discussions. We kindly ask you to Please refrain from personal attacks & discussing your fellow community members. While we welcome differing opinions, we ask you to do so in respectful and constructive way. If you notice any issues, please let us know.
Sincerely,
TED Conversations Admin
conversations@ted.com
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Comment deleted
Jimmy Strobl 30+
daniel hehir 20+
Sock it to 'em Jimmy !!
Were all grown up human beings and we don't really need sensors....
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
daniel hehir 20+
"Sock it to me" is kind of an inside joke for americans over 50 years old. It comes from an old TV show that ran in the late 60's early 70's ... there was a little song with it that went sock it to me baby.... one could easily in the context of the song and the incredibly funny program .that the words "sock it to me" had a sort of sexual content... It was really pretty funny... but I guess you had to be there..... :-)
daniel hehir 20+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
But that's an entirely different discussion... http://www.ted.com/conversations/3273/nothing_s_off_topic.html
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
daniel hehir 20+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Helen Hupe 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Helen Hupe 30+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
daniel hehir 20+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Christophe Cop 500+
I am not pleased with your venting towards me.
Ad hominem arguments are to be avoided.
[the post in question has been deleted, so this post might be a bit odd]
If my thinking seems to be wrong, you should point out where (in your opinion) the errors lie.
Can I help it that my thinking is strongly formed by my education, and that certain terms for me are very clear and distinct, while they are maybe not so well understood by others? (I had to look up the word fangeled)
Being social is a good thing, exchanging thoughts as well.
Going into arguments and explaining your thinking inevitably leads to what we can agree upon (and for me that is factual knowledge).
I do have a rather explicit idea about reality and how it can be known. I know it is a construct, and a rather firm and stable one. I even indicate how it can be refuted.
By dismissing me as a person, you don't make a valid point.
This does not mean that I'm infallible and that I don't make ad-hominem arguments from time to time... (I'm prone to errors and logical fallacies too)
I could return your train argument and say you are the one standing on the platform of a modernistic interpretation of science, while the train has already crossed the border of post-modernistic thought 10 years ago. (tit for tat: very common in social discussions, though not a very constructive approach, is it?)
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Would you like us to put ourselves in a sub category so that you know the beliefs of the people participating here?
daniel hehir 20+
I am not of the intention to inform anyone specifically about any of the many different forms of atheism.. my only intention is to keep the discussion on the track. No need for sub categories... no... that is not my intention at all. But after experiencing the total arrogance of Richard Dawkin on the lecture "militant atheism" it's been sort of like a little stone in my shoe that just wont go away..
When I hear certain people that defend athe "ism" and who come across so strongly in their convictions in the name of an attempted scientific argument... well, that balloon just cant fly, simply for the reasons I (read Wikipidea) have just presented you you.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Now about your remarks about Christophe... Saying things like "his own little sacred platform", " I really don't think the lights have be turned on" and so on is not at all a good way to go here at TED, you'll just get people disliking you. Furthermore he is a well respected member of the community and a friend of mine and I do not take your slander of him lightly.
Enjoy your vacation, we'll be here when you get back.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Helen Hupe 30+
You are right. There is nothing to be debated if everybody agrees. I will keep reading at least for awhile. It is hard to get around ya'lls evidence because you have to use logic to arrive at what I believe and also psychology. Those two disciplines don't seem to amount to much and really I need a rest. As I said in a previous post I am just tired. Keep on trucking................
Helen Hupe 30+
daniel hehir 20+
So nice to see you still with us! I have been tempted to abandon this conversation as well but am trying now to give it a second as well as a third chance. ... although the atheists like to criticize the "believers" with the word "ignorance is bliss"... It seems in some cases that it could be turned around and stated "arrogance is bliss" It seems that many love to take on the cape of Richard Dawkins and become very aggressive in their way of meeting phenomena they don't understand. If its a blockage they have or just plain lack of an open mind... it's hard to say.
I think if you really want to share some of your experiences with us that the correct thing to do would be to start your own conversation. I am at least one that will follow along with you. I have been interested in spiritual phenomenon for around 30 years and have a strong interest in the things you talk about. Especially the experience with the light. I have read a good deal about these type of experiences and perhaps can help you to feel more comfortable talking about them. I have never had such an experience myself.
If you would like to talk some more, I would like to hear from you on my e-mail.... otherwise we will find each other here for a short time to come... thanks again!
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
.There is common ground here amongst all of us and if we all stay and exchange respectfully we will see that.
We always learn more and grow more when we engage people who don't share our views..at least I do. The worst thing that could happen to TED Conversations is that we all end up in "cozy corners" with folk of like mind..all the growing and leraning would stop..
Hope you;; both stay. Jimmy Mattieu and Jim Floyd are all good guys..all bright guys.. I enjoy them all
Helen Hupe 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Helen Hupe 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Comment deleted
Helen Hupe 30+
Actually I have learned much from these discussions. Not so much about science as about myself.
I watch my reactions and sometimes I am astonished. I am not so much about being defensive now.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Helen, that's a good question and I think the the answer is that they do it quite well, they feel that they are on the "right path" and that they've considered all aspects of life and found the true conclusion...
You know, a couple of years ago I would have thought the same thing about many people on this conversation, that they were just plain evil trying to spread destruction through ignorance...
Helen Hupe 30+
Colleen Steen 500+