Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 176 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: Ellis
So Rev we are once again back at the argument that atheists cannot appreciate justice, morality, peace, mercy and the like(!).
Quote where I made such an accusation against atheists.

Ellis, surely you are not back to your habit of putting your own spin on what I wrote. It is not a good thing to do!
I never once intentionally even implied that I always do what is good and A/A's do not.
smile

"There is no inherent mercy in religious belief." You mean in all? Or some? There you go again, generalizing--not good at all!

"Indeed some religious doctrine is violent and distasteful, demanding inhumane and disgusting practices from its adherents." I am glad you included the word "some". It shows progress. smile

"Those things which you are assuming god-like and love-like properties for to me seem to be describing desirable aspects of being human." Of course, I agree."All atheists aren't hideous monsters wallowing in sin and wickedness." I agree! And neither are all religionists hypocrites. "We just don't believe that there is a "thing" (no NOT a personification) that is called god. Not a single solitary thing or even a big huge universal thing..." Did I ever say that G.O.D. is a thing, or even a person?

We have no belief in the supernatural."

Unless you were given the authority to speak for all Atheists/Agnostics, again you generalize when you say "we".

Severals A/A's with whom I have had good dialogues with at ATHEISTS/AGNOSTICS.com had threads in which they wrote about being spiritual and what this implies.

BTW, to make sure that you know what I mean when I use this acronym, A/A--it means Atheists and Agnostics. It does not mean addicts to alcohol. smile

QUANTUM PHYSICS and the supernatural.
Serious quantum physicists like David Deutsch write books about THE BEGINNING OF ETERNITY

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/10/14/quantum-computing-david-deutsch/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutschhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutsch


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Deutsch is an atheist and a falsificationist. I doubt he takes supernaturalism seriously.

Supernatural "explanations" are not explanations. They may make you feel good, but they don't explain anything. They have no value whatever in science. None.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Bill S, you say
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
... Rev, you are good at the first part of this--[turning the question around and saying what I want to say, right?] but you really need to polish up the second part. smile
OK, here is a challenge: If you were my teacher, what would you say to me that would help me "polish up the second part"?

Then we can talk about which came first: G.O.D.? Or creation?

Maybe we prefer to talk about:

THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/83...cken-or-the-egg


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
If you were my teacher, what would you say to me that would help me "polish up the second part"?


I would no presume to adopt the role of teacher. You are obviously a man of some intelligence, I feel confident that you must know what answering questions involves.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Rev: You infer that taking out things that are "god-like and love-like" will ensure that a difference is noted. There would be a difference but you believe that that it is because god (which/whom you equate with love)is removed from the scene-- I don't acknowledge this is the reason. I think that it is because human behaviour would no longer be human. Nothing to do with the supernatural. Nothing to do with god=love. Just that humans can be good or bad. It's up to us (am I allowed to include myself in the human race there or do I have to say 'I').

Which brings me to the "we atheist"s thing--- All atheists do not think the same about everything, but I remember discussing with you before the fact that all atheists absolutely do not believe in god in any of his/her/its manifestations. You are an agnostic if you are spiritual and unsure. Nothing wrong with that, just not an atheist!

I repeat, as atheists we have no belief in the supernatural. And--- God does not have a role in science unless humans want and believe it to be so.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
... I would no(t) presume to adopt the role of teacher. You are obviously a man of some intelligence, I feel confident that you must know what answering questions involves.
Thanks for your confidence in what you call my "some intelligence".

ABOUT QUESTIONS
The bottom line is: We need to take care how we pose and answer questions. Being diplomatic, when called for, is not a bad idea. Choosing to remain silent about the questions posed by life can, at times, be golden, but it can also mean that we are just plain yellow.

Some questions are valid, some are fair, sincere, direct and simply the kind that are information-seeking and can encourage having a good dialogue. Other questions can be rhetorical (accusative), loaded (full of implications), fallacious (deceptive), embarrassing, and bullying, whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Some questions are like bait on a hook. They are designed to catch fish. Fish which keep their mouth closed and refuse to take the bait tend to avoid the frying pan, and the fire, eh? When asked a serious question, it is wise to stop and think about the implications. smile



G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Rev: You infer that taking out things that are "god-like and love-like" will ensure that a difference is noted. There would be a difference but ...
No, Ellis, with due respect to all, including humane Atheists/Agnostics, I did not infer anything like you suggest. I simply asked a question--which I repeat and expand on below.

This time, let us not just pose the question to the modern skeptics and cynics--ones who rant against all forms of religion, including philosophy/psychology-based democratic and non-dogmatic religions--but let us pose the question to scientists, including geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, evolutionists and students of pre-human history. Let us ask all:

Assuming that our highly-evolved ancestors, including humane Atheists/Agnostics, came along quite late in the history of evolution, let us ask:

What was the state of justice, morality, peace, mercy and the like, not to mention philosophy, science, culture and art, before there were what we think of as human beings who were evolved enough to create the first religions--the grandfather and grandmother of modern philosophy, science
and art? How many of us would vote to return to the "good old days"--dominated by the laws of fire, the ocean, the swamp, the jungle, the desert and the like?

Quote:
IT DOES NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC GOOD TO SPREAD THE FALLACY THAT RELIGION AND SCIENCE MUST BE ENEMIES
Good people always keep their minds and hearts open in the service of one another and the building of community.
FYI there is a SOCIETY OF ORDAINED SCIENTISTS
There are members who are chemists, physicists, medical doctors, engineers and many more disciplines.
http://www.ordainedscientists.org/index.html

NEXT WEEK, I PLAN TO ATTEND The following--London, Ontario:
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&i...32fe2bb7d1f0bb5


Last edited by Revlgking; 10/16/11 05:18 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Rev, I agree with your comments about the need for care in asking and answering questions.

I was going to ask if any questions I had asked, that you had not answered were, in your opinion, "rhetorical (accusative), loaded (full of implications), fallacious (deceptive), embarrassing, [or] bullying", or, perhaps "like bait on a hook". However, I anticipated a response asking “what questions?” which would involve spending a lot of time searching; time that might be better spent in lively discussion. I have, therefore, heeded your admonition, opted for caution and refrained from asking that question.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
In defence of inference.

Rev-- dict def of 'infer'--- to derive (something) as a conclusion from evidence or premise as opposed to that which is explicitly stated.

A valid debating tool I would have thought, as inference may sometimes not conclude that which had been intended in the original statement. Inference shows that care needs to be taken in all areas of argument, unless it can be acknowledged as an interesting point of view on a topic to debate. Rev- You sometimes spray out questions or points and then do not follow up or even acknowledge the differences of opinion that emerge. It is in fact such diversion that would lead to the lively debate you often say you would like to see.

Also, here comes a small gripe, you often group Atheists and Agnostics as though they wear interchangeable labels. They are different. Neither is better than the other- but they are different. So, if we (sorry I!) have to have a label please let it be correct.

PS. Bill S I liked your latest post. Very well put!

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
PS Rev, The "god-like" and "love-like" comments were NOT in a question but a statement-- Therefore ripe for inference!

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
What does "God" actually explain?

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
An interesting comment by Andrei Linde:

“…the central idea of modern cosmology – that it must be possible to understand the entire Universe through one ultimate Theory of Everything – is an outgrowth of belief in one God. Thus cosmology has itself become a sort of religious quest: a search for ‘God’ in the form of an equation.”


No science believes the mechanics of the universe must follow a set a set if rules. What or how those rules were created may or may not be able to be answered but the rules should be able to be understood.

If you believe the expanding universe then sometime in our future all the galaxies will be so far apart light from them will never make it to us. So when we look up at the stars at that time you will see only black no stars you wonder what people will make of the universe in that background.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
This whole thread seems to have got derailed into discussions about GOD.

For now lets leave GOD alone before we get some frameworks in place.

Lets talk about the operation of the universe which as far as I can see still there are only two options

1.) The universe operates via a set of rules in remote and GOD made or is making those
2.) GOD meddles and is involved in each and everything that happens.

Does anyone have any other options?

Last edited by Orac; 10/17/11 04:00 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Ellis, After reading the comment by Bill S about the asking of questions I took a look at your most recent and stimulating-post to me. Unless I missed it, it, interestingly, did not contain one question. I wonder why.

You simply stated that
Originally Posted By: Ellis
... all atheists absolutely do not believe in god in any of his/her/its manifestations.
Ellis, I am sure that you realize that the word 'manifestation' is a very complex one. So keep in mind that most modern theists--and certainly all panentheistic unitheists--do not think of god as a being who goes around manifesting himself or herself in a three-dimensional form.

Based on what you and other atheists say I have come to accept that it is probably impossible for atheists--especially if they really do believe that the material world is the only heaven possible--to have a meaningful dialogue with theists about matters theological and spiritual. Perhaps all we can do is, with kindness and respect, accept each other for who we are.

EVOLUTION TAKES TIME
Visionary theists, especially panentheistic unitheists on the other hand, are those who can sing with the Martin Luther Kings of the world: "Deep in our hearts we do believe we shall overcome some day..." He and those who saw the vision and acted on it made it happen. And we all know that desegregation came at a great cost--his life and the lives of others.

As one optimistic visionary once said: The difficult things we do as soon as possible; the impossible things, the kind we ought to do, may take longer." It also may take lives. That's the price!

Some believers, visionaries with whom I agree, put it this way: We know, not just believe, that the world of matter can be dynamically transformed by knowledge (wisdom) put to work by loving minds and spirits from what the world is into what it ought to be.

Isn't this is what the new physicists are all about? Getting the knowledge that will help us demonstrate this on a regular basis? They, the philosophers, the artists and the prophets before them, challenge us to have the vision to see what is and make it what it ought to be.

I agree that there is no god who has a role in science. G.O.D. does not play roles. G.O.D. IMO is the transforming love, is the message, the knowledge the art, and the process.

Last edited by Revlgking; 10/17/11 06:07 AM. Reason: Always a good idea!

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

I agree that there is no god who has a role in science. G.O.D. does not play roles. G.O.D. IMO is the transforming love, is the message, the knowledge the art, and the process.


I really like that thought Rev.

It does however sidestep the question of how the universe works but given the statement I guess it doesn't really matter your view is ambivalent to the real world?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Not every question that can be asked is answerable by science.

I'm not sure I understand the options you've laid out.

I would say,

1) There is no God.
2) The universe IS God.
3) God set up initial rules and everything afterward is on auto-pilot.
4) God set up the initial rules AND interferes periodically.
5) God set up the initial rules AND consciously wills everything that happens.

You eliminate options 1 and 2, and combine options 4 and 5.

There are other sub-options.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
For the life of me, I still can't imagine what God actually "explains."

I also don't know what we can infer about God if God is beyond beyond logic.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend


I'm not sure I understand the options you've laid out.

I would say,

1) There is no God.
2) The universe IS God.
3) God set up initial rules and everything afterward is on auto-pilot.
4) God set up the initial rules AND interferes periodically.
5) God set up the initial rules AND consciously wills everything that happens.

You eliminate options 1 and 2, and combine options 4 and 5.

There are other sub-options.


So lets take them 1 at a time

1) There is no God. So therefore everything must make sense so science is the story and we do not need consider god.

2) The universe IS God. Then there is inherently no understanding possible. Again science and GOD are not in conflict. It does beg the question as to why we are allowed or exhibit the free will to study something that we can never understand ... torment us ... the devil????

3) God set up initial rules and everything afterward is on auto-pilot. Again science can follow the rules everything should make sense without needing to know GOD exists and ultimately we may infer GOD must exists because of the rules.

4) God set up the initial rules AND interferes periodically. So we should be able to follow the laws and rules and see the discontinuities. Again via number 3 above we may even be able to infer GOD exists because of the interferring.

5) God set up the initial rules AND consciously wills everything that happens. Then we study science because GOD wills it to be so.


So following each of groups I come to the same conclusions science does not need to concern itself with GOD or we do science because GOD wills it to be so.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Orac, thanks for your comment about my recent post in answer to your interesting and valid question:
Quote:
Does god have a role in science?
I have already said that I agree that there is no god, that I know of, who has a role in science. But, with tongue in cheek I add: Perhaps there are scientists--particularly those who happen to be clergy--who would like the rest of us to worship them as gods.

Take note: God is not the same as god
Many larger dictionaries--for example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God --agree that there is a difference between the meaning of the two words, God and god. 'God' (with a capital G) means the one deity in the monotheistic religions in question.

However 'god' (without a capital g) is a common noun that refers to any deity of any religion, or set of religions. It can even be used to express awe--My god! Or as a curse--goddam!

For example, if I say 'God is great!', I'm talking about one specific deity. God can be used as the English translation of any or all one God of the monotheistic religions like, for example, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Most believers--and I am not one such--do tend to believe and think of God as the one lord and almighty king, the one who knows it all, is present everywhere and has the almighty power to set up his kingdom on earth. This is what prompts atheists, and even skeptical believers, to ask: If this is such a one true and supernatural God with all that power, what is he waiting for?

Unitheists have such a different concept of what the god-hypothesis is all about we have to use a different terminology. The term I like is G.O.D--that which is good, opportune and desirable for all of us--the doing of good deeds, not just the believing in dogmatic creeds. Surely atheists are interested in deeds, not creeds. G.O.D. then does not point to a super being who plays roles.

G.O.D., IMO, is the transforming power of will-based love (agape) active in the bodies, minds and hearts (spirits) of people. G.O.D. is the message, the knowledge, the art, and as part of the process we all experience as life. This process prompts thinking people to ask ourselves, frequently: What is the meaning and purpose of life? What does it mean to be human? When life IS full of pain and suffering, what OUGHT we to DO about it? Scientists! Now it is your turn.

THE ROLE OF MORAL, ETHICAL AND LOVING SCIENTISTS As to the nature and function of life and the universe, and how it works. I am happy to leave this role to the scientists--some of whom, as I said before, happen to be ordained clergy. BTW, who are the scientists, retired or otherwise, in this section of SAGGO?

Last edited by Revlgking; 10/18/11 05:24 AM. Reason: Always a good idea!

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
No time at present to read all the foregoing, so I shall throw in a thought, which I will "defend" later if necessary.

Infinity has no more place in science than does God.


There never was nothing.
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5