8 of 22
8
Let’s Have a Dialog—ie., a Conversation, not a debate—About the god-hypothesis
Posted: 22 April 2012 07:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30

Did I send this, already?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmZgPiQlnjo&feature=youtu.be

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2012 08:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2012-04-24
dougsmith - 13 February 2012 04:50 PM

I’m not sure how to have a dialogue about God without it becoming a debate, because many of us here (myself included) do not believe that God exists. We believe that God is simply a human construct or idea.

I don’t feel like reading this thread because it looks long, but im just gonna reply to this real quick and point out that everything that you know about is a human construct.  When you see a desk or, lets say, a tree, the stuff in your head isn’t a [tree].  It’s a representation that you form of the random sensory data you’re collecting with your eyes.  And when you touch it, you throw in the tactile senses and so forth.  But when you break out the microscope and look at what makes up that tree, it isn’t what’s in your head; it’s a bunch of little little particles that are all behaving in a particular fashion.  So we might say that the tree is a human construct to explain the occurrence of that sensory data that comes from whatever it is in the actual world that we all take to be trees in our minds.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2012 04:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15302
Joined  2006-02-14
wtfbbq - 25 April 2012 08:40 PM
dougsmith - 13 February 2012 04:50 PM

I’m not sure how to have a dialogue about God without it becoming a debate, because many of us here (myself included) do not believe that God exists. We believe that God is simply a human construct or idea.

I don’t feel like reading this thread because it looks long, but im just gonna reply to this real quick and point out that everything that you know about is a human construct.  When you see a desk or, lets say, a tree, the stuff in your head isn’t a [tree].  It’s a representation that you form of the random sensory data you’re collecting with your eyes.  And when you touch it, you throw in the tactile senses and so forth.  But when you break out the microscope and look at what makes up that tree, it isn’t what’s in your head; it’s a bunch of little little particles that are all behaving in a particular fashion.  So we might say that the tree is a human construct to explain the occurrence of that sensory data that comes from whatever it is in the actual world that we all take to be trees in our minds.

Um, that’s why I said God is “simply” a human construct. A tree isn’t “simply” a human construct, since trees actually exist in nature. Sure, the concept “tree” is a human concept, but the thing actually exists, and would have existed even if there had been no humans to think about it.

God isn’t that way. He’s like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Had there been no humans, there would have been no God and no God concept, either. (At least, none instantiated in this universe).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2012 05:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26

Linds,
G~0~D~like beings we are free to will to be: That which is all GOOD, ORDERLY & DESIRABLE is ours simply for the choosing

I disagree with those concepts.
a) define “good” in a universal setting. By the law of conservation, everything that is being created is through destruction of something else.
b) the Universe itself was created in total chaos, and still today stars are born or die through a most violent chaotic process. The order may be mathematical, but it is by no means a controllable order.
c) define desirable in a universal setting. Desire is a strictly human emotion. Does a star desire? Does a galaxy desire. And who judges what we desire is good and orderly. Was is good and orderly for trillions of organisms to perish so that we can fill our desire for oil? Are man made disasters like fracking, GW, hurricanes, and natural inevitabilities like volcanoes, earthquakes, desirable?
d) all we experience is thrust upon us, regardless of our choices., and sometimes by our choices. Even as we experience an unprecedented growth rate of species, the laws of exponential function will come to bite us in the fanny someday, probably soon.

As long as man takes more from the environment that he returns, man’s existence may be called undesirable from a natural point of view. We are more like a destructive virus to our environment than the symbiotic bacteria in our guts.
Eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge unfortunately did not increase our wisdom in anything, just our desires.

[ Edited: 26 April 2012 05:13 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2012 05:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01
dougsmith - 26 April 2012 04:00 AM

A tree isn’t “simply” a human construct, since trees actually exist in nature. Sure, the concept “tree” is a human concept, but the thing actually exists, and would have existed even if there had been no humans to think about it.

Unless it falls and fails to make a sound.  LOL

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2012 07:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
RevLGKing - 22 April 2012 07:58 PM

Did I send this, already?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmZgPiQlnjo&feature=youtu.be

What is anyone supposed to get out of that?

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2012 08:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
Write4U - 26 April 2012 05:01 AM

Linds,
G~0~D~like beings we are free to will to be: That which is all GOOD, ORDERLY & DESIRABLE is ours simply for the choosing

I disagree with those concepts.

Go ahead and disagree. You have the same right as NEWTON AND EINSTEIN. They took THE WRONG FORK ON THE RIGHT ROAD?
How do feel about the following story from Science Magazine recently broadcast over BBC radio?—6 minutes of G~0~D~like information about the nature of things that, to me, sound pretty close to being supernatural:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9622000/9622751.stm

When I hear this kind of information, it makes me think: INTEGRATION, INTEGRATION, INTEGRATION!

Like some imaginative philosophers, theologians and artists long before us, many of the NEW scientists are coming to the conclusion that we “live move and have our being” in an amazing universe—one that is built on a SPIRITUAL foundation which is both SUPER & NATURAL.

Some of the NEW scientists are also ordained clergy. Have you heard about?—

http://www.ordainedscientists.org/

More and more and hard-nosed scientists—masters of the so-called concrete sciences, like physics and chemistry—ones who study the three-dimensional universe we call nature, are now saying it is not so concrete after all. It is a complex integration of body (soma), mind (psyche) and spirit (pneuma).


====================

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2012 10:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5166
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting RLGK:

More and more and hard-nosed scientists—masters of the so-called concrete sciences, like physics and chemistry—ones who study the three-dimensional universe we call nature, are now saying it is not so concrete after all. It is a complex integration of body (soma), mind (psyche) and spirit (pneuma)

Sorry, but as a “hard nosed scientist”, a retired chemist who still has many friends in the physical science fields, I don’t know of a SINGLE one who believes that drivel.  There may be a few, but it’s definitely not “more and more”.  In fact, the percent of physical scientists who are atheists or agnostics has been moving up significantly over the last few decades.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2012 03:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2585
Joined  2011-04-24
RevLGKing - 28 April 2012 08:41 PM
Write4U - 26 April 2012 05:01 AM

Linds,
G~0~D~like beings we are free to will to be: That which is all GOOD, ORDERLY & DESIRABLE is ours simply for the choosing

I disagree with those concepts.

Go ahead and disagree. You have the same right as NEWTON AND EINSTEIN. They took THE WRONG FORK ON THE RIGHT ROAD?
How do feel about the following story from Science Magazine recently broadcast over BBC radio?—6 minutes of G~0~D~like information about the nature of things that, to me, sound pretty close to being supernatural:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9622000/9622751.stm

When I hear this kind of information, it makes me think: INTEGRATION, INTEGRATION, INTEGRATION!

Like some imaginative philosophers, theologians and artists long before us, many of the NEW scientists are coming to the conclusion that we “live move and have our being” in an amazing universe—one that is built on a SPIRITUAL foundation which is both SUPER & NATURAL.

Some of the NEW scientists are also ordained clergy. Have you heard about?—

http://www.ordainedscientists.org/

More and more and hard-nosed scientists—masters of the so-called concrete sciences, like physics and chemistry—ones who study the three-dimensional universe we call nature, are now saying it is not so concrete after all. It is a complex integration of body (soma), mind (psyche) and spirit (pneuma).


====================

  No Rev. Linds, I have to disagree strongly.  I think Occam said it most powerfully, as he actually is a physical scientist; but the idea that science is giving up it’s “materialist” view is not correct at all.  Yes, there are hard scientists who believe in the supernatural, but they are very few. The scientists that do believe in the supernatural are always going to fall on one side of the border - they will be more rational , or more faith based, never equal in both.  It’s not possible, for any scientist worth their salt, to accept the supernatural without examining the rational.  The process simply does not work like that.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2012 05:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
RevLGKing - 28 April 2012 08:41 PM

It is a complex integration of body (soma), mind (psyche) and spirit (pneuma).

Show us a single respected scientist who believes that BS. Otherwise, this is just you making up shit.

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2012 06:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2017
Joined  2007-04-26
RevLGKing - 28 April 2012 08:41 PM

Go ahead and disagree. You have the same right as NEWTON AND EINSTEIN. They took THE WRONG FORK ON THE RIGHT ROAD?

This comment demonstrates that you didnt understand what they were discussing in that 6 minute talk and you also don’t understand science. Neither Newton nor Einstein were wrong. Newton described a set of principals and formulas that have been very useful in describing how objects move and interact in the world that he was able to observe with the equipment he had at the time. His formulas and theories are still very useful and in fact they are still taught in universities and are used very effectively every day. As we learned more and our instruments became better it became clear that his formulas did not fully explain the universe around us. Einstein realized why and came up with an elegant new theory that took into account things Newton could never have imagined in his day.

What Einstein did was not to prove Newton wrong but to add more depth to Newton’s understanding of the universe. Contrary to what they allude to in that 6 minute discussion, Einstein has yet to be proven wrong ( Neutrinos did not travel faster than light on further analysis) and most likely never will be. His theories will always accurately and usefully describe the universe around us. That’s not to say that there won’t be some new information that requires us to add another layer to our understanding of the universe but doing so doesn’t make the theories that came before wrong.

That is what science is all about, constantly reevaluating our understanding of the universe and unlike religion, being willing to change our view if we discover there is something that is incorrect or if there more depth to a theory that gives us a better understanding.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2012 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
macgyver - 29 April 2012 06:19 AM

That is what science is all about, constantly reevaluating our understanding of the universe ...

Thanks! I agree. After listening to the 6 minute-program at least six times, that is exactly what I heard.

The last time I listened, my 54 year old son—a teacher, a deep and sceptical thinker, and happens to be a pro musician—happened to be visiting. He and I listened—pausing the program now and then to make sure we both heard the same thing. Yes, we both heard: Science is a process by which we can constantly re-evaluate what is going on in the universe. Not once did they say Newton and Einstein were absolutely wrong. They simply said that they lacked the knowledge garnered by the sciences since they passed into the “undiscovered country from whose borne no traveller returns” ...  From the great, “To-be-or-not-to-be” soliloquy, of Hamlet.
You say,

“and unlike religion ... “

  Do you mean to generalize and judge all religions as anti-science?

... being willing to change our view if we discover there is something that is incorrect or if there is more depth to a theory that gives us a better understanding.

This is good to hear. smile

[ Edited: 30 April 2012 10:00 AM by RevLGKing ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 April 2012 09:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
mid atlantic - 29 April 2012 03:05 AM

No Rev. Linds, I have to disagree strongly ... the idea that science is giving up it’s “materialist” view is not correct at all

  And you have every right to do so. I certainly agree that most scientists are materialists.

But naturally, it is the few with new ideas who caught my attention, and I never underestimate the power of the few who are on the cutting edge of new ideas,  and willing to risk taking “the road less travelled” and willing to explore the integration of all the sciences—hard and soft.

WITHOUT BEING GULLIBLE, I APPRECIATE PEOPLE WILLING TO TAKE RISKS
I am thinking of the work of innovators whose great ideas were first rejected.

For example, Dr. I. Semmelweis,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis’_ideas_rejected_as_unscientific
Nursing sister,  Elizabeth Kenny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Elizabeth_Kenny faced much opposition to he new ideas.
Dr. James Braid (surgeon) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Braid_(surgeon)  developed the idea of hypnosis based on the work of
Franz Anton Mesmer May 23, 1734 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesmer
The great Canadian doctor, William Osler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Osler

[ Edited: 30 April 2012 09:49 AM by RevLGKing ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2012 03:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2585
Joined  2011-04-24
RevLGKing - 29 April 2012 09:39 PM
mid atlantic - 29 April 2012 03:05 AM

No Rev. Linds, I have to disagree strongly ... the idea that science is giving up it’s “materialist” view is not correct at all

  And you have every right to do so. I certainly agree that most scientists are materialists.

But naturally, it is the few with new ideas who caught my attention, and I never underestimate the power of the few who are on the cutting edge of new ideas,  and willing to risk taking “the road less travelled” and willing to explore the integration of all the sciences—hard and soft.

WITHOUT BEING GULLIBLE, I APPRECIATE PEOPLE WILLING TO TAKE RISKS
I am thinking of the work of innovators whose great were first rejected.

For example, Dr. I. Semmelweis,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis’_ideas_rejected_as_unscientific
Nursing sister,  Elizabeth Kenny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Elizabeth_Kenny faced much opposition to he new ideas.
Dr. James Braid (surgeon) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Braid_(surgeon)  developed the idea of hypnosis based on the work of
Franz Anton Mesmer May 23, 1734 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesmer
The great Canadian doctor, William Osler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Osler

  All of those individuals took risks, except for Mesmer perhaps; they were not bringing the supernatural into science; they were actively proving the prervious practice’s wrong.  They were innovators,  at a time when others were not.  But that doesn’t apply to spritualist scientists.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 April 2012 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5166
Joined  2010-06-16

Sorry, RLGK, you’re intelligent and you’re trying hard to build a case for theism, but it’s all based on myth and working hard to squeeze misinterpretations out of scientific texts.  It’s not worth it.  I don’t think any of us have any hope or desire to convert you away from your beliefs, but similarly, you aren’t going to convert any of us “heathens” away from what we recognize as a logical and rational understanding of our world and our universe.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 22
8