God Related Discussions - Page 3 - OzChess

**Spiny Norman** · 10-27-2007, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Conclusively? What degree of conclusivity would suffice?

Just use scientific evidence (observation) without resorting to memory or reason (which are two non-scientific knowledge sources).

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

You have it the wrong way around. Practical philosophy must be based in science, not the other way around.

Really? Please explain how logic is based in science ... if it really is, then you ought to be able to show how someone can do science without using logic, and then derive logic from science.

Good luck with that. My suggestion is write a book on that topic ... like Dawkins and Dennett, you'll make a fortune!

**Iconoclast** · 10-27-2007, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

Just use scientific evidence (observation) without resorting to memory or reason (which are two non-scientific knowledge sources).

At the time I read your challenge [prove conclusively what you had for breakfast this morning] I could.
1. Induce vomitting.
2. Look at the vomitus.
3. identify food type foods.
There is no memory involved.
There is no knowledge involved beyond knowledge contained within the question itself. ie
1. That breakfast is food eaten in a particular time frame
2. That food was found to be in me.
3. The "what" is undefined in your question therefore it does not need to be answered, and I can say that the breakfast was in fact, the "what."
4. The only "reason"ing (logic) involved is accepting that that there is an arrow of time which places one event in time relative to another event.

Really? Please explain how logic is based in science ... if it really is, then you ought to be able to show how someone can do science without using logic, and then derive logic from science.

Read again. I said philosophy - not "logic" was based on science.

Practical science has a structure. How that structure functions is called the the Philosophy of Science. However, the act of philosophying about science, absolutely requires that there be some science before being able to start philosophying.

What is that bit of science? That bit is the observation part in the process of science. From that point onwards, philosophy aids science and science feeds philosophers. So closely do the two work, that it appears to be an unsolvable chicken and egg problem.

How does this apply to the orginal god question? I assume* that your god is the be-all-to-end-all. Your god is a fundamental - a fundamental as fundamental as: zero, existance, field, and dimention(s), and time. As such your god is as examinable as quarks and chaos.

*I must assume, because you have not answered my previous question, "What is your definition of "God?"

**Gendo Ikari** · 10-27-2007, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by phild707

Oh yes, and the stats are really fun too!

Astronomers estimate there are about 100 Thousand Million stars in the Milky Way alone. Outside that, there are millions upon millions of other galaxies also!

The late Dr. Carl Sagan once said that there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of planet earth.

Planet earth is one of those that orbit our sun, in a quiet neighbourhood of the Milky Way.

So lets just reduce our planet hypothetically for a moment to a grain of sand and imagine that here we are, infinitely small microbial lifeforms living on the surface of a perfect little blue-green grain of sand on lets say, 7 mile beach, (Tasmania of course!)

One microbe turns to another and asks "How can you prove there is life on any other grain of sand? Show me the evidence!".

Perhaps the 1st microbe is right

This is a very nice visual demonstration of your words Phil - pictures taken from the Hubble telescope.

**Gendo Ikari** · 10-27-2007, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

If you're reading Dennett and Dawkins' books (e.g. "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and "The God Delusion") then I would recommend that you balance their light-weight philosophical meanderings with some proper philosophy.

Suggest you do a Google search for "Library of Christian Philosophy" which will direct you to the Calvin University site ... then search there for Plantinga (Alvin) who is probably the world's foremost Christian philosopher. There are a number of his papers there which pick apart Dennett's and Dawkins' books, either refuting them outright, or else showing that D+D's attempts at refuting Christianity/theism are way wide of the mark.

My assessment of Dawkin's book, without having read it myself, but based on reviews by some serious philosophers, is that it is the philosophical equivalent of a Mills and Boon novel. Extremely lightweight, lacking in substance and clarity.

Dennett's books are quite a bit more substantial than Dawkins, which probably explains why Dawkins is on the best seller list and Plantinga is virtually unheard of outside Christian circles ... most people simply don't to deal with deep thinking and logic.

Hi Frosty,

I agree that Dawkins books have a distinct populist flavour but they provide some semblance of an attempt to balance out the proselytising bible-thumpers who push their own insubstantial arguments in attempting to convert the plebians. The price you pay for being a populist writer is losing the ability to go more than skin-deep - I'd say the Dawkins book is there for those who want an overview but they'd likely want to go deeper to combat more plausible and complex arguments. At any rate, I'd wager very few religious people have read philosophy at more than a superficial level themselves.

Plantinga is an interesting philosopher though, I know vaguely of his contributions to modal logic but his attempts to resurrect the ontological argument remain controversial.

**phild707** · 10-27-2007, 04:10 PM

[quote=Gendo Ikari;1815]This is a very nice visual demonstration of your words Phil - pictures taken from the Hubble telescope.

Thanks Gendo.
I can't wait to see this but unfortunatly I am on dial up at the moment, (in between changing ADSL plans), and paint would dry quicker than it's downloading. (I'll catch it at work on Monday at the latest)
I have heard 3 guitar notes though, and these were enough to convince me that God's guitarist is providing the backing.
Am I right?

Sagan's ideas had a big effect on me - nothing short of life changing really.

**phild707** · 10-27-2007, 06:30 PM

[quote=Gendo Ikari;1815]This is a very nice visual demonstration of your words Phil - pictures taken from the Hubble telescope.

Finally got it downloaded Gendo.
Absolutely awesome.
Everyone should see that clip, especially those that believe in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

**Spiny Norman** · 10-28-2007, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

At the time I read your challenge [prove conclusively what you had for breakfast this morning] I could.
1. Induce vomitting.
2. Look at the vomitus.
3. identify food type foods.
There is no memory involved.

Really? I think you need to think a bit harder about that ... how will you identify the foods involved if you don't use memory?

There is no knowledge involved beyond knowledge contained within the question itself. ie
1. That breakfast is food eaten in a particular time frame
2. That food was found to be in me.

How did the food get there? Perhaps you can establish that without using logic/reason.

Thus far you have failed to establish a scenario whereby you can know what you had for breakfast this morning without using memory and reason ... and you can't use memory or reason without having an a priori philosophical position.

But I would encourage you to keep trying on this front, perhaps you've found a way of doing science that nobody else has thought of yet.

Read again. I said philosophy - not "logic" was based on science.

Practical science has a structure. How that structure functions is called the the Philosophy of Science. However, the act of philosophying about science, absolutely requires that there be some science before being able to start philosophying.

If that is so, then science is based on circular reasoning, thus invalidating it. Perhaps you just need to jettison a bit of scientific baggage and have a good hard think about it again. Decisions about "reality" and the way we acquire knowledge, namely:

-- observation/perception;
-- memory; and
-- reason/logic

must be decided before anybody can do any science whatsoever. Those decisions are philosophical, not scientific. Ergo, those three things cannot depend on science.

Iconoclast, unless we can get past this very basic philosophical point, there is nothing that can be gained on any other discussion topic. Can I encourage you please to think very carefully about your basic philosophical assumptions and how they relate to acquisition of knowledge (including so-called scientific knowledge) before you post again. This is potentially an interesting discussion point and I would like to deal with it properly before attempting to move on to anything else.

**Spiny Norman** · 10-28-2007, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari

I agree that Dawkins books have a distinct populist flavour but they provide some semblance of an attempt to balance out the proselytising bible-thumpers who push their own insubstantial arguments in attempting to convert the plebians. The price you pay for being a populist writer is losing the ability to go more than skin-deep - I'd say the Dawkins book is there for those who want an overview but they'd likely want to go deeper to combat more plausible and complex arguments. At any rate, I'd wager very few religious people have read philosophy at more than a superficial level themselves.

Most people ... whether plebians, bible-thumpers, scientists, your average citizen ... most people do not ever question what is fed to them as "fact" by authority figures, nor do they ever sit down and think through basic philosophical questions. So I agree that very few religious people have read philosophy at more than a superficial level (I am in that category myself perhaps). But I think that this is true of ALL people, not just religious people, therefore the distinction of adding the word "religious" is unnecessary.

Plantinga is an interesting philosopher though, I know vaguely of his contributions to modal logic but his attempts to resurrect the ontological argument remain controversial.

I've now read two of his books and a few of his papers. What I have learned from reading Plantinga (and others) is that a lot of stuff that is trotted out as refutation of alternative points of view (including some very common objections to Christianity) aren't nearly so clear as they are made out to be.

By talking to a number of students of philosophy (friends at my chess club, one of whom specialised in philosophy of science, and so on) I have substantially broadened my understanding of what makes me "tick" and have gained a fresh appreciation of other's views.

But Dawkins is just too shrill, shallow and populist for my reading tastes.

**Just2Good** · 10-28-2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

By talking to a number of students of philosophy (friends at my chess club, one of whom specialised in philosophy of science, and so on) I have substantially broadened my understanding of what makes me "tick" and have gained a fresh appreciation of other's views.

This sounds like something I'd find in a covering letter accompanying a CV for a role in a University's Philosophy Dept.

**phild707** · 10-28-2007, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

Most people ... whether plebians, bible-thumpers, scientists, your average citizen ...

Just as a matter of interest...
What's the difference between a plebian and "your average citizen"??

**Just2Good** · 10-28-2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by phild707

Finally got it downloaded Gendo.
Absolutely awesome.
Everyone should see that clip, especially those that believe in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Its a great clip - I fully agree! Terrific find Gendo. But Phil, rather than eroding the theory that God exists, I think this clip strengthens it immeasurably.

AO

**Iconoclast** · 10-28-2007, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

Iconoclast, unless we can get past this very basic philosophical point, there is nothing that can be gained on any other discussion topic.

You are right, and the rest of your post is worth replying to too. I suggest we start again. My mistake was to be arguing at two levels at the same time. At the two levels one word can have two different meaning/usages. Much confusion.

At one level - fundamental - I am saying that there must be elements before for there to be process. I do not care what elements you start with - god, bigbang, time-space, fields, whatever. It is always eventually subordinated to logic applied to observations.

At another level - practical - there must be an observation before there can be a hypothesis. It is at THIS level that we live/breath/eat/fornicate. The fundamental level will/must become subsummed by the complexities of emergent properties of matter and energy.

In the real world, we battle to get on with life, we find patterns and use that information to chart a course for ourselves. Sometimes we have time to peer deepy into those patterns (using science) to find the ultimate source of those patterns. That is, we look for the fundamentals.

OK, that is where I am at. I use science to determine the fundamental elements of the universe. I do not use invented fundamentals of the universe to colour what science tells us.

If you wish to defend your god from oblivion, start by tell me what effect god has on matter and energy in time-space.

**Gendo Ikari** · 10-29-2007, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Its a great clip - I fully agree! Terrific find Gendo. But Phil, rather than eroding the theory that God exists, I think this clip strengthens it immeasurably.

AO

I'd say the Hubble deep field could feasibly support a teleological argument for a creator/god due to the immeasurable vastness and complexity of our universe that the pictures show.

Perhaps Phil would argue however the pictures equally show the insignificance of humanity in such a grand scheme and how we may well fallaciously attribute epistemological 'religious experiences' to a conceptual being as a way of accounting for unexplained phenomena. Perhaps he can elucidate further though.

**Iconoclast** · 10-29-2007, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari

... how we may well fallaciously attribute epistemological 'religious experiences' to a conceptual being as a way of accounting for unexplained phenomena.

I will translate that into English.

We think our own awe at amazing stuff proves that the "god(s) of the gaps" is really out there working miracles.

**blank frank** · 10-30-2007, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I have a question (an easy one). What is your definition of "God?" I need a target.

I think this is a really important question because without a clear idea of what we're talking about anyone can hide behind the 'word' without ever really being called to account. In fact, any discussion about 'God' is completely meaningless unless its defined because until it is defined it really remains just a word, an emotive word at that. It clearly means different things to different people.

A word is simply a human description and is nothing until it is properly defined. It cannot be examined because it's nature is ephemeral. The problem is that nobody knows anything about 'GOD' in order to provide definition. And most worshippers would be far to humble to presume to know his presence. Therefore we fall into an intellectual vacuum, where 'God' simply becomes a word, who's presence relies on pure faith and there is little more that anyone can say.

10-27-2007, 12:28 PM	#31 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Conclusively? What degree of conclusivity would suffice? Just use scientific evidence (observation) without resorting to memory or reason (which are two non-scientific knowledge sources). Originally Posted by Iconoclast You have it the wrong way around. Practical philosophy must be based in science, not the other way around. Really? Please explain how logic is based in science ... if it really is, then you ought to be able to show how someone can do science without using logic, and then derive logic from science. Good luck with that. My suggestion is write a book on that topic ... like Dawkins and Dennett, you'll make a fortune!

10-27-2007, 02:01 PM	#32 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by frosty Just use scientific evidence (observation) without resorting to memory or reason (which are two non-scientific knowledge sources). At the time I read your challenge [prove conclusively what you had for breakfast this morning] I could. 1. Induce vomitting. 2. Look at the vomitus. 3. identify food type foods. There is no memory involved. There is no knowledge involved beyond knowledge contained within the question itself. ie 1. That breakfast is food eaten in a particular time frame 2. That food was found to be in me. 3. The "what" is undefined in your question therefore it does not need to be answered, and I can say that the breakfast was in fact, the "what." 4. The only "reason"ing (logic) involved is accepting that that there is an arrow of time which places one event in time relative to another event. Really? Please explain how logic is based in science ... if it really is, then you ought to be able to show how someone can do science without using logic, and then derive logic from science. Read again. I said philosophy - not "logic" was based on science. Practical science has a structure. How that structure functions is called the the Philosophy of Science. However, the act of philosophying about science, absolutely requires that there be some science before being able to start philosophying. What is that bit of science? That bit is the observation part in the process of science. From that point onwards, philosophy aids science and science feeds philosophers. So closely do the two work, that it appears to be an unsolvable chicken and egg problem. How does this apply to the orginal god question? I assume* that your god is the be-all-to-end-all. Your god is a fundamental - a fundamental as fundamental as: zero, existance, field, and dimention(s), and time. As such your god is as examinable as quarks and chaos. *I must assume, because you have not answered my previous question, "What is your definition of "God?" __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

10-27-2007, 02:26 PM	#33 (permalink)
Gendo Ikari Director Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 99	Originally Posted by phild707 Oh yes, and the stats are really fun too! Astronomers estimate there are about 100 Thousand Million stars in the Milky Way alone. Outside that, there are millions upon millions of other galaxies also! The late Dr. Carl Sagan once said that there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of planet earth. Planet earth is one of those that orbit our sun, in a quiet neighbourhood of the Milky Way. So lets just reduce our planet hypothetically for a moment to a grain of sand and imagine that here we are, infinitely small microbial lifeforms living on the surface of a perfect little blue-green grain of sand on lets say, 7 mile beach, (Tasmania of course!) One microbe turns to another and asks "How can you prove there is life on any other grain of sand? Show me the evidence!". Perhaps the 1st microbe is right This is a very nice visual demonstration of your words Phil - pictures taken from the Hubble telescope.

10-27-2007, 03:11 PM	#34 (permalink)
Gendo Ikari Director Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 99	Originally Posted by frosty If you're reading Dennett and Dawkins' books (e.g. "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and "The God Delusion") then I would recommend that you balance their light-weight philosophical meanderings with some proper philosophy. Suggest you do a Google search for "Library of Christian Philosophy" which will direct you to the Calvin University site ... then search there for Plantinga (Alvin) who is probably the world's foremost Christian philosopher. There are a number of his papers there which pick apart Dennett's and Dawkins' books, either refuting them outright, or else showing that D+D's attempts at refuting Christianity/theism are way wide of the mark. My assessment of Dawkin's book, without having read it myself, but based on reviews by some serious philosophers, is that it is the philosophical equivalent of a Mills and Boon novel. Extremely lightweight, lacking in substance and clarity. Dennett's books are quite a bit more substantial than Dawkins, which probably explains why Dawkins is on the best seller list and Plantinga is virtually unheard of outside Christian circles ... most people simply don't to deal with deep thinking and logic. Hi Frosty, I agree that Dawkins books have a distinct populist flavour but they provide some semblance of an attempt to balance out the proselytising bible-thumpers who push their own insubstantial arguments in attempting to convert the plebians. The price you pay for being a populist writer is losing the ability to go more than skin-deep - I'd say the Dawkins book is there for those who want an overview but they'd likely want to go deeper to combat more plausible and complex arguments. At any rate, I'd wager very few religious people have read philosophy at more than a superficial level themselves. Plantinga is an interesting philosopher though, I know vaguely of his contributions to modal logic but his attempts to resurrect the ontological argument remain controversial.

10-27-2007, 04:10 PM	#35 (permalink)
phild707 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Burnie International Airport Posts: 298	[quote=Gendo Ikari;1815]This is a very nice visual demonstration of your words Phil - pictures taken from the Hubble telescope. Thanks Gendo. I can't wait to see this but unfortunatly I am on dial up at the moment, (in between changing ADSL plans), and paint would dry quicker than it's downloading. (I'll catch it at work on Monday at the latest) I have heard 3 guitar notes though, and these were enough to convince me that God's guitarist is providing the backing. Am I right? Sagan's ideas had a big effect on me - nothing short of life changing really. __________________ "It ain't no sin if you crack a few laws now and then, just so long as you don't break any." Mae West Last edited by phild707 : 10-27-2007 at 04:22 PM

10-27-2007, 06:30 PM	#36 (permalink)
phild707 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Burnie International Airport Posts: 298	[quote=Gendo Ikari;1815]This is a very nice visual demonstration of your words Phil - pictures taken from the Hubble telescope. Finally got it downloaded Gendo. Absolutely awesome. Everyone should see that clip, especially those that believe in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. __________________ "It ain't no sin if you crack a few laws now and then, just so long as you don't break any." Mae West

10-28-2007, 09:15 AM	#37 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast At the time I read your challenge [prove conclusively what you had for breakfast this morning] I could. 1. Induce vomitting. 2. Look at the vomitus. 3. identify food type foods. There is no memory involved. Really? I think you need to think a bit harder about that ... how will you identify the foods involved if you don't use memory? There is no knowledge involved beyond knowledge contained within the question itself. ie 1. That breakfast is food eaten in a particular time frame 2. That food was found to be in me. How did the food get there? Perhaps you can establish that without using logic/reason. Thus far you have failed to establish a scenario whereby you can know what you had for breakfast this morning without using memory and reason ... and you can't use memory or reason without having an a priori philosophical position. But I would encourage you to keep trying on this front, perhaps you've found a way of doing science that nobody else has thought of yet. Read again. I said philosophy - not "logic" was based on science. Practical science has a structure. How that structure functions is called the the Philosophy of Science. However, the act of philosophying about science, absolutely requires that there be some science before being able to start philosophying. If that is so, then science is based on circular reasoning, thus invalidating it. Perhaps you just need to jettison a bit of scientific baggage and have a good hard think about it again. Decisions about "reality" and the way we acquire knowledge, namely: -- observation/perception; -- memory; and -- reason/logic must be decided before anybody can do any science whatsoever. Those decisions are philosophical, not scientific. Ergo, those three things cannot depend on science. Iconoclast, unless we can get past this very basic philosophical point, there is nothing that can be gained on any other discussion topic. Can I encourage you please to think very carefully about your basic philosophical assumptions and how they relate to acquisition of knowledge (including so-called scientific knowledge) before you post again. This is potentially an interesting discussion point and I would like to deal with it properly before attempting to move on to anything else.

10-28-2007, 09:25 AM	#38 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari I agree that Dawkins books have a distinct populist flavour but they provide some semblance of an attempt to balance out the proselytising bible-thumpers who push their own insubstantial arguments in attempting to convert the plebians. The price you pay for being a populist writer is losing the ability to go more than skin-deep - I'd say the Dawkins book is there for those who want an overview but they'd likely want to go deeper to combat more plausible and complex arguments. At any rate, I'd wager very few religious people have read philosophy at more than a superficial level themselves. Most people ... whether plebians, bible-thumpers, scientists, your average citizen ... most people do not ever question what is fed to them as "fact" by authority figures, nor do they ever sit down and think through basic philosophical questions. So I agree that very few religious people have read philosophy at more than a superficial level (I am in that category myself perhaps). But I think that this is true of ALL people, not just religious people, therefore the distinction of adding the word "religious" is unnecessary. Plantinga is an interesting philosopher though, I know vaguely of his contributions to modal logic but his attempts to resurrect the ontological argument remain controversial. I've now read two of his books and a few of his papers. What I have learned from reading Plantinga (and others) is that a lot of stuff that is trotted out as refutation of alternative points of view (including some very common objections to Christianity) aren't nearly so clear as they are made out to be. By talking to a number of students of philosophy (friends at my chess club, one of whom specialised in philosophy of science, and so on) I have substantially broadened my understanding of what makes me "tick" and have gained a fresh appreciation of other's views. But Dawkins is just too shrill, shallow and populist for my reading tastes.

10-28-2007, 03:49 PM	#39 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by frosty By talking to a number of students of philosophy (friends at my chess club, one of whom specialised in philosophy of science, and so on) I have substantially broadened my understanding of what makes me "tick" and have gained a fresh appreciation of other's views. This sounds like something I'd find in a covering letter accompanying a CV for a role in a University's Philosophy Dept. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

10-28-2007, 04:59 PM	#40 (permalink)
phild707 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Burnie International Airport Posts: 298	Originally Posted by frosty Most people ... whether plebians, bible-thumpers, scientists, your average citizen ... Just as a matter of interest... What's the difference between a plebian and "your average citizen"?? __________________ "It ain't no sin if you crack a few laws now and then, just so long as you don't break any." Mae West

10-28-2007, 05:19 PM	#41 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Best Clip Yet Originally Posted by phild707 Finally got it downloaded Gendo. Absolutely awesome. Everyone should see that clip, especially those that believe in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Its a great clip - I fully agree! Terrific find Gendo. But Phil, rather than eroding the theory that God exists, I think this clip strengthens it immeasurably. AO __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

10-28-2007, 07:53 PM	#42 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by frosty Iconoclast, unless we can get past this very basic philosophical point, there is nothing that can be gained on any other discussion topic. You are right, and the rest of your post is worth replying to too. I suggest we start again. My mistake was to be arguing at two levels at the same time. At the two levels one word can have two different meaning/usages. Much confusion. At one level - fundamental - I am saying that there must be elements before for there to be process. I do not care what elements you start with - god, bigbang, time-space, fields, whatever. It is always eventually subordinated to logic applied to observations. At another level - practical - there must be an observation before there can be a hypothesis. It is at THIS level that we live/breath/eat/fornicate. The fundamental level will/must become subsummed by the complexities of emergent properties of matter and energy. In the real world, we battle to get on with life, we find patterns and use that information to chart a course for ourselves. Sometimes we have time to peer deepy into those patterns (using science) to find the ultimate source of those patterns. That is, we look for the fundamentals. OK, that is where I am at. I use science to determine the fundamental elements of the universe. I do not use invented fundamentals of the universe to colour what science tells us. If you wish to defend your god from oblivion, start by tell me what effect god has on matter and energy in time-space. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

10-29-2007, 02:49 PM	#43 (permalink)
Gendo Ikari Director Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 99	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Its a great clip - I fully agree! Terrific find Gendo. But Phil, rather than eroding the theory that God exists, I think this clip strengthens it immeasurably. AO I'd say the Hubble deep field could feasibly support a teleological argument for a creator/god due to the immeasurable vastness and complexity of our universe that the pictures show. Perhaps Phil would argue however the pictures equally show the insignificance of humanity in such a grand scheme and how we may well fallaciously attribute epistemological 'religious experiences' to a conceptual being as a way of accounting for unexplained phenomena. Perhaps he can elucidate further though.

10-29-2007, 04:24 PM	#44 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari ... how we may well fallaciously attribute epistemological 'religious experiences' to a conceptual being as a way of accounting for unexplained phenomena. I will translate that into English. We think our own awe at amazing stuff proves that the "god(s) of the gaps" is really out there working miracles. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

10-30-2007, 12:33 AM	#45 (permalink)
blank frank Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 70	Originally Posted by Iconoclast I have a question (an easy one). What is your definition of "God?" I need a target. I think this is a really important question because without a clear idea of what we're talking about anyone can hide behind the 'word' without ever really being called to account. In fact, any discussion about 'God' is completely meaningless unless its defined because until it is defined it really remains just a word, an emotive word at that. It clearly means different things to different people. A word is simply a human description and is nothing until it is properly defined. It cannot be examined because it's nature is ephemeral. The problem is that nobody knows anything about 'GOD' in order to provide definition. And most worshippers would be far to humble to presume to know his presence. Therefore we fall into an intellectual vacuum, where 'God' simply becomes a word, who's presence relies on pure faith and there is little more that anyone can say.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: