|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,399 Likes: 808
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,399 Likes: 808 |
Quote:
Quote:
Also we'd be Steelers fans if we were born and raised in Pittsburgh
That is the most disturbing thought in this thread 
Hey everybody! Picksburg's on!!
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
It would be fair to say 99.99% of religious people aren't basing their beliefs because of a vast understanding of Poppers falsification and the problem of induction right?
The main philosophical question in so far as naturalism would be concerned (especially question 3) is how do you determine truth from falsehood. I'm not much of a philosopher, scientist, or philosopher of science, but I tend to go with empirical evidence.
If there are deities out there controlling things I personally think they are jerks for punishing humanity by not leaving a scrap of credible tangible evidence for their existence which we can comprehend.
It seems like typing about religion doesn't do much but a lot of "I think this, well I think this!". So here is my futile, I think this! statement. Generally I think people are cultural sponges and religion is an ethical framework / cultural laws with deities tossed in for added oomph. I think anyone here who was born in America would be a Hindu if they were born in India, a Muslim if they were born in Saudi Arabia, an Atheist if they were born in China or to an Atheist family wherever, a Buddhist if they were born in Thailand, and some sort of animalist if they were born in a tribe in the middle of the jungle. Also we'd be Steelers fans if we were born and raised in Pittsburgh 
I think God has given us plenty of evidence. The light is shining but many do not receive it.
It is funny how people say that scientists do not operate under any presuppositions. Philosophical naturalism and uniformitarianism are two presuppositions to begin with.
I want someone to tell me where the singularity that became the physical universe came from. Did it create itself, or is it eternal? Can you answer that?
If the universe is eternal like Draftdayz said, is it not uncaused? Do you think the universe in it's earliest state was uncaused, and later became subject to the law of cause and effect? And where did that law and all other laws come from. The physical universe has basically been crowned "the uncaused causer" now. Yet what can we observe in our day that is physical/material that is demonstratably causeless and eternal. I think the notion of an eternal, causeless physical universe is unscientific. So is the notion of a universe creating itself. That which does not yet exist cannot create. Therefore, you have the question of the origin of existence, which science cannot answer because it discards the only rational explanation.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/14/14 03:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
Quote:
Quote:
It would be fair to say 99.99% of religious people aren't basing their beliefs because of a vast understanding of Poppers falsification and the problem of induction right?
The main philosophical question in so far as naturalism would be concerned (especially question 3) is how do you determine truth from falsehood. I'm not much of a philosopher, scientist, or philosopher of science, but I tend to go with empirical evidence.
If there are deities out there controlling things I personally think they are jerks for punishing humanity by not leaving a scrap of credible tangible evidence for their existence which we can comprehend.
It seems like typing about religion doesn't do much but a lot of "I think this, well I think this!". So here is my futile, I think this! statement. Generally I think people are cultural sponges and religion is an ethical framework / cultural laws with deities tossed in for added oomph. I think anyone here who was born in America would be a Hindu if they were born in India, a Muslim if they were born in Saudi Arabia, an Atheist if they were born in China or to an Atheist family wherever, a Buddhist if they were born in Thailand, and some sort of animalist if they were born in a tribe in the middle of the jungle. Also we'd be Steelers fans if we were born and raised in Pittsburgh
I think God has given us plenty of evidence. The light is shining but many do not receive it.
Examples?
I'd be stunned and very happy if you could actually back up that statement with something concrete. If only to save the billions of heathens on earth who can't see the shining light you claim to see.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It would be fair to say 99.99% of religious people aren't basing their beliefs because of a vast understanding of Poppers falsification and the problem of induction right?
The main philosophical question in so far as naturalism would be concerned (especially question 3) is how do you determine truth from falsehood. I'm not much of a philosopher, scientist, or philosopher of science, but I tend to go with empirical evidence.
If there are deities out there controlling things I personally think they are jerks for punishing humanity by not leaving a scrap of credible tangible evidence for their existence which we can comprehend.
It seems like typing about religion doesn't do much but a lot of "I think this, well I think this!". So here is my futile, I think this! statement. Generally I think people are cultural sponges and religion is an ethical framework / cultural laws with deities tossed in for added oomph. I think anyone here who was born in America would be a Hindu if they were born in India, a Muslim if they were born in Saudi Arabia, an Atheist if they were born in China or to an Atheist family wherever, a Buddhist if they were born in Thailand, and some sort of animalist if they were born in a tribe in the middle of the jungle. Also we'd be Steelers fans if we were born and raised in Pittsburgh
I think God has given us plenty of evidence. The light is shining but many do not receive it.
Examples?
I'd be stunned and very happy if you could actually back up that statement with something concrete. If only to save the billions of heathens on earth who can't see the shining light you claim to see.
Answer the questions I asked you in my last post, and you may come to the answer to your question on your own.
If not...
Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
BTW...are you game enough to answer any of my questions?
Do you think the universe is eternal?
Or do you think it created itself?
Do you think that the physical universe is uncaused and not acted upon by anything outside of itself?
Does this make the universe "self existent"?
Can you point to anything in the physical universe that can scientifically be demonstrated to be uncaused, self existent, or eternal? Please be specific.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/14/14 04:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8 |
Quote:
If you don't think scientists use presuppositions to come to their conclusions, then you have blinders on.
Questions...
1. Is the universe eternal or did it create itself?
2. What evidence do you have to show that nothing exists beyond the natural world?
3. Do you agree with this quote?
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’ Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
4. What is your definition of naturalism as a philosophy?
Blinders or not, scientist have relied more on tested and proven as much as possible evidence whereas intelligent design is 100% faith based with 0 evidence.
Regardless of the accusation that scientist have "come to conclusions" it's more accurate to say scientist continually test evidence in an attempt to invalidate or validate what others may believe. It's a WIN!! when a scientist disproves another, much in the way that real scientist continually and thoroughly disprove "paid for" scientists claiming fossil fuels are safe.
It's the creationist and the intelligent design folks who have "come to conclusions" based on zero evidence,
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
If you don't think scientists use presuppositions to come to their conclusions, then you have blinders on.
Questions...
1. Is the universe eternal or did it create itself?
2. What evidence do you have to show that nothing exists beyond the natural world?
3. Do you agree with this quote?
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’ Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
4. What is your definition of naturalism as a philosophy?
Blinders or not, scientist have relied more on tested and proven as much as possible evidence whereas intelligent design is 100% faith based with 0 evidence.
Regardless of the accusation that scientist have "come to conclusions" it's more accurate to say scientist continually test evidence in an attempt to invalidate or validate what others may believe. It's a WIN!! when a scientist disproves another, much in the way that real scientist continually and thoroughly disprove "paid for" scientists claiming fossil fuels are safe.
It's the creationist and the intelligent design folks who have "come to conclusions" based on zero evidence,
My beef is not with science, I like a lot of scientists.
My beef is with "naturalism". I do not think that the tenets of naturalism can be proven, yet they are foundational to much of what is called science today.
Scientists like Newton, Pasteur, and others begin with a presupposition that the universe could be understood because it is orderly, and that the reason why it was orderly and rational is because it was created by a rational God. Many scientists today see the universe as the result of random chance, and the claims of naturalism ammounts to saying that the universe is "self existent".
I don't know how physical matter and energy can be self existent. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Now then, do you believe the universe is eternal or that it created itself? Please let me know.
Do you think the physical universe is eternal, self existent, and uncaused?
Please let me know.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/14/14 04:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
I don't understand your quote from Romans. I'm not sure why you posted it when I asked for compelling evidence. I'm not interested in debates about the origins of the universe. It's existence and cause are a mystery to me and I don't want to pretend I have any answers about them. My amateur understanding is that these debates have happened for centuries going back as far as "if there is no God then why does it rain?" And science has continued to find answers to those questions. For all I know my being a Christian would offend the true god Vishnu. They've given me equal reason to believe in them. I'd rather not delve into deep philosophical semi scientific debates when the fact of the matter is there is no clear empirical evidence to guide our beliefs about supernatural beings. Oh right, and the uh thread topic had something to do with Christians and America. Uhhh briefly put, people want to use power for their own advantages. Not really anything specific to Christians about it. I believe the Middle East has a lot of people trying to push Sharia law and it is followed closely in some places. Side note...never visit those places, we're filthy apostates
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
I don't understand your quote from Romans. I'm not sure why you posted it when I asked for compelling evidence.
I'm not interested in debates about the origins of the universe. It's existence and cause are a mystery to me and I don't want to pretend I have any answers about them. My amateur understanding is that these debates have happened for centuries going back as far as "if there is no God then why does it rain?" And science has continued to find answers to those questions.
For all I know my being a Christian would offend the true god Vishnu. They've given me equal reason to believe in them. I'd rather not delve into deep philosophical semi scientific debates when the fact of the matter is there is no clear empirical evidence to guide our beliefs about supernatural beings.
Oh right, and the uh thread topic had something to do with Christians and America. Uhhh briefly put, people want to use power for their own advantages. Not really anything specific to Christians about it. I believe the Middle East has a lot of people trying to push Sharia law and it is followed closely in some places. Side note...never visit those places, we're filthy apostates
So then I take it that you do not hold to "naturalism", for naturalism does indeed present the universe as "self existent". If you do not believe that the universe is self existent, you need to know that much of what you are accepting from Scientists as fact is based on a "naturalistic framework".
I am also a layman like you, but I have never heard a satisfactory answer from naturalists regarding the origin of the universe. Yet how many scientists claim that the universe is self existent? How many agree with Draftdayz that the universe is eternal? IF the universe is eternal, then it would be self existent by definition, so you have to ask yourself the question "do I really believe that the universe is self existent?"
If people want to believe that, fine. I''m just pointing out that that is the only logical conclusion to the position that naturalists are taking.
As far as the OP, I was originally replying to an early post, (the second post) and it continued from there.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/14/14 04:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
So, today I was Skype with some of my family back in Turkey, and like always, my religious belief came up. I'm Christian. All of my family in turkey is Muslim. My dad is Muslim, but my mother is Christian. He didn't force my mother to convert. Just to give you guys some background.
Anyways, after explaining why I chose Christianity, they changed the subject, and asked why do Americans feel that Christians are being attacked in America, where we have freedom to express whatever we please, unlike most other countries. My aunt asked if we are suppose to be a free country, from religion, and that we have no national religion like other countries, why do Christians feel the need to force their religion on others with regard to politics.
I made the argument that Muslims do it as well In Arabic nations, which then she replied "but we are alresdy a Muslim nation, America doesn't belong to any religion, it's suppose to be neutral from all religions"
I didn't have a counter for that. Then I saw riley01 little shot in a thread that had nothing to do with religion, and it had me thinking.
Why DO Christians cry foul whenever they feel like their religion is being attacked, yet have no problem trying to tell Muslims how to live?
Why do Christians deem Muslims evil in our country, while thing to FORCE federal policies because of religious beliefs on the American people?
Why are Christians in this country so ignorant about the fact that when we as Americans go to the Middle East, specifically defending Israel, we just throw our hat in a holy war, then turn around and cry that Muslims hate America?
Since I have not addressed the OP, I will do so here.
I do not think Christians try to force their religious beliefs on people politically. If I vote against something because it is counter to my beliefs, then that is my constitutional right.
I do not see Christianity as a religion, I see it as a lifestyle. So to say that I impose my beliefs on others because I vote the way I do based on what I believe, then the same holds true for everyone, for we all vote according to what we believe and our worldviews, whether we be Christians, Theists, naturalists, modernists, conservatives, liberals, etc.
To say that I am forcing my beliefs on others is the same as if I said liberals were forcing their beliefs on me by the way they vote.
Secondly, I am not anti muslim. Nevertheless, because I believe the Gospel of the New Testament is the only way to eternal life, and since Islam denies the teachings of the Old and New Testament, I see Islam as a false religion, just as many see my faith as false. This is also my constitutional right.
I also see Islamic terrorists as evil, just as I see nominal "Christians" (that is Christian in name only), kill and hate in the name of God. Murder and hating our neighbor is evil, no matter what religious system or political idealogy you hold to.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/14/14 04:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
j/c
after reading the last couple pages, I feel compelled to make note that it is my belief that science is simply a study of God's creation and I am often baffled that people on both sides of these debates often do not believe science and religion can co-exist (and in fact, I believe they SHOULD co-exist).
now, carry-on...
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
j/c
after reading the last couple pages, I feel compelled to make note that it is my belief that science is simply a study of God's creation and I am often baffled that people on both sides of these debates often do not believe science and religion can co-exist (and in fact, I believe they SHOULD co-exist).
now, carry-on...
Amen.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Yes, I would agree with you, and so would many scientists both past and present. Science is good. It's philosophican naturalism that I have an issue with. Can you believe in God and believe in this... Quote:
Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only laws of nature (physical law) (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) and forces operate in the world; the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
This type of naturalism is both unbiblical (because it contradicts the Bible) and unscientific (because it cannot be proven, observed, tested, etc)
This is a positive assertion (nothing exists beyond the universe). Is this science or philosophy? If it is science, where is the concrete evidence?
Naturalism is just as much a belief system as theism, and this belief system is the framework for much of what many so called "experts" call "fact",Carl Sagon for example.
They say theism leads to dead ends. The actual truth is that naturalism as defined above leads to the biggest dead end of all, because it cannot answer the question of "origins"
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/14/14 06:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Yes, you certainly can though I suspect it difficult for many who profess those beliefs. It would simply be staying that God and heaven are in the natural order and we have not discovered them. Given how vast and potentially infinite things are too us, I do not find that unreasonable.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
If you don't think scientists use presuppositions to come to their conclusions, then you have blinders on.
Questions...
1. Is the universe eternal or did it create itself?
2. What evidence do you have to show that nothing exists beyond the natural world?
3. Do you agree with this quote?
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’ Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
4. What is your definition of naturalism as a philosophy?
One, I am a scientist, and whenever I'm going about the task of trying to discover how a certain gene is interacting with others I'm basing my experiments off of previous facts that have held up to scrutiny within the community. There is no presupposition occurring when I do this. I'm not making baseless assumptions about the system I'm probing, and then working from there, I'm making extremely educated about the different outcomes that could occur. Now, if you want to say I hypothesize before doing my experiment, I'll agree wholeheartedly. That's part of the scientific method. Based off of an observation of interest, you need to come up with readily disprovable outcomes based off of the experiment. My hypotheses are usually specific, concise, and directly predicts an outcome of an experiment; "Treatment increases protein levels in normal chow fed mice," for instance.
This is how Newton came to his conclusions about gravitation, Galileo his improvements to telescopes that led to his ability to prove heliocentricism, and Faraday his description of electromagnetism. Especially Faraday. He more than the other two was a bench scientist through and through. He was a great experimentalist, and because of that he helped bring about the electric culture we have today. They didn't assume something totally off the wall and work from that, they stood on the shoulders of the predecessors and used the knowledge that had been borne out through the decades to make the strides that got our civilization to where we are today.
Questions:
Philosophical Naturalism is the idea that everything we observe can be explained through natural mechanisms. It's a belief that states no outside force is required to shape the things happening in nature.
As far as astrophysicists can tell, the universe is indeed eternal and ever-expanding. Unless you have something new to bring to the discussion? The universe was created through some unknown means, but probably occurred when specific things occurred in this proto-universe that caused the rapid expansion we know as the big bang.
There is no evidence that anything exists outside the natural, if there were, we'd be able to see it and not explain it. When was the last time something like that occurred?
As for the quote, you really should include the previous and latter sentence, you'll see he's talking about methodological naturalism, not philosophical. Here's the quote in full: Quote:
Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.
This was a letter to the editor in regards to the 1999 Kansas BoE decision to not require evolution to be taught in science classrooms. So yes, I do agree with the sentiment that you can believe whatever the heck you want outside the confines of the lab, but within it you can't fall back on "God did it" and hope to answer any questions about our world accurately.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
So then I take it that you do not hold to "naturalism", for naturalism does indeed present the universe as "self existent". If you do not believe that the universe is self existent, you need to know that much of what you are accepting from Scientists as fact is based on a "naturalistic framework".
Please describe an alternate framework by which to analyze our world that shows as much promise as the scientific method paired with a naturalistic methodology.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,365 Likes: 454
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,365 Likes: 454 |
Quote:
j/c
after reading the last couple pages, I feel compelled to make note that it is my belief that science is simply a study of God's creation and I am often baffled that people on both sides of these debates often do not believe science and religion can co-exist (and in fact, I believe they SHOULD co-exist).
now, carry-on...
This has long been my feeling on the matter. Why would God create everything using some means other than the means He uses to continue to create parts of the universe, and maintain it?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
So then I take it that you do not hold to "naturalism", for naturalism does indeed present the universe as "self existent". If you do not believe that the universe is self existent, you need to know that much of what you are accepting from Scientists as fact is based on a "naturalistic framework".
Please describe an alternate framework by which to analyze our world that shows as much promise as the scientific method paired with a naturalistic methodology.
I was not addressing naturalism as a methodology, rather I was addressing naturalism as a philosophy,
In a series of articles and books from 1996 onward, Robert T. Pennock wrote using the term "methodological naturalism" to clarify that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29
If you want to use "methodological naturalism", then neither the existence nor the non existence of God should be your presupposition. Methodological naturalism excludes atheistic presuppositions just as much as theistic ones, right?
Yet many who call themselves scientists, many in education, etc. do not have a neutral view on the existence or non existence of God, but are very dogmatically "naturalistic:" in the sense that "the Kosmos is all there is or ever will be". In saying dogmatically that there is nothing outside of nature, they are going beyond "methodological naturalism, and are operating under metaphysical naturallism.
So a better way would be to study science from a neutral position and see if it leads to an intelligent designer or a self existent universe.
Yet you still havent told me how the universe could possibly be self existent.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/15/14 01:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
As far as astrophysicists can tell, the universe is indeed eternal and ever-expanding. Unless you have something new to bring to the discussion? The universe was created through some unknown means, but probably occurred when specific things occurred in this proto-universe that caused the rapid expansion we know as the big bang.
Would you care to explain how the universe can be both eternal and created? What exactly is your definition of "eternal".
...and you just said the universe was created through some unknown means. So we both agree that the universe was created. That's a start.
You said the universe was created when specific things happened in the proto universe. How was the proto universe created?
Or was the proto universe eternal...ie HAVING NO BEGINNING OR END.
Was the proto universe SELF EXISTENT?
Does anything exist that is self existent? (ie existing independantly of any cause, or having an independant existence?
It appears that the universe is not self existent, because it depended on a protouniverse and "certain events" to come into being. Was the proto universe independant of cause, or was it also dependant on something earlier and other certain events to come into being.
Do you believe in infinite regression?
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/15/14 01:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
How did God come to be? Who created the creator? And here we go!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,281 Likes: 631
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,281 Likes: 631 |
It is tough to believe in things you don't understand isn't it?
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Are you trying to admit to something? I get that the Bible says that God is not part of our reality. He is eternal, etc., etc., but that's what -- some of us -- would call a "cop out". I really didn't post this to get into some fight about whether or not the Abrahamic God is real or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,281 Likes: 631
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,281 Likes: 631 |
I admit 100 percent that I believe in God and that I do not understand a lot of things. I was simply making a statement bro. Feel free to either agree or disagree with it.  No need to feel defensive
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 148
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 148 |
Quote:
There is no evidence that anything exists outside the natural, if there were, we'd be able to see it and not explain it. When was the last time something like that occurred?
Really explain this
Boom Jesus Toast
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Looks like Joe Walsh toast to me.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
There is no evidence that anything exists outside the natural, if there were, we'd be able to see it and not explain it. When was the last time something like that occurred?
As Albert Einstein said, "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle."
See you look at the natural and wait for a miracle to disrupt it, I look at the natural and think, this IS the miracle.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
There is no evidence that anything exists outside the natural, if there were, we'd be able to see it and not explain it. When was the last time something like that occurred?
As Albert Einstein said, "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle."
See you look at the natural and wait for a miracle to disrupt it, I look at the natural and think, this IS the miracle.
Exactly. Look at the intricacies of the human eye and how it came to be and how it was placed on the human body. The science behind it is truly a miracle.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
How did God come to be? Who created the creator? And here we go!
You have three options...
a. The universe created itself.
b. The universe is eternal, (without beginning, causeless, and self existent)
c. Someone outside the physical universe created the universe.
Something that does not exist cannot create. Therefore, it is logically impossible for the universe to have created itself. You can say the universe was created through certain events that occurred within the proto universe, but then there has to be a cause to explain the protouniverse as well as the causes, and then a cause for those causes, etc leading to infinite regression.
There are only two options...either the physical universe is self existent, uncaused and without a beginning, or it was created by a self existent, uncaused being outside of it.
I don't think science can prove that the universe is self existent any more than it can prove that God is exists. Both theism and metaphysical naturalism are belief systems. Too bad metaphysical naturalism has become the official religion of Science and education. Many scientists and educators have become high priests for the form of naturalism that says "nothing exists beyond the physical universe", Metaphysical naturalism is just atheism with new clothing.
Science can say that all things can be explained through natural causes, but causes need causes too. This is a fact in the natural realm. Therefore a causeless thing or being cannot be (or at least has not been) proven in the natural realm. If there is a causeless, self existent cause, we have no evidence to support that it exists in the natural realm.
When science proves that the universe is self existent, causeless, and eternal then metaphysical naturalism will be more believable...and I do put a distinction between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, by the way.
In answer to who created God, the answer is that God by definition would not be part of the natural universe (for theists at least) and therefore not limited by the natural laws that He created, ie causality is a law in the natural realm, but a God outside the natural realm would not necessarily be limited by the law of causality, therefore God is eternal, causeless, and self existent.
So the question is...is the universe eternal, causeless, and self existent or is there something ouside of the physical universe that is eternal, causeless , and self existent? Or are there exceptions within nature to the law of cause and effect?
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/15/14 11:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Too bad metaphysical naturalism has become the official religion of Science and education.
here is where I disagree. science and education are at least supposed to only teach what we know today. yes, I am sure that there are some who go outside those bounds and put their opinion into it, but they are not supposed to (any more than religious teachers should put their thoughts into it further --- that is the responsibility of the parents to nurture IMO).
I shared a while back that I put my kids into a private religious school (1/2 at school, 1/2 at home). they teach evolution, big bang, and everything in science class. they teach scripture in theology class. yes, they have open sessions (parents involved mostly the younger grades, older grades have it on their own) where they discuss how these things can intersect and there is a bunch of disagreement in those discussions.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Too bad metaphysical naturalism has become the official religion of Science and education.
here is where I disagree. science and education are at least supposed to only teach what we know today. yes, I am sure that there are some who go outside those bounds and put their opinion into it, but they are not supposed to (any more than religious teachers should put their thoughts into it further --- that is the responsibility of the parents to nurture IMO).
I shared a while back that I put my kids into a private religious school (1/2 at school, 1/2 at home). they teach evolution, big bang, and everything in science class. they teach scripture in theology class. yes, they have open sessions (parents involved mostly the younger grades, older grades have it on their own) where they discuss how these things can intersect and there is a bunch of disagreement in those discussions.
The sad fact is that in many place only metaphysical naturalism is allowed to be taught in classrooms...and scientists that question metaphysical naturalism are marginalized.
...and remember again that I do put a distinction between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.
Methodological naturalism is a methodology. Metaphysical naturalism is a belief system, and it is firmly entrenched in science and education.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/15/14 12:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,880 Likes: 155
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,880 Likes: 155 |
Quote:
Quote:
There is no evidence that anything exists outside the natural, if there were, we'd be able to see it and not explain it. When was the last time something like that occurred?
Really explain this
Boom Jesus Toast
Really?  A bic lighter used on a slice of toasted bread needs an explanation? Boom! Fake!
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
WIth the Jesus toast, I think he was being facetious... Quote:
Quote:
There is no evidence that anything exists outside the natural, if there were, we'd be able to see it and not explain it.
but let's not forget that the quote above is pure conjecture. Who says we'd be able to see anything that exists? Do you think that you can see everything that exists?
Was there instances in the past where things existed that could not be seen? Can we see everything that is knowable today?
The quote above is a perfect example of conjectures and presuppositions that people use to arrive at their facts. Then there are heuristic assumptions on top of that, aren't there?
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/15/14 02:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,518
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,518 |
Just think,all this started because i was being factiuos about the lame blame game that u libs always play when it come to the PRES,your lord and saviour according to some
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
Quote:
There is no evidence that anything exists outside the natural, if there were, we'd be able to see it and not explain it. When was the last time something like that occurred?
Really explain this
Boom Jesus Toast
I thought it was Steven Stills.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Can someone tell me where earth's water came from?
Let's start there and work our way up
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is no evidence that anything exists outside the natural, if there were, we'd be able to see it and not explain it. When was the last time something like that occurred?
Really explain this
Boom Jesus Toast
Really? A bic lighter used on a slice of toasted bread needs an explanation? Boom! Fake!
So you admit that something as simple as this couldn't have happened by chance!
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM
my two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,996 Likes: 9
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,996 Likes: 9 |
Where did the first speck of existence come from?
"The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant ("is conserved"), although energy within the system can be changed from one form to another or transferred from one object to another.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed."
Science views this as a law and not a theory. This means it must be fact right?
EVERYTHING in our universe is pure energy. There is not one thing in existence that is not made of energy. Atom, mass, and all matter are just forms of compressed energy. Splitting even the tiniest atom releases tremendous energy.
The more you compress that energy the heaver it gets and the more it attracts other forms of energy. It can chance from one kind of energy to another and be stored in many various ways but in the end everything in existence comes from the same pool of energy.
We also know information can be stored in energy. We are even able to transfer huge amounts of data through the light of a light bulb. this could mean that every single thing that has occurred in our universe has been recorded in its energy. We may not have the ability to extract that information yet or to understand it the way it has been stored but its there. There are some amazing advances being made in learning to read stored energy information.
In either case all this energy has a natural attraction to itself. It just keeps wanting to gather more and more of itself. Thus, we get thing all the way from quarks to black holes. What do black holes do? They are just bigger piles of energy actively attracting more and more energy. If spiting one atom releases so much energy just imagine how much could be in a black hole. EVERY single galaxy has a black hole in its center slowly eating it self. Every now and then black holes will run into each other and merge. Eventually the entire universe will be void once again as the center of the universe because a bigger and bigger black hole.
Rather we should call them singularities. Because they are not holes at all. eventually everything in the universe will compress again into a single point. Nothing will ever be lost and nothing will ever be gained. What is there at the point is everything that exists in one complete form.
That is how the mechanics of how the universe works in layman's terms. That is 100% science.
Now lets think a bit...
At some point in the past all the energy of the universe was in one singularity. Perhaps the pressure of all energy cause a reaction in it's mass that cause the big bang. Perhaps it's an eternal cycle that repeats itself over and over again.
At that moment when everything is a single singularity God, the universal consciousness, or whatever you want to call it is born. All the knowledge the energy of the universe has experienced is finally all connected. God is all knowing at that moment. Then as all consciousnesses are one in God he becomes very alone. So he takes all that knowledge he has gained and divides himself with a big bang. His consciousness is torn asunder as he spreads himself through out the cosmos. Still he keeps enough of himself together to be self aware and influence his body spread throughout the universe. He tinkers with himself. Changing this or that to experience something differently. Many beings comes into existence in the process. Earth and man are part of that. So do angels and aliens and whatever else he feels like. When we die our energy is released along with all the experiences and knowledge back to join our maker, back to ourselves. We are in fact just forms of energy lonely to become part of our whole selves again.
When God talks about himself he says that he is the alpha and omega. The beginning and the end. There is no existence without God. Your looking everywhere for God, you want to feel him, to touch him. He doesn't answer because you don't know how to listen yet.
Go look in the mirror. Your just as much a part of God as all of creation. We are all a part of God and God is everything that we are. We are all a part of the universe's energy we call God. Someday we will go back to being a part of him. That is what heaven is all about. Being separated from him/ourselves is what hell is all about. One day when your free from this hell we live in you will look back and just wish you had experienced more while you had the chance.
Go live your life to the fullest. Make the world and ourselves a better place for you having been in it. It will be remembered eternally by all of us. God.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
So a better way would be to study science from a neutral position and see if it leads to an intelligent designer or a self existent universe.
Isn't this what I just said? That's what a scientist does. It's not like we start off and say, " Well, God didn't do it so ..." it never even figures into any hypothesis. It's an untenable premise to start from no matter how you cut it.
Quote:
Yet many who call themselves scientists, many in education, etc. do not have a neutral view on the existence or non existence of God, but are very dogmatically "naturalistic:" in the sense that "the Kosmos is all there is or ever will be". In saying dogmatically that there is nothing outside of nature, they are going beyond "methodological naturalism, and are operating under metaphysical naturallism.
I don't believe that's how it works. Just like that quote you erroneously posted, they're two separate things. Just like it doesn't matter if a scientist is a christian or muslim or jew outside the lab, nor should it matter that a scientist is an atheist outside lab. So long as it doesn't enter the realm of their hypotheses they are still using methodological naturalism which is still the best way to discover how things work in this universe. There are plenty of religious scientists out there, they're no better or worse than an atheist doing the same work often than not. However, the moment they fall back on "God did it" is when their scientific career ends. Not because scientists are "rooted in philosophical naturalism and they can't stand someone who believes in God," but because that hypothesis is not falsifiable and is therefore not scientific.
Quote:
Yet you still havent told me how the universe could possibly be self existent.
I still don't know what you could possibly mean in asking that. The universe as we know it exists through basic interactions between the different forces of nature. It's here, it's behaving the same now as it has for billions of years since the big bang, so I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to insinuate by asking how the universe is self existent. It's there in any basic astronomy book for you to read about.
Quote:
Quote:
As far as astrophysicists can tell, the universe is indeed eternal and ever-expanding. Unless you have something new to bring to the discussion? The universe was created through some unknown means, but probably occurred when specific things occurred in this proto-universe that caused the rapid expansion we know as the big bang.
Would you care to explain how the universe can be both eternal and created? What exactly is your definition of "eternal".
This universe will go on expanding forever, so yes it will go forward infinitely into the future. You seem to think these terms are mutually exclusive, and I don't understand why.
Quote:
You said the universe was created when specific things happened in the proto universe. How was the proto universe created?
Or was the proto universe eternal...ie HAVING NO BEGINNING OR END.
Was the proto universe SELF EXISTENT?
Does anything exist that is self existent? (ie existing independantly of any cause, or having an independant existence?
It appears that the universe is not self existent, because it depended on a protouniverse and "certain events" to come into being. Was the proto universe independant of cause, or was it also dependant on something earlier and other certain events to come into being.
Do you believe in infinite regression?
Ah, I see what you mean now with this whole "self existent" idea. No, the universe has a definite start, we see it's evidence every time we look at space. This is an area of astrophysics where there's basically no data besides the footprint left behind. That being said, just because we don't know why right now, doesn't mean we won't eventually. But, just like any scientific pursuit, you're hamstringing yourself by automatically saying "God did it" if your true goal is factual knowledge.
On top of that, this has literally nothing to do with the pursuit of any other endeavor in science. Absolutely, positively, nothing. What does the lack of science's ability to answer these questions (right now) call into question? There's still the proven track record evident in our advances in understand the world around us. Scientists are sometimes wrong, true, but the pursuit of Science makes sure those wrong ideas are weeded out and discarded for the correct ones. That's what naturalism has gotten us, and it's not a bad thing. You don't like it because it makes no claim about supernatural influence, but it's never been necessary. Naturalism as a guiding methodology for the pursuit of a better understanding of our world around us has served us just fine because if we look hard enough, then we're able to find the cause of the observed effect.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Thank you for your reply, Razorthorne., Conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. This does not necessarily mean that energy is eternal and self existent. You have three things, energy, a closed system, and a law. Which came first? “[T]he principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the creation of the universe” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 2, emp. added). http://books.google.com/books/about/Thermodynamics.html?id=5-hSAAAAMAAJIt sounds like you think the universe is eternal (ie has always existed). In that case, if as the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed only trasnformed, and the second law says that energy when it is transformed is converted from usable to non usable energy, The first and second law of thermodynamics makes an eternal (without beginning or end) universe impossible. Black holes do not create energy. You said yourself that energy cannot be created. Your black hole theory does not remove the scientific fact of entropy. More to come
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,365 Likes: 454
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,365 Likes: 454 |
I don't necessarily think that God limited Himself in any way in creating the universe. Frankly, I don't think that any of us, in our current stage of development, in our current human capacity, can ever hope to understand the immensity of God. God is all. He is everything. He is every dimension that is ...... He is every bit of energy ...... He is everything.
I believe that God began outside of time, and matter, and maybe even energy. (and probably any other descriptor that we may use on any of the other potential dimensions we might find) He used a piece of Himself to create this universe. However, as a Christian, I also believe that he created Heaven as well, and that Heaven may well exist within His being as well. I believe that those who go to heaven may wind up in a state of immaterial perfection, one with God, and outside of time. We may already be there "now", however, we have to live through this life because we cannot hope to comprehend such a place in our current state. Maybe we have to shed out physical bodies first. If energy is never destroyed, then perhaps, when we die, God reaches out and gathers up our essence, and draws it near to Him.
The problem is that we look for human ways to account for those things that God can, has, or is capable of doing. This is like an amoeba trying to understand a supercomputer, only worse. Imagine trying to get a single atom, in a single molecule, to nuclear physics. I truly believe that to be an apt comparison. We are tiny pieces in the greatness that is God. However, God is aware of each and every one of us. That is another thing that we' as humans, can never comprehend being capable of. God knows everything that is, was, and ever will be. He can interact within time, but He exists outside of time. He could well be energy, because the Bible says that we were created in His image, and if you look at humanity, we do not have a consistent physical form, but we are all composed of energy.
The more I think about God the more amazed I am at His Glory.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,996 Likes: 9
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,996 Likes: 9 |
Quote:
Thank you for your reply, Razorthorne.,
Conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change.
This does not necessarily mean that energy is eternal and self existent. You have three things, energy, a closed system, and a law.
Which came first?
“[T]he principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the creation of the universe” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 2, emp. added).
http://books.google.com/books/about/Thermodynamics.html?id=5-hSAAAAMAAJ
It sounds like you think the universe is eternal (ie has always existed). In that case, if as the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed only trasnformed, and the second law says that energy when it is transformed is converted from usable to non usable energy, The first and second law of thermodynamics makes an eternal (without beginning or end) universe impossible.
Black holes do not create energy. You said yourself that energy cannot be created. Your black hole theory does not remove the scientific fact of entropy.
More to come
Energy is transformed not lost. For engineering purposes mechanical energy is lost for purposes of motion per say but the mechanical energy lost to say friction just changes to friction/heat energy or to kinetic energy. It's never lost.
Never said black holes create energy. They collect it. The pressure takes whatever energy is in the mass of the matter to a purer form. No one knows what that purer form may be but I think its safe to say it would not probably occur outside of a black hole's tremendous gravity/pressure field.
I don't know if the universe is eternal or not. Just giving an idea how it might be based on current knowledge of how things work. Of course there is still a ton to learn so i reserve the right to change my mind later =)
Still we know all of our universe came from a single finite moment. What was there before that finite moment we don't know. Will we ever know how it came into existence with our limited comprehension of things? Probably not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
It always comes down to: What was before the universe? God. What was before God? Who knows, shrug. No matter how you look at it something came from nothing. It just offends a logical mind no matter how you look at it.
Yet here we are, we came from somewhere along with the rest of the universe. We can cry over it till we are blue in the face but ATM we are just not able to understand it one way or the other.
If you believe there is a creator who magically came into being somehow out of nothing. Then just imagine God trying to explain how he did it to a sheep/goat farmer like Moses. I don't think he would bother to tell him everything do you? Even if he talked to you like he did to Moses do you think you could comprehend what he would tell you? Still would be great if he did though just to blow my fricken mind lol!
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Christianity VS America.
|
|
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)