Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
In the beginning, there was the Big Bang. A quantum flux necessity triggered the existence of the Universe from nothing. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle explains it all. From where the Big Bang came is a mystery, if indeed it is a valid question, but smart individuals of our species are contemplating it. What is certain is that all of time, space, and energy emerged at this time. Nobody and nothing existed before.

In the first second after the BB, there was only one force. Soon thereafter, the four known forces of the Universe emerged. Darkness was the state of all existence for thousands of years, because fusion is a function of stars and stars did not emerge for a very long time.
According to Einstein, force and matter are algebraic expressions of each other. In the hot, early stages of the Universe, some energy transformed into matter. And Einstein said “it is good”.

Thus, matter and energy exist.

Well within one second after the BB, quarks congealed. Protons and neutrons emerge, at about one second after the BB. And we consider it good, because we depend on them. This was 13.7 Billion years ago.

About 7 billion years ago, the Sun formed from material that was created from the previous quark compilation into matter and from matter that came from earlier stars’ violent lifecycles. And we consider this good, as well, because we are made of starstuff. Thank the stars for your existence. They gave their lives so that we live.

Soon thereafter, say, 1.5 Billion years, from the matter left over in the gravity well of the Sun, planets were formed. And we consider them good, because we cannot conceive of life anywhere else. Our own planet was a hellish place, with a molten surface and constantly subjected to severe meteor strikes. Comets struck as well, contributing water to the primitive system of the Earth. The early water was immediately evaporated, but as the Earth cooled, rained down enough to form the seas and rivers. And we find this is good, as we are made of water.

Surprisingly soon, life began. Earth was not like it is now. It had an atmosphere of methane, sulfur dioxide, and other corrosive compounds. But we are made of the same things. Chemicals, affected by heat and electricity, combined in countless forms. Some of them combined in forms that could replicate themselves. We have demonstrated this possibility in laboratories.

For about 2 billion years, these self-replicating chemicals became, very slowly, more complicated, as required to replicate more successfully. Eventually, they formed cellular life. And it was good, as we are cellular beings. Much trial and error was involved.

Cellular life flourished, as it was a successful evolutionary experiment. Due to natural mutation and Natural Selection, cellular life evolved into many forms. About half of those forms still exist today. And it was good, as we exist in one of those forms. All of these forms were in the water. This is understandable, since we are essentially made of water to this day. Water is good. And along the way, because of Natural Selection, life became dependent on the also corrosive oxygen that was emitted by plant life.

Inevitably, life emerged onto the land. First came the plants, then the insects, mutations of sea creatures. Perhaps the first more advanced animal was Tiktaalik. And it was wonderful and amazing that creatures made of water emerged into the harsh sunshine. Imagine how many species tried and failed.
Tiktaalik would be recognizable today. A vertebrate, symmetrical along his spine, with four limbs, perhaps a head, a neck, and internal organs similar to ours. And the evening and the morning was the sixth day. No need for further divine intervention, although none is required for any of this.

Species evolved. Cold-blooded reptiles became warm blooded. Mammals, such as us, evolved from them. Birds are the only remaining examples of dinosaurs; they are massively similar in structure.

Ecce Homo. Eventually, after hundreds of millions of years, humans evolved into our current form. We still have more in common with Tiktaalik than not. Bilaterally symmetrical, four limbs, a head with sensory organs, five phalanges on each limb, etc. This design dates to the Cambrian Explosion, hundreds of millions of years ago.

About 150,000 years ago, we emerged as humans. Other more-or-less human species emerged as well, but we survived. Luck had something to do with it.

About 40,000 years ago, we invented the gods. Our brains seek systems and patterns. These things serve us well, but we got carried away. We wanted to know why the sun rises and sets. We invented gods that explained it. We wanted to know why the seasons happened, and the tides ebbed and flowed, and the gods explained it.

And it was sufficient, until recently, and it was not good, but it was all we had.

And we invented worship. And we invented warfare for those barbarians who did not understand the proper gods. And we became incurious about the real nature of reality.

10,000 years or so ago, we invented agriculture. We began to domesticate animals. This was not so long ago, all things considered. These are important technologies we still enjoy. About 6000 years ago, we invented writing. This was yesterday.

And that is Genesis. From there, it becomes history.



For at least 100,000 years, humans have pondered the stars. Do orangutans ponder them now?

And man made god in his image, and in his ignorance.


But, didn't I see the naturalistic fallacy in there somewhere, Billy Joe BG? It seems a naturalism was assumed from the beginning.

Edited to add: I know it was not an argument, but an exposition or opinion, therefore, not subject to the naturalistic fallacy--strictly.


Mid,

Excellent post.

You seem to presume that scientific naturalism is a fallacy. Why is that?

Without scientific naturalism, we would be at the mercy of religious superstition to explain the cosmos, diversity of species, geology, genetics, and comparative anatomy, to name just a few.

The success of scientific naturalism has been so profound and clear, I can be forgiven for accepting it as a provisional outlook on life.

I presume you accuse me of evidence-based reason for the physical things in life. I plead Guilty. For the emotional things, there is no accounting. The question of God is physical, however. That is, if he is the Creator of the Universe.

Your implication is that naturalism is a fallacy is a weak attempt to try to put me on the defensive. To say that scientific naturalism is a fallacy is to misunderstand science and reason in general. I am not on the defensive; science, philosophy, and reason have prevailed every time in the minds of intelligent people.

Please defend your implication. Why is the study of the natural universe fallacious?

You might even go me one farther and tell me why supernaturalism, or unnaturalism is more valid than demonstrable scientific naturalism.

I'll be right here, waiting.


Good reading, Billy Joe.

I guess I'm just kinda skeptical about the limits of empirical knowledge; applying
the narrow science of naturalism to the macro-questions of origins seems like asking too much from a naturalistic theory.

The discussion you all were having about cause and effect was interesting. I do have a hard time invisaging an uncaused effect, as I think Billy Joe holds, i.e., that there was no first cause. I cannot imagine a series of cause and effect to go back infinitely. I do note that it has been said that cause and effect is merely a construct of the mind, anyways. I can see that...I'm somewhat Kantian in my philosophical heart...
Misacts,

Cause and effect is a construct of the human mind.

A classical view you might say. We are thinking what happens in our universe not outside the universe.

We cannot be an observer outside our universe because we are here in it.

Can we send someone outside the universe to tell us what we appear to be? No.

We can observe, take astronomical measurements and produce theories as to what we think happened in the beginning but like cause and effect they all are just a construct of the mind.

God is an observer outside our universe and knows what happened.

We are helpless to explain God or to understand the beginning of God because the only tools we have to explain with is a construct of the mind.

So don’t worry that there is no scientific proof of God for any theory in this universe is a construct of the human mind.
quote:
I guess I'm just kinda skeptical about the limits of empirical knowledge

We are within our rights to be so skeptical. Skepticism is good.

When we come to the limits of empirical knowledge, however, that is no place to inject god as a farther explanation. Unless one wants to be ridiculed.

Why does it follow that at the end of empirical knowledge god exists?

Is this thin and disreputable concept the best that the religious have to offer? Is THIS on what they hang their hats?

It's a classic god-of-the-gaps argument. Who knows but at some point that argument might work, but so far it has been shot down in flames time and again.

I'm going with the trend that natural realism is the answer to the questions of the universe. Natural realism allows honest ignorance. I'm good with that.
quote:
Originally posted by rramlimnn:
Misacts,

Cause and effect is a construct of the human mind.

A classical view you might say. We are thinking what happens in our universe not outside the universe.

We cannot be an observer outside our universe because we are here in it.

Can we send someone outside the universe to tell us what we appear to be? No.

We can observe, take astronomical measurements and produce theories as to what we think happened in the beginning but like cause and effect they all are just a construct of the mind.

God is an observer outside our universe and knows what happened.

We are helpless to explain God or to understand the beginning of God because the only tools we have to explain with is a construct of the mind.

So don’t worry that there is no scientific proof of God for any theory in this universe is a construct of the human mind.


It's a good thing we have the testimony of scripture. The deity can reveal him-her self
through language.

I suppose many would not take revelation as a source of knowledge, however.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
I guess I'm just kinda skeptical about the limits of empirical knowledge

We are within our rights to be so skeptical. Skepticism is good.

When we come to the limits of empirical knowledge, however, that is no place to inject god as a farther explanation. Unless one wants to be ridiculed.

Why does it follow that at the end of empirical knowledge god exists?

Is this thin and disreputable concept the best that the religious have to offer? Is THIS on what they hang their hats?

It's a classic god-of-the-gaps argument. Who knows but at some point that argument might work, but so far it has been shot down in flames time and again.

I'm going with the trend that natural realism is the answer to the questions of the universe. Natural realism allows honest ignorance. I'm good with that.


There's not that much difference between injecting "God did it" and injecting "nothing did it," is there, Billy Joe? Aren't those two assertions about equal in rationality and scientific freight?
Last edited by midacts
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
I suppose many would not take revelation as a source of knowledge, however.

I certainly don't.

The bible is a collection of fables and outright falsehoods, for the most part. And the true parts don't fit your cosmology.

Revelation from whom? A god who does not exist?

It's absurdity writ by skywriters.


My dear, Billy Joe,

God must exist.

Since God is a being than which nothing is greater,then God must exist, not only in
my mind (understnding), but in reality as well.
For it would be inferior for God to exist only in my understanding, but not in reality as well.

Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
I guess I'm just kinda skeptical about the limits of empirical knowledge

We are within our rights to be so skeptical. Skepticism is good.

When we come to the limits of empirical knowledge, however, that is no place to inject god as a farther explanation. Unless one wants to be ridiculed.

Why does it follow that at the end of empirical knowledge god exists?

Is this thin and disreputable concept the best that the religious have to offer? Is THIS on what they hang their hats?

It's a classic god-of-the-gaps argument. Who knows but at some point that argument might work, but so far it has been shot down in flames time and again.

I'm going with the trend that natural realism is the answer to the questions of the universe. Natural realism allows honest ignorance. I'm good with that.


Again billy bob tries to put himself in the God world outside his mind construct dilemma.

Yes something exists beyond empirical knowledge but in a non classical sense.

That thing peering out our ‘eye hoals ‘ has a naturalistic view of the world but it is also accompanied by it’s partner intuition which communicates outside the classical naturalistic universe.

I have that property myself I cannot speak for other than myself. Others claim the same experience and capability. I have also heard billy bob claim it is an impossibility, for him, to believe in God. I believe him when he says that so why bother trying to convince him otherwise.

The one thing he seems to be blessed with is the capacity to hurt others..

He may be like his orangutan to a certain extent which looks up at the stars and laments his inability to ponder the stars as do humans.
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
quote:
I gave you a possibility. Have you read A Brief History of Time?



I have. The end of the book says what I believe: that science is the attempt to understand the mind of God.

God of Christianity? God of Spinoza? Don't know for sure.

I will continue to study science in hopes of enlightening myself and will not deny scientific facts about what we DO know about our universe . . . As so many ignorant people here are wont to do.


If I'm not mistaken, Sofa King, Prof. Hawking as recently promulgated that there is a transcendent cause of reality that is independent of the scrutiny of natural science.
quote:
Since God is a being than which nothing is greater,then God must exist, not only in
my mind (understnding), but in reality as well.
For it would be inferior for God to exist only in my understanding, but not in reality as well.


Mid, that's gobbledygoop. Just blather.

A person could just as easily envision The Great Space Duck and say the same thing about him.

Referring to an earlier post of yours, I do not assert that "nothing did it". I repeat, I do not know. No one knows, and inserting god into holes in our knowledge is intellectually weak and an insult to god.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
Since God is a being than which nothing is greater,then God must exist, not only in
my mind (understnding), but in reality as well.
For it would be inferior for God to exist only in my understanding, but not in reality as well.


Mid, that's gobbledygoop. Just blather.

A person could just as easily envision The Great Space Duck and say the same thing about him.

Referring to an earlier post of yours, I do not assert that "nothing did it". I repeat, I do not know. No one knows, and inserting god into holes in our knowledge is intellectually weak and an insult to god.


....But 'they' don't invision the 'space duck'. you seem to be the only one. Just bullying on your part billy bob. Plain and simple.
I'm just wondering, Billy Joe and CrustyMac, why do y'all consider The Great Space Duck or a harem the greatest conceiveable being? Surely,
there are greater conceiveable beings than those.

Rramlimnn, thanks for the defense. The ontological argument for the existence of God quite often makes non-theists a little rationally perplexed. Confused

I cannot conceive of "The Duck" or "a harem" as being necessary beings. Whereas, God can be conceived of as a necessary being and that would be a greater conceiveable being.
Last edited by midacts
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
Since there is no idea greater than me having a harem, then the harem must exist, not only in my mind (understanding), but in reality as well. For it would be inferior for the harem to exist only in my understanding, but not in reality as well.

HAPPY DAYS!!!!


Crust this ‘reality’ thing is definitely above yo head.
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
I'm just wondering, Billy Joe and CrustyMac, why do y'all consider The Great Space Duck or a harem the greatest conceiveable being? Surely,
there are greater conceiveable beings than those.

Rramlimnn, thanks for the defense. The ontological argument for the existence of God quite often makes non-theists a little rationally perplexed. Confused

I cannot conceive of "The Duck" or "a harem" as being necessary beings. Whereas, God can be conceived of as a necessary being and that would be a greater conceiveable being.


You think God is necessary, I think a harem is necessary. Who is right? I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your argument. You start with a false - or at least highly debatable - premise.

Why don't we use watermelons instead? Who doesn't conceive a watermelon not only being heavenly, divine, delicious, but also necessary?

Really, false premise leads to a failure in your argument. Unless of course the harem is the greatest idea of all.
quote:
Originally posted by rramlimnn:
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
Since there is no idea greater than me having a harem, then the harem must exist, not only in my mind (understanding), but in reality as well. For it would be inferior for the harem to exist only in my understanding, but not in reality as well.

HAPPY DAYS!!!!


Crust this ‘reality’ thing is definitely above yo head.


If you say so. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
I'm just wondering, Billy Joe and CrustyMac, why do y'all consider The Great Space Duck or a harem the greatest conceiveable being? Surely,
there are greater conceiveable beings than those.

Rramlimnn, thanks for the defense. The ontological argument for the existence of God quite often makes non-theists a little rationally perplexed. Confused

I cannot conceive of "The Duck" or "a harem" as being necessary beings. Whereas, God can be conceived of as a necessary being and that would be a greater conceiveable being.


You think God is necessary, I think a harem is necessary. Who is right? I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your argument. You start with a false - or at least highly debatable - premise.

Why don't we use watermelons instead? Who doesn't conceive a watermelon not only being heavenly, divine, delicious, but also necessary?

Really, false premise leads to a failure in your argument. Unless of course the harem is the greatest idea of all.


Good thoughts, CrustyMac. I hear you.

However, I think our examination of the ontological argument actually does revolve
around the concept of necessary existence.

One cannot conceive of a being without thinking
of being as being. Non-existent being is not really thinkable. Perfect harems and stuff (perfect islands) are conceiveable as an "idea" or mental concept, but one cannot evern form a mental concept of non-existent being because being, is.

So there is a strong necessary and logical connection to the idea of being for the mind to conceive of it as being.

It is impossibe to have an idea of a possible
necessary being, because if a being is only
possible, then its not necessary, therefore it is not as great.

just sayin...
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
I'm just wondering, Billy Joe and CrustyMac, why do y'all consider The Great Space Duck or a harem the greatest conceiveable being? Surely,
there are greater conceiveable beings than those.

Rramlimnn, thanks for the defense. The ontological argument for the existence of God quite often makes non-theists a little rationally perplexed. Confused

I cannot conceive of "The Duck" or "a harem" as being necessary beings. Whereas, God can be conceived of as a necessary being and that would be a greater conceiveable being.


Mid,

The Great Space Duck is responsible for time, matter, pre-time, energy, the natural forces, and Scarlett Johannsen.

I have as much right to say so as you have to say that god transcends time and space. Our positions are equal.

Your metaphysical, ontological arguments can be dismissed with the same ease as they are created.

The Great Space Duck IS the greatest conceivable being. She made god and the Universe.

So, there. I've given it away. When someone challenges you by saying "Who made god?" you now know.

It's ontologically invincible.
quote:
Your metaphysical, ontological arguments can be dismissed with the same ease as they are created.


Not so fast, Billy Joe. There does seem to me to be a necessary connection between logical implication and ontological status.

I do have tendencies to think that language is,
like, pretty close to being isomorphic with the world.

We have only begun an evaluation of Anselm's
thoughts on this. I moreless poo poo the teleological argument or the argument from design, but over the years I've never been able to dismiss the ontological argument.
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
...One cannot conceive of a being without thinking of being as being. Non-existent being is not really thinkable. Perfect harems and stuff (perfect islands) are conceiveable as an "idea" or mental concept, but one cannot evern form a mental concept of non-existent being because being, is.

So there is a strong necessary and logical connection to the idea of being for the mind to conceive of it as being.

It is impossibe to have an idea of a possible necessary being, because if a being is only possible, then its not necessary, therefore it is not as great.


What?
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
The Great Space Duck is responsible for time, matter, pre-time, energy, the natural forces, and Scarlett Johannsen.



sold, where do i sign up?
and do i now pray to Peeps at easter, or eat even more of them?

and when do i get St. Scarlett to come give me a warm sponge bath.. err.. baptism?

Sorry, Jeff... the Duck trumped your Divinity Biscuits with a leggy babe.
quote:
Originally posted by Road Puppy:
quote:
Originally posted by thenagel:
Flying Spagetti Monster.
Jeff, the God of Biscuits.

great.

now i'm hungry.

(p.s. Jeff the god of biscuits isn't mine. it was from a stand up comedian named Eddie Izzard, in his special ' dressed to kill'. you seriously need to check it out. he has much the same opinion on god that you do.)



Man, Eddie Izzard is the shizz!

"You say tomayto-we say tomahto, You say 'erb-we say Herb, because it's got a f@#%in' 'H' in it...." Big Grin


Eddie rocks out loud. love the man, regardless of the Executive Transvestite status.
Okay, I hit myself in the head with a hammer - I don't do drugs - and will now respond:

quote:
Originally posted by midacts:


Good thoughts, CrustyMac. I hear you.

However, I think our examination of the ontological argument actually does revolve
around the concept of necessary existence.

One cannot conceive of a being without thinking
of being as being.

"I think, therefore I am" - check.

Non-existent being is not really thinkable.

You just thought it, now I'm thinking it.... so, I'm thinking, thinkable.

Perfect harems and stuff (perfect islands) are conceiveable as an "idea" or mental concept, but one cannot evern form a mental concept of non-existent being because being, is.

And yet, even though I've hit myself in the head with a hammer, I am conceiving a non-existent being. If you or I couldn't, we would have to have this conversation on some other plane of existence... or something.

So there is a strong necessary and logical connection to the idea of being for the mind to conceive of it as being.

Full circle back to "I think, therefore I am", but without the circle.

It is impossibe to have an idea of a possible
necessary being,

and yet, you are positing it again.


because if a being is only
possible, then its not necessary, therefore it is not as great.

But the gist of your whole idea is that God is necessary. False premise.


just sayin...

I need some aspirin.
quote:
Originally posted by rramlimnn:
Jank’

I had seen this before. Yes. It was interesting.

I am pleased to see some movement in the direction that God is not perceived as an old man with a beard.

I know that is probably what you expected to appear as a child and when He didn’t appear that way you had a panic attack. This is often the case.


The sad thing is rram, he didn't appear at all.
Worm holes,membranes, skins and all other pre-big bang theories are not any more cogent or valid than empirically verifiable theories or religous cosmologies.

Like the thought that two parallel universes like touched each other at some point and that began our big bang is just as not-rational as that God created the univers,is it?

I think what I'm speaking to is the propositon that theorectical cosmogenies are really a lot like religious beliefs.

I'm not talking about post big-bang speculation, only pre-big bang speculation.
Last edited by midacts
Plus, I don't think y'all have demolished the ontological argument yet by positing that the "prefect island, biscuit, or haremsSmiler" is a
parallel to God's existence as a necessary being. You don't think that a perfect island, duck, or biscuit is a necessary existence to you? But, from the definition of God, God's existence is necessary for all other existence to be. There is a difference between contingent being and necessary being.

Hey, this may be above my head.
Last edited by midacts
quote:
Originally posted by midacts:
Plus, I don't think y'all have demolished the ontological argument yet by positing that the "prefect island, biscuit, or haremsSmiler" is a
parallel to God's existence as a necessary being. You don't think that a perfect island, duck, or biscuit is a necessary existence to you? But, from the definition of God, God's existence is necessary for all other existence to be. There is a difference between contingent being and necessary being.

Hey, this may be above my head.


the perfect biscuit might not be absoloutly required for life to exist, but it's pretty much a given that with out them life isn't really all that important.
my perfect wife will make her perfect biscuits, and i'll do up some insanely salty country ham, get out the strawberry jam and the butter.... whole sweet cream heart attack in a stick real as god and bessie the cow intended it BUTTER, a short stack of my special magical make you cry they're so good pancakes and to me that dinner alone is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.

i understand why these days there are so many people who are athiest from the start or become so as they grow up, especially in places like california and new york. it has nothign to do with intellect or intellegence or reasoning.

simply put, if i ate sprouts and tofu and tried to make a home made milk shake with soy milk, i'd have trouble believing in god as well.

raise a kid on mashed taters and gravy, pankcakes, biscuits and big honking juicy steaks, and slabs of ham and fresh butter and homemade strawberry jam and home made ice cream, and he'll know there's a supreme being watching over him.

( no... i'm not really being dead serious here... but the arguement isn't completely without merit Wink )

dang it. now i'm hungry again.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×