Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
It is a shame that your education was so woefully lacking.
My guess is that he thinks The Lathe of Heaven is a factual account of reality.
Ahh more projection? Your education was from fiction? That explains a lot.
Ever heard the phrase 'and the truth shall set you free'?
I am free, are you?
No it doesn’t.
You have not yet provided evidence to back up your assertions.
If that’s the way you do science, it’s no wonder you believe in evolution.
Thank you so much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
LaGrande, your responses have become meaningless to me. For someone to say that they do not believe in cause and that action and reaction are not the same as cause and effect is so far out as to be inconsequential. Why do most scientists, if not all, explore cause and effect if there is no such thing?
I suspect you say such nonsense so as to avoid the choice I suggested of Uncaused Cause or Intelligent Design by a creator. If there is no such thing as cause you can avoid that decision so you simply declare cause null and void.
Why do your persistently avoid such questions as those involving the abstracts of Love, Truth, Life, Beauty, Music Appreciation, etc.? Where is the scientific proof of those? Subject them to the Scientific Method of proof. Or do you simply declare them null and void? Where is your proof of No-God?
I can understand your feeling of freedom. I too felt that way when I went from a pretend believer to accommodate my early upbringing to being an atheist. It was such a feeling of relief! I felt as if great chains had been lifted from my shoulders. No more judgmental, all-knowing God whose rules were so strict that no one could follow them consistently. No more not having fun just to satisfy some moral tyrant. It felt great!
However, I thought more and studied more and early on realized that atheism is also a religion whose No-God was just as impossible to prove as my God described in the Bible. Faith is belief in the unprovable and the unseeable in the physical realm and you embrace that in your atheism as much as I do in my belief.
Biblical scholars and objective anthropologists searched for the historical Jesus and have found the description of his travels and physical presence to be essentially true, far more so than the anthropologists in search of proof of evolution.
I admire the pursuit of objectivity in realms where it is beneficial to a definable outcome. exDemMom’s pursuit of objectivity in teaching and following the Scientific Method is an example of that. However, objectivity in and of itself is cold and indifferent, as it should be, but there are areas of life, of everyday living, where it is a hindrance. Subject the abstracts I mentioned to objectivity and see what it leaves you. It is almost impossible to do and often you destroy the very thing you are examining with your objectivity.
Can one be objective about love? You can examine whether the object of love is worthy of it but the feeling of love often remains even after deciding that it is not. We often continue to pursue the illusive object of love even after we know it is futile. So, what is love, objectively?
What about art, music, and literature? Why do some like one thing and others another? Why are some works considered classics and persist as such over time? Is there a be-cause?
You brought up Einstein’s E=MC2, his General Theory of Relativity. Although that theory has lead to may others and to many other conclusions, is it provable at this time? Some experiments have suggested that the speed of light may not be a constant as originally thought. If C is not constant, where does that leave us?
Einstein failed in his attempt to find and describe the essence he proposed in his Unifying Theory. Is it possible that essence is a manifestation of a Divine Creator of it all? He suggested that perhaps it was.
I hope your feeling of freedom lasts but it didn’t for me. I had to find something I considered richer in value. I found it in the Trinity of the Bible. As others have said, objectivity and science do not exclude a belief in God. More than likely those are just aspects of God’s creation. The more you study, the closer you may get, if you open your mind to other possibilities. However, with an opinion that there is no such thing as cause, I doubt it.
Many of us have dealt with LG for years now and it is apparent that he living in a fantasy land of his own making.
Whatever happened to him in the past to cause him to reject the false god he knew led him to shut out the real one as well. One of Satan’s most effective strategies, IMO.
It’s really a shame because what most atheists reject as being God is something any sane person would reject as being God. But they are, as a whole, unwilling to give the real one a chance just because they got burned with a counterfeit, as if that’s God’s fault.
Excellent point, and I appreciate your pings even if I don’t chime in much at all.
Just because counterfeit gold exists doesn’t mean there is no real 24 karat gold; in fact, it points to the fact that real gold does indeed exist.
Oh puhleeaze, like believing Noah loaded dinosaurs onto the Ark? What kind of fantasy land is that?
Whatever happened to him in the past to cause him to reject the false god he knew led him to shut out the real one as well. One of Satan’s most effective strategies, IMO.
They are all false. That is the real reality.
It’s really a shame because what most atheists reject as being God is something any sane person would reject as being God.
Will miracles never cease? Metmom actually wrote something sensible.
But they are, as a whole, unwilling to give the real one a chance just because they got burned with a counterfeit, as if that’s God’s fault.
Gods fault? God doesn't exist. What you really mean is that mans invention doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Scientist don't explore 'cause and effect', they explore 'how' and 'what'. It is much like a child asking 'Why?' it is a question that science can't answer. 'Cause and effect' is an Aristotle method of philosophy (discredited I might add) of metaphysics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
I suspect you say such nonsense so as to avoid the choice I suggested of Uncaused Cause or Intelligent Design by a creator. If there is no such thing as cause you can avoid that decision so you simply declare cause null and void.
It isn't nonsense, but that is correct it avoids circular arguments inherent in philosophy.
Why do your persistently avoid such questions as those involving the abstracts of Love, Truth, Life, Beauty, Music Appreciation, etc.? Where is the scientific proof of those? Subject them to the Scientific Method of proof.
That is easy, sexual attraction can be measured, pupil dilation, etc. And the rest can also be measured by the responses they elicit.
Or do you simply declare them null and void? Where is your proof of No-God?
I can't prove that there is no god, that is a black swan fallacy, but I can falsify your concept of god. Do you understand the difference.
Faith is belief in the unprovable and the unseeable in the physical realm and you embrace that in your atheism as much as I do in my belief.
No, I seek truth and beauty. Do you understand the difference?
Can one be objective about love? You can examine whether the object of love is worthy of it but the feeling of love often remains even after deciding that it is not. We often continue to pursue the illusive object of love even after we know it is futile. So, what is love, objectively?
Neural pathways with rewards. If you want to be blown away check out Toxoplasma.
You brought up Einstein’s E=MC2, his General Theory of Relativity. Although that theory has lead to may others and to many other conclusions, is it provable at this time? Some experiments have suggested that the speed of light may not be a constant as originally thought. If C is not constant, where does that leave us?
Proof? We can't prove it we can only falsify it and C is not a constant it is a limit, do you understand the difference? All of our experimental evidence supports the the theory of relativity, out to at least 14 decimal places.
Einstein failed in his attempt to find and describe the essence he proposed in his Unifying Theory. Is it possible that essence is a manifestation of a Divine Creator of it all? He suggested that perhaps it was.
Einstein didn't believe in the Judea/Christian God. He used God as a metaphor for Truth.
I hope your feeling of freedom lasts but it didn’t for me. I had to find something I considered richer in value. I found it in the Trinity of the Bible. As others have said, objectivity and science do not exclude a belief in God. More than likely those are just aspects of God’s creation. The more you study, the closer you may get, if you open your mind to other possibilities. However, with an opinion that there is no such thing as cause, I doubt it.
Your idea of freedom is not mine, "No more judgmental, all-knowing God whose rules were so strict that no one could follow them consistently. No more not having fun just to satisfy some moral tyrant. It felt great!"
My idea of freedom is the opening of my eyes and seeing reality for what it is, and being responsible for my own actions.
Dude...I’m free.
I may not agree with him...but I most certainly could hold camp with him. And break bread with him, and his family.
In fact I would look forward to it.....
This means that everything within the purview of the scientific method extends to "objects" that are amenable to sense perception — and only to such objects. (I hear Francis Bacon — the driver of this new Novum Organum — had precisely this result in mind.)
Now the problem with that, as Kant pointed out, is that human observers have no assurance that what is presented to human sense perception and understood by such means is an exhaustive description of the object of intention's actual reality as a "thing in itself." We never directly see the thing in itself, only its phenomenal projection to the human mind via sense perception alone. This is what Kant means, when he speaks of the phenomenon (what can be registered by sense perception, as technologically aided if/as possible) and the noumenon — the fundamental state of being of the object that is perfectly unvisualizable and therefore unanalyzable, thus unknown to the human mind — precisely because its manifest being in its totality is irreducible to direct sense perception.
Thank you so much for your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!
Well; then let's call it "unproven" science, or "irreproducable" science.
I think you have the answer!
I ask about love and you give me measurements of physical reactions to sexual arousal. Does that mean you think love is strictly sexual arousal? What about brotherly love, love of mankind, love of God, etc.?
What about the love of art, a sunset, a symphony, etc.? Do they illicit measurable reactions?
Regardless, you are giving me symptoms without bothering with analyzing the cause of the symptoms (there is that word again.). It is hard to avoid, isn't it?
Scientist don't explore 'cause and effect', they explore 'how' and 'what'.
Which comes first, the "how" or the "what"? Aren't you just playing childish games with semantics? Cause/effect, action/reaction, what/how. Is there a real intrinsic, meaningful difference?
I can't prove that there is no god, that is a black swan fallacy, but I can falsify your concept of god. Do you understand the difference.
Sure I do. You can't prove a negative but you can disprove anything else through semantical gymnastics. Therefore, you choose nothingness as that is the only thing that cannot be disproved according to your methods. After all, like you, I can just refuse to recognize the existence of your proof.
I appreciate your repeatedly asking me if I understand. Although keeping up with your brilliance is a challenge, and I break into a sweat under the strain, I am trying hard to keep up but I am dazzled by your use of logic terms to describe illogic. Thank you for your patience.
By the way, you dismissed Aristotle's cause and effect philosophy as discredited, but wasn't the methodology of logic discussed in there somewhere? Is logic philosophy and if so, does that discredit it, too?
No, I seek truth and beauty. Do you understand the difference?
Again, thanks for asking, but how do you determine truth and beauty? Do they lead to sexual arousal so that you can then measure your reactions to them? Do you hook yourself to a biofeedback machine for that purpose. That must make concerts and lectures cumbersome.
Before moving on, you agreed that you couldn't prove No-God but that is what atheism is, no-god, yet you deny that you accept no-god on faith just as I accept God on faith. How is your faith superior to mine?
Neural pathways with rewards. If you want to be blown away check out Toxoplasma.
As best as I can determine, Toxoplasma is a neural disease caused by a parasite. It does not blow me away as one can easily theorize the same possibility without the need for a parasite. I suggested something similar early in the thread as bb and I discussed Bacon's five senses theory. I also asked you if you saw man as simply contained in his own box and as a species that simply evolved like all the other species. I also mention B.F. Skinner and his Beyond Freedom and Dignity which says something similar. I suppose you realize, of course you do, you are brilliant, that idea denies free will. I assume you do, too.
Proof? We can't prove it we can only falsify it and C is not a constant it is a limit, do you understand the difference? All of our experimental evidence supports the the theory of relativity, out to at least 14 decimal places.
I am struggling to keep up, but we are again dealing with semantics. C may be a limit instead of a constant but for the purpose of solving the equation, E=MC2, it is treated as a constant. Yet, some have hypothesized that it can be exceeded.
Einstein didn't believe in the Judea/Christian God. He used God as a metaphor for Truth.
Christians also see God as Truth and Truth as a manifestation of God. It is quite possible that we and Einstein, and even you for that matter, are describing the same thing in different ways? We attribute it to God and you refuse to attribute it. In fact, you deny that there is anything to which to attribute it. It just is.
Are you sure Einstein didn't attribute it to God even though he did not define God? Surely he didn't have to use that term if that is not what he meant.
My idea of freedom is the opening of my eyes and seeing reality for what it is, ...
With all your brilliance and your ability to disprove anything, can't you see that you cannot "know" reality? You can only assume reality! There is much evidence that eye-witness testimony is unreliable. We know all the senses and their interpretations are unreliable. With all the advances in science the scientists still cannot determine whether the essence of things physical, the subatomic entities, are particles or energy waves. So, if we cannot be sure of the basics how can be be sure of the results much less our interpretations of them?
I am sure you will correct me in my errors but I tried valiantly to understand your reasoning.
Yup and yup. I concur and you’re so right, as do most of these threads tend to veer off. And sometimes by design, when the libs take a beating they can really get bad.
Why so mean? I would think someone of your superior knowledge and intelligence would be kinder. Or, does one have to be a Christian to be thoughtful, loving, and kind? After all, the Bible says Love thy neighbor as thyself and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Are those not operative outside Christianity?
You said that you wanted to be responsible for yourself and not dependent on some God, is that what you consider responsible behavior? Is your standard Screw my neighbor, everyone for themselves!? Do unto others before they do unto you!?
I said science is cold and you seem to follow that path.
Yes is is an often misquote taken from the lips of Jesus Christ himeself. It is, however a text taken out of context, which you and others who revile HIM misquote. The quote is this....."If you abide in my word, then are you my diciples, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
Here it seems to take on the meaning of what God Himself said, as opposed to your deliberate misquote.
Which brings us to another point. Give us a good reason why we should think you're right.
It's patently obvious that you think you are. Why?
The waves of nothingness emanating from your brain are palpable.
OK, mr. rocket scientist, have you figured out the difference between being the homeschooled and being the homeschooler?
Since you are so incapable of such a simple task as that, there's simply no reason to trust your judgment on any other matter.
FWIW, everybody has noticed your evasion of the questions posed you by several of us on the forum and your constantly trying to derail the conversation by accusing and attacking others. Your verbal parrying has been duly noted.
Want to man up and engage in some intellectually honest conversation for a change and actually answer the questions with something besides another question designed to shift the focus of attention to someone else?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.