Brandenburg faces wrath of Flying Spaghetti Monster

TheLocal.de ^ | 06 Apr 2016 11:01 GMT+02:00

[Heartlander]

Actually the question was for you - do you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately emerged from mindlessness?

Beyond this, to assume science is the 'authority' would be to commit the same fallacy (scientism) - and science has been politicized with beliefs. We have seen white church robes changed to white lab coats regarding man made global warming, the multiverse, behavioral science, etc... College research grants can come with strings attached regarding outcomes.

[FredZarguna]

"Fluctuations in a vacuum" is another way of saying, "There's somethin' happenin' here --- what it is ain't exactly clear---"

No. It isn't. It is quite clear what is happening. Quantum Field Theory requires it/predicts it, and what is happening is well known and well understood, and there is nothing the least bit unclear about it. Quantum Electrodynamics is the most successful theory in history. It makes correct predictions to absurd numbers of decimal places, all of those calculations requiring particles of energy, matter, and antimatter to be spontaneously created and to be spontaneously annihilated, in ways that are very well understood.

Hawking is not an authority on ontology, though he clearly thinks he is. The fact that his ideas are bad doesn't make Aristotle's good, nor does the mind's ability to see patterns where none exist make religious claptrap into a summary of scientific laws.

[FredZarguna]

Actually the question was for you - do you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately emerged from mindlessness?

That question was answered.

Since you missed it, here it is again:

There is no ontological or epistemological reason to believe from first principles that the evolution of human consciousness from mindlessness is any less likely than the idea that there has always existed an Original Consciousness from which all consciousness comes.

What I believe is faith. What I can prove is science. Science, for all of its faults, has a long way to go before its acceptance on faith causes anywhere near the damage caused by priests pretending they understood the secrets of the world; they understood nothing, and they knew it, or they would not have tortured and murdered people who questioned their orthodoxy.

No good comes of mixing science with religion -- in either direction.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What I find hard to account for, is the mind's inability to see patterns where they *do* exist, even when that "inability" is based on the preemptive rejection of whole categories of observation, experience and explanation.

I did not say "religious claptrap [is] a summary of scientific laws." Your choice of language, though, shows a bias which is most unbecoming in a seeker of truth.

Love your phrase "spontaneously created" though. Spontaneous creation --- in ways that are "very well understood"!

[FredZarguna]

Your choice of language, though, shows a bias which is most unbecoming in a seeker of truth.

Not at all. I'm still looking for God. But I decided long ago that the God of Abraham no more exists than Zeus. Part of "seeking" truth requires us to remove from further consideration those things which are obviously nonsense.

Spontaneous creation --- in ways that are "very well understood"!

Simply because you don't understand a thing doesn't make it a mystery. The kind of arrogance which presupposes the world be easily understood, or only sensible if you understand it, is "most unbecoming in a seeker of truth."

Here is a book accessible to someone in mathematics or hard science who is not a physicist: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Field-Theory-Gifted-Amateur-ebook/dp/B00MN96BHW/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me= It's worth a read, if you have the background. Although in it, you will find no mention of the Λογοζ.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The first act of faith, is the act that either accepts or reject reason: which is to say reality, the truth.

Christians believe that Reason is constitutive of the nature of God, since Christ is the Logos. Hence Christians embrace and, religiously, MUST embrace reason. We hold that Reason and Love constitute the character of God.

However much practice falls short, that is the doctrine.

No so for Islam. Islamic theology states that what is constitutive of Allah is simple Will --- sovereign will, arbitrary and capricious will, untrammeled will and nothing more. They say that "confining" Allah to what is within reason and love, is insulting to his supremacy. They say Allah may choose to be compassionate or merciful or not: it is optional for Him. If He chose to say, "Commit idolatry," you'd have to do that. If he chose to say, "Madness and irrationality are best," you'd have to believe that.

And that's one point that Pope Benedict XVI was making in his should-be-more-famous Regensberg University Address in 2006. He was asking, Is it possible to pursue theological dialogue with Islam if it does not accept a basis in reason, even in principle?

The mere fact that he asked that question --- well, we know how that worked out.