Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,393 Year: 3,650/9,624 Month: 521/974 Week: 134/276 Day: 8/23 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 332 of 468 (631141)
08-30-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2011 11:58 AM


Re: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
Dr Adequate writes:
But if we're talking about the first cause, then you might as well chide Jbr for his unwarranted assumption that dolphin speech is the product of intelligence. Sure, dolphins are intelligent, but dolphins are not the first cause of the fact that dolphins talk.
Again, you should have pulled him up for suggesting that SETI would detect intelligence. Sure, it could detect intelligent aliens, but not an intelligent first cause.
I agree with all that but it still leaves your statement as being incorrect.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2011 11:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2011 5:05 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 346 of 468 (631173)
08-30-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2011 5:05 PM


Re: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
Dr Adequate writes:
No, it would have been incorrect if we were discussing the First Cause. Or the best way to make mango chutney, or the historical origins of the offside rule in association football, or the career prospects for a one-legged tapdancer. But we were not discussing any of those things, and I was right.
Scientists do in fact ascribe the DNA of living things to an unintelligent cause, and the communication of dolphins to an intelligent cause (i.e. dolphins) and in doing so they are not even contemplating the question of whether or not they have an intelligent First Cause, which is a different question.
OK Fair enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2011 5:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 347 of 468 (631174)
08-30-2011 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Straggler
08-30-2011 5:50 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
GDR writes:
It's highly speculative, but if God's existence has more than one time dimension, (back, forward and maybe through), non-existence wouldn't have any meaning.
Straggler writes:
I have no idea what this even means.
This as I say is highly speculative but it helps me to grasp the idea of what eternal life might conceivably look like.
From Brian Greene I think it was, I learned that mathematical formulas tell us that time should be symmetrical, or in other ways we should be able to go backward and forward in time. (Two dimensions of time) If in addition there was a third dimension of time perhaps you could go from one point to another without passing through the time in between.
This would make time infinite and so a being that exists in 3 time dimensions would have always existed and so there wouldn't be a question of creation.
Take that for what it's worth, which is very little, but it helps me wrap my head around anything infinite. I know I'm leaving myself wind open with this.
Straggler writes:
But god(s) as prime over is just one of the potentially infinite possibilities. On what basis should we deem it any more or less likely than any of the conceivable alternatives? Or even the possibility of any inconceivable alternatives? And if it is one of an infinite array then just pure stats makes your particular claim unlikley to be true doesn't it?
I don't see it that way. I'm talking about a prime mover that is the first cause which would include being a first cause of a being from somewhere else in the universe who planted the seed of life here.
Straggler writes:
Untrue. The conceivable possibilities are vast.
Can you be more specific of what other possibilities that you are talking about.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2011 5:50 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2011 10:34 AM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 465 of 468 (633109)
09-12-2011 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by AdminPD
09-12-2011 9:46 AM


Re: Ready For Final Summations
I think that we would objectively all agree that we have an innate sense of right and wrong even if we don’t always agree on the specifics. I also think that we would all objectively believe that human, and for that matter all intelligence is a reality. From these objective facts we then draw subjective conclusions. If our subjective conclusion is that there is no god(s), or in other words no prime mover, then we have to believe that intelligence and morality grew from 100% non-intelligent and non-moral material sources. It is my subjective conclusion is that it is more reasonable to believe that our morality and intelligence is the result of a moral and intelligent prime mover.
In addition we have bodies which perceive our existence through our 5 senses. That is an objective fact. In order to subjectively conclude that there is no prime mover we have to believe that our bodies complete with 5 senses just evolved from 100% non-intelligent material origins.
We know objectively that a living cell is an incredibly complex piece of work that at some point in the far distant past came into existence. If we subjectively believe that there is no prime mover we have to believe that by random chance, (or whatever terminology you want to use), atoms and molecules came together to create this first form of life and then later these cells, again by random chance, (or whatever terminology you want to use ), came together to form more complex life forms.
It is my subjective conclusion that there it is more reasonable to subjectively conclude that there was/is a pre-existing intelligence and morality responsible for all that we perceive.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by AdminPD, posted 09-12-2011 9:46 AM AdminPD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024