Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 10:32 PM
28 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,193 Year: 5,230/19,786 Month: 1,352/873 Week: 248/460 Day: 64/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution
:: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5295 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 106 of 115 (67497)
11-18-2003 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by grace2u
11-18-2003 4:43 PM


Hmmmm... double post.

Admin, when I submitted the first post, I recall seeing a white screen that read "Internal Server Error" and something else along the lines of suggesting that I contact my SysAdmin if the problem persists.

Dunno if that helps or not...

[This message has been edited by ::, 11-18-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 4:43 PM grace2u has not yet responded

helena 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 03-27-2008


Message 107 of 115 (67499)
11-18-2003 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by grace2u
11-18-2003 4:43 PM


quite wrong actually....
the point being that such elemental mathematics don't hold for e.g. spin (or magnetic spin quantum numbers).

Let's look at the following experiment:
You have a stream of particles of total spin 1/2 and have them fly in x-direction through a magnetic field along the z-axis. Turns out those particles (or rather their spin) has two distinct possibilities of arranging itself to the magnetic field (up or down). Which means that those particles will either fly upwards (z-axis) by a certain amount or downwards by the same amount. There's no telling ahead for each particle which way it's going to go.

Now you select those with spin up (say you just block those going down). If you do the same experiment again, you will find that they only go upwards. No problem yet...

But, say you were interested and sent that selected beam (remember only spin up) through another magnetic field in y-axis (perpendicular to the first experiment). You will find that they will again split in two groups one going into the positive, the other into the negative y-direction. Still no problem...

Now you select for either positive or negative y-direction (doesn't matter), and being the mean person that you are, send the beam through another magnetic field in z-direction.
The result is that you again get two distinct beams. The particles have lost their information pertaining to their magnetic alignment with respect to the z-axis.

so you see, such basic terms don't always hold true at the microscopic level...

regards,

(please don't forget to thank Profs. Stern and Gerlach for that nice experiment)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 4:43 PM grace2u has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ::, posted 11-18-2003 5:39 PM helena has not yet responded

  
:: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5295 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 108 of 115 (67505)
11-18-2003 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by helena
11-18-2003 5:23 PM


Re: quite wrong actually....
Alex writes:

(please don't forget to thank Profs. Stern and Gerlach for that nice experiment)


Hear! Hear!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by helena, posted 11-18-2003 5:23 PM helena has not yet responded

zephyr
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 109 of 115 (67575)
11-18-2003 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by grace2u
11-17-2003 11:04 PM


quote:
How do you suggest that we all know it? Christianity teaches that Christ in His mercy has placed this within us.
Sorry, I didn't quite explain that like I intended. I meant that we are all aware that certain codes for behavior benefit the greater good. Therefore, I hold that pragmatism is the reason we have moral standards, until you demonstrate otherwise.
quote:
Any unbiased observer would contend that there is at least some evidence to support the claims Christianity makes. Would you not agree? Even if the evidence is not compelling to you, there is some. I would contend that the evidence for outweighs the evidence against, this is probably our point of disagreement.
There is the same type and volume of evidence for Islam, according to its believers. And so on and so forth. As one who was always taught that a literal belief in the Bible was the only kind that could stand, I can hardly even read it with a straight face, with the scientific and historical knowledge I now possess.
quote:
How so? What is the evidence against? Alleged lack of evidence for the flood( I don't grant this for other reasons, but even if I did...)? fine. I contend that the evidence of morality alone is enough reason to believe. Add in the laws of logic(I have labored this point alone), laws of thought, concepts of justice, love, beauty and any other esoteric concept. What else? There are many other evidences that provide further confirmations of this God.
These things can be explained many ways. You see God in them because you already believe God responsible for all good and reliable things. That's not learning from evidence. That's circular argument, claiming to derive belief from ideas based on pre-existing belief.
quote:
The theology behind Christianity is another. It is believable and it speaks to the core of the problem that has plagued mankind.
It's believable because it was forced to adapt. The early, malleable Christian church survived by adopting palatable doctrine that would be accepted by the people of that time. Doctrine has continued to change (though not as dramatically since the canon was "fixed") to keep "the church," in the generic sense, socially acceptable. What Christian theology is not, and never will be, is the truth as originally imparted to anyone, ever. It is historically impossible.
quote:
I commend you for your honesty but you must examine where these feelings come from and how can your worldview account for them? I contend that it can not. Atheism can not explain these metaphysical concepts, theism can. They clearly exist, as you are even demonstrating yet again. So when speaking of the metaphysical, if one system can explain the metaphysical in an extremely concise manner, and the other can not even begin to account for them, which is more likely an accurate representation of the system it is trying to describe?
All I need to explain is human emotion. Chemistry explains it quite satisfactorily. As for metaphysics, once again you assume a basis that need not be assumed. Metaphysics cannot be documented or shown to exist outside the firing of synapses in our brains, so I'm under no burden to explain it when I say that I can accept the apparent absence of a deity from my world.
quote:
In fact I listed some of the most profound, thoughtful, intelligent and rational scientists ever to have blessed this earth were Christians. Again it is irrelevant ultimately but it does provide evidence that all theists are not babbling fools as some might think. I wrote this on an earlier post in case you missed it:
I'm just fine with all of that. Let's just note that all their useful results were achieved through methodological naturalism, and we can leave it at that. Any responses there would be better off in the MN thread.
quote:
If that were so, these emotions you have among other things can not be explained except for them being electro chemical processes in your brain. It should be self-evident that these concepts are more than that.
Back to the emotions now.

To many people, your conclusion is not self-evident by any means. Intuition says otherwise, but intuition is known very well in science as a bald-faced liar that often serves the interests of human learning and achievement in an extremely poor manner.

Electrochemical impulses explain how we take actions based on our feelings, as well as their physical effects on our bodies. Any other aspects you feel are not explained?

quote:
BTW, the simple fact that my philisophical system is more appealing does not mean or even imply that it is NOT true.
Of course not. I only said it was unrelated and a terrible means of determining either way.
quote:
I contend that the requirements atheists place on theists are unreasonable. It should be likened to a judicial case, not proving a scientific theory. The burden of proof is on the theist, however a formal proof should not be the requirement for acceptance.
I myself ask theists for nothing. I had a really great talk just the other day with one of my best friends, a devout Catholic, about our faith and our life stories. Neither demanded anything. We just compared how faith has affected our lives and both found the experience enriching.

People only tend to demand proof when you demand they kneel. Outspoken proponents of atheism are rare, and are not out to win converts but rather to fight for things like religious freedom and sound education. Of course, it's a different story here. Some people just like to argue, and some (like me) are here to learn and only get involved when something interests or riles them. Just my two cents.

quote:
This again proves my point. How can you begin to verify this? This statement does not make sense in an atheist world. In an atheist world, they both would be equally altruistic if I granted every possible thing in your favor. Why do you even sense that if someone does something good for no personal gain, that it is better than if they do it for personal gain? This again, demonstrates my point.
I could possibly concede a little on this point: some theists are genuinely altruistic, but the issues get way more muddy when you incorporate the promise of reward and the threat of divine wrath. Thus I still feel that altruism as such (the doing of good for others without promise of benefit) is more clearly served (if not necessarily better served) by one who believes without a doubt that his/her actions will solely work to the advantage of others. I speak of altruism not as an absolute, ever-present moral thing, but rather as a category of action motivated by a type of thought process. One is in no way obliged to assume that anything else is involved. Moreover, people believing in altruism is not the same thing as altruism existing, or altruistic acts occurring. I don't see you being particularly careful to separate these concepts.
quote:
quote:
That (sorry to disillusion you) leaves the godless heathens holding the high ground over coerced believers.
Again, why is this so in your worldview? How can it even begin to give an account?
Because it is less selfless to give when you are 100% sure you won't be enthroned in paradise as a result. Pure altruism requires believing that what you do is all for the good of others. Seems obvious. I'm not saying atheists are more virtuous, as that's a totally subjective thing. I _am_ saying that it is possible to be a kind and caring person who benefits the human race without doing it for God, and that one popular concept (altruism) is best served and best represented by one who does it for no apparent reason.
quote:
This discussion provides further evidence that these truths exist within each of us.
Evidence of a particular thought pattern is not the same as evidence for anything in the real world beside the activity of nerve cells!
quote:
Did you know that the concepts you are speaking of are concepts Christ taught? I'm sure you also know that Christianity teaches that God has placed these concepts within you.
Christianity teaches that it's more selfless for an unbeliever to give than for a believer to give?
quote:
How can atheism account for your implied statement that being unselfish for no reason is better than being unselfish for gain? In either case, you are still acting out a good deed and society should benefit from the acts either one committed independent of the motives involved.
So we agree on some things.
quote:
This is another point theist philosophers have made. Atheists borrow from the theist world view even though the concepts borrowed do not make sense within the confines of atheism.
I'd like to see you demonstrate that the concept of doing good for others originated after the concept of an invisible, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity.

While it may be true that religious institutions have been vessels for the ideals of charity and good will and such,

1) they have often served completely different ideals, such as exploitation of the masses and temporal power for their masters, and;

2) this does not in any way prove that these concepts originated within a religious context or have been best served by organized religions.

quote:
While they do this, they deny the realities of the world in which we live. How can this be the high ground?
If anyone denies the realities of the world we live in, it is Biblical literalists dabbling in the realm of science. They deny physical reality constantly to maintain the sort of faith they desire. Worse, they force their twisted interpretations of evidence on other people, accuse them of sin and faithlessness, slander those who accomplish difficult and demanding scientific work, and generally countermand the moral imperatives they claim to hold.

I don't mean that I consider atheists morally superior to theists. I consider virtue to be independent of faith. Each has possible positive and negative effects on one's worldview, potential for good and for abuse, and I have seen each as a catalyst for negative or positive change, depending on the person and the situation. And yes, this equanimity comes naturally to me.

Wow. I had no idea I was going to write that much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 11:04 PM grace2u has not yet responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 115 (67576)
11-18-2003 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ::
11-18-2003 5:20 PM


Ok.. I don't want to turn this into an argument of semantics which it is quickly becoming.

By the statement you made:

yet if the identity axiom (it's not a theorem, BTW) held this would be impossible

I can see why we are not connecting. The laws of thought as I have mentioned (and did not intend to get on a tangent with), are different than the identity axiom seen within boolean logic, propositional logic ,etc, as you have been (I think)assuming. The axioms are more {self-evident postulates} for aplying the concepts the laws define. I am not arguing that the AXIOMS contained within the various logical(or nonlogical) systems are universal and invariant, rather that there are in existence a set of universal and aboslute laws(reflected by laws of thought and laws of logic(reason)) that make these laws perceivable and useful to us. From what I can gather from your post, you seem to think that I am arguing that propositional logic is binding in quantum physics. If so, this is not the case. I recognize the need for differing models at the quantum level. The point I am laboring is that all the logical and mathematical systems that govern our science is dependent upon these universal and invariant truths. The truths being laws of thought and laws of logic(reason). Without them, communication would be impossible and science would certainly be nonexistent.

Please understand that almost no rational philosopher will argue that the laws of thought are not valid. Arguing contrary to this is like arguing that we do not exist. It is a difficult position to argue since there is no real evidence to suggest otherwise. Now I have used the laws of thought as an example. These are laws that are philisophical in nature, not scientific, although science uses and is somewhat dependent upon them. The foundation the laws of thought provide, allow for a starting block if you will from which all of science can begin from. They are subtle and most scientists take them for granted and don't analyze them. When they do, they fall error similar to what has happend here.

This thread is starting to wear itself out I'm afraid. I will continue to respond as time allows and will shortly be devoting my attention to another topic similar to this one(from morality).

I think that this discussion comes down to wether or not you believe that these laws are universal and invariant. I maintain they are, you disagree. You produced counter arguments using examples from quantum physics. I maintain that the laws are still valid at that level and that you were merely misunderstanding me. Perhaps you still would contend that they are invalid even after I have clarified my statement, and pointed out where I think we are misunderstanding one another. If so, thats fine. For the sake of discussion however and in order to continue with efficiency, I will attempt to move on and perhaps address Paul.

Thanks for the discussion...

Even still, Christ have mercy on us all..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ::, posted 11-18-2003 5:20 PM :: has not yet responded

zephyr
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 111 of 115 (67578)
11-18-2003 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
11-18-2003 4:09 PM


quote:
I don't think such a god would, though - creation being generally a morally positive act, after all.
I beg to differ. Creation is morally neutral apart from the purpose of the creator. For example, if you created people just to watch them suffer, you could hardly call that a morally positive act. Like Calvin and Hobbes, when he builds a whole tinker-toy world just so he can imagine being a wrathful god, demanding sacrifice and smashing his puny subjects at will.
According to the Christian worldview, the created purpose of quite a few modern-day people would seem to be this: be born into poverty in a pagan nation, worship Mohammed or whatever false god you are forced to believe in, live in squalor and die of disease or starvation, and go to hell. Hmm... morally positive creation?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2003 4:09 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 115 (67634)
11-19-2003 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Loudmouth
11-18-2003 12:43 PM


Some quick comments for you..

We can't know if God is logical unless we have something to compare him to. The same goes for morality

We can determine God is logical because He in a sense has declared Himself to be. Circular? Yes. Evidenced? Yes. Just like logic itself. Circular argument, but it is still true. Most non-material realities exist in a similar way. Their existence can not be proved in any conventional manner, however evidence of their existence is observed. Again, the demands atheist place on theists are far to unrealistic. You might contend to be an atheist(I don't know). What is your proof that God does not exist?

We can reason God is logical because a logical universe demands a logical force to be behind it. In the same way the existence of absolute moral truths demand an arbitrator of these truths, otherwise the alleged moral truths would not exist.

What I am trying to say is that we have to come up with our own logic in many instances without invoking God.
And I agree. I am not contending that we should simply invoke God into every scientific theory, in fact it should not be allowed(I'm sure Newton and Pascal would concur as well). IMHO this would not be using the gifts of reason that God has given each of us, to their full potential. I am contending however that there are these truths hidden in the universe and that atheism proper can not account for them. Even if you forget about logic or reason, the existence of morality alone is reason enough. We continue to discover these truths and in doing so, are demonstrated more and more the glory and reality of God. Again, this is no disservice to science rather it compliments it.

Why would you delve further into something you already require for the existence of logic and truth
Are you asking why we would delve further into this alleged God, since it is meaningless in the sense that this God could feed us anything we want and we would have no idea if it is true or not, since we presuppose the laws of logic are whatever He dictates? If so, we delve into the realities of this world because the mysteries are as eternal as God Himself. God would not feed us false data since in doing so, He would be behaving contrary to His nature(i.e. lying). When we as Christian scientists/engineers begin to understand the world in which we live, it draws us closer to God since we catch glimpses of the eternal wisdom He possesses. We see His glory and beauty not only in the metaphysical but also in the physical, that is, His creation and the wonder of it. So really, the example you provide(if I understood you correctly) could not happen in the Christian world since God could not lie.

The atheist says 2+2=4 because he has evidence and shared experience to back it up. As long as experiments and data hold up 2+2=4, the logic will remain

The theist contends the same thing. The only difference is the theist sees this universal and invariant truth as FURTHER evidence for the existence of God. Furthermore, the theist maintains that this type of reality is unimaginable within the confines of atheism. You no doubt would argue that this is simply the way the universe is. But why would a universe be subject to any type of law whatsoever? Why would the laws of logic, math and science hold repeatedly in the realm of experience(this quote not my own)? Atheism simply seems far more unlikely to me. Why do you contend it is MORE likely?

I appreciate the thought provoking replies...

"Christe eleison"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 12:43 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2003 2:25 AM grace2u has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 113 of 115 (67640)
11-19-2003 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by grace2u
11-19-2003 1:10 AM


Well it seems that you consider actually living up to your own claims an "unrealistic demand". That really says it all, doesn't it ?

[This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-19-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by grace2u, posted 11-19-2003 1:10 AM grace2u has not yet responded

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 3263 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 114 of 115 (67642)
11-19-2003 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
11-18-2003 4:09 PM


crashfrog writes:

I don't think such a god would, though - creation being generally a morally positive act, after all.

zephyr beat me to it, however there is something I would like to add.

In a universe that consists, entirely and only of one being, how would you determine if that being is moral or immoral?

------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2003 4:09 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 115 of 115 (67643)
11-19-2003 2:41 AM


Closing down for about 24 hours
Take a break from this one.

Adminnemooseus


  
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019