Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
62 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), vimesey (3 members, 59 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,040 Year: 4,152/6,534 Month: 366/900 Week: 72/150 Day: 3/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 151 of 373 (740427)
11-04-2014 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by marc9000
11-03-2014 10:42 PM


This might need a different thread, but could you give an example or two of archaeological discoveries that correspond...etc.? Atheist little me thought it was fairly cool when C13 dating on the Tunnel of Siloam matched up with historical dating. Do you have any more examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 11-03-2014 10:42 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 11-06-2014 12:57 PM Coragyps has taken no action
 Message 167 by marc9000, posted 11-06-2014 8:53 PM Coragyps has taken no action

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5967
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 152 of 373 (740429)
11-04-2014 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by marc9000
11-04-2014 8:26 PM


nwr writes:

If that's "only logical", can you provide the logic. Because I don't think that follows, unless you only mean "some atheists."

marc9000 writes:

To go further than I already have, I'd have to have you provide me with some examples of just how atheists get spiritual.

I guess I should take that as an admission that no, you cannot provide the logic.

You cannot demand that I fill supply what's missing, because it was your claim.

There have been a number of people who have said that they are spiritual but not religious. I'm not at all sure what that is supposed to mean.

I think, for some people, "spiritual" refers to the human spirit. So people who are not economic materialists, who value friendships and relations, might claim that they are spiritual.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by marc9000, posted 11-04-2014 8:26 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by marc9000, posted 11-06-2014 9:07 PM nwr has seen this message

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 153 of 373 (740430)
11-05-2014 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by marc9000
11-04-2014 8:26 PM


quote:

AS CONTRASTED. So if a person doesn't believe in God, I just went straight to a conclusion that he/she wouldn't have any state or quality of being dedicated to God. I didn't consider any of the more secondary definitions - "spiritual things", like maybe some sort of trance that connects them to Darwin or anything like that, because that sort of spirituality wasn't what was being discussed in this thread between Percy and Colbard. (messages 137 & 138) They were discussing "studying the natural world", and the "absence and denial of spiritual or moral laws." In message 138, Percy said;

"Spiritual laws" would be "spiritual things or values" so it seems that you ignored the part of the definition most appropriate to the discussion.

quote:

If (those who control) science didn't deny them, it would respect them. By not ignoring them, and pushing beyond them, to try to find naturalistic theories about reality that conflict with them. That was my main point of entering this particular fray.

In other words, to you, the germ theory of disease was an example of science "dismissing spirituality".

By your standards, Pre-Columbian archaeology "dismisses spirituality" by daring to contradict the Book of Mormon.

Of course in reality it is entirely possible to be spiritual while disagreeing with other people's "spiritual" views - although I have to wonder just how "spiritual" they really are if they're largely about the material world. Do you, for instance, refuse to take a position on the age of the universe to avoid contradicting the spiritual beliefs of Hindu ? Or do you "dismiss spirituality" by refusing to "respect" those beliefs ?

So obviously your standard of measuring whether someone "dismisses spirituality" seems to be more than somewhat faulty. The more so, since it confuses respect with deference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by marc9000, posted 11-04-2014 8:26 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by marc9000, posted 11-06-2014 9:19 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8479
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 154 of 373 (740432)
11-05-2014 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by marc9000
11-04-2014 8:26 PM


marc writes:

I've gotten them from reading at forums like this for years, and from a pretty thorough look at the opinions of scientific/atheist leaders, like Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Provine, many others. All I see from all of it is nothing but naturalism, when it comes to the study of the natural world, and how societies should behave. No spirituality whatsoever.

You've got it from what's inside your head. For instance, Sam Harris has been writing about spiritualism and morality for years - he meditates and has studies Buddhism. He's also just published this book:

Dear Reader

I have been waiting for more than a decade to write Waking Up. Long before I saw any reason to criticize religion (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation), or to connect moral and scientific truths (The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying), I was interested in the nature of human consciousness and the possibility of “spiritual” experience. In Waking Up, I do my best show that a certain form of spirituality is integral to understanding the nature of our minds.

There is no discrete self or ego living like a minotaur in the labyrinth of the brain. And the feeling that there is—the sense of being perched somewhere behind your eyes, looking out at a world that is separate from yourself—can be altered or entirely extinguished. Although such experiences of “self-transcendence” are generally thought about in religious terms, there is nothing, in principle, irrational about them. From both a scientific and a philosophical point of view, they represent a clearer understanding of the way things are.

My hope is that Waking Up will help readers see the nature of their own minds in a new light. A rational approach to spirituality seems to be what is missing from secularism and from the lives of most of the people I meet. The purpose of this book is to offer readers a clear view of the problem, along with some tools to help them solve it for themselves.

I sincerely hope you find it useful.

Sam Harris

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by marc9000, posted 11-04-2014 8:26 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by marc9000, posted 11-06-2014 9:26 PM Tangle has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2619 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 155 of 373 (740433)
11-05-2014 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Astrophile
11-03-2014 3:12 PM


Astyrophile writes:

How do you know this?
Second, do you personally have an understanding of what these spiritual principles are? If so, what comment can you make on 'the universe, its beginnings, structures etc.' on the basis of these spiritual principles, and can you show how this comment follows from these principles?

There are principles of existence and or life that are up held by the laws of the land.
Murder, stealing, adultery, lying, coveting, disrespect for parents and authority, disrespect for life, property and the qualities of life. These violate life and therefor life could not have come forth without these protections.

They speak of equality, respect for leadership and life sources, having enough but not with greed, sharing, mutual relationships, boundaries, etc all these are largely obeyed by the animal kingdom as necessary for their own survival.

These principles can be taken further into the material world, with factors like harmony, consistency, dependability, precision and accuracy, balance, economy, etc which apply to the laws of physics and are demonstrable through out the universe. If it were not the case, a method of study cannot be applied to a totally unpredictable material world.

The universe and all of its manifestations lean towards order, beauty and purpose, - qualities that cannot be reproduced without extremely high intelligence, design, artwork, organisation, wisdom and purpose.

These are spiritual principles and there is no evidence that any universe could exist without them.

The laws are designed to have a support system in place for all things, and that all things are in harmony through reflection and replication of those support systems.

The universe is made on the principles of allowing energy to operate at its lowest and most economic level. The highest energy is the most complex, intelligent and permanent, while the subjective forces are systematically simplified at each level down, into temporal categories.

This means, as proven by science, that the universe has much more energy both in amount and complexity to support what we call matter, which is relatively simple and less powerful, and yet from this relative simplicity (because it is not simple on any level as far as we are concerned) we have designer quality life forms.

So at the beginning of our universe we have intelligence and power, and in the product of the universe we have intelligent life.

But only Intelligence produces intelligence, not greater but lesser, yet with a support system and authority based on Love.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Astrophile, posted 11-03-2014 3:12 PM Astrophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Astrophile, posted 11-05-2014 4:08 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 165 by edge, posted 11-06-2014 2:46 PM Colbard has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20733
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 156 of 373 (740441)
11-05-2014 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by marc9000
11-04-2014 8:26 PM


Hi Marc,

You didn't read your own definition of spirituality, here it is with the relevant portion italicized:

quote:
the state or quality of being dedicated to God, religion, or spiritual things or values, esp as contrasted with material or temporal ones

Spirituality is not synonymous with belief in God. For atheists and agnostics I imagine spiritual things would be love, friendship, trust, awe and so forth.

If (those who control) science didn't deny them, it would respect them. By not ignoring them, and pushing beyond them, to try to find naturalistic theories about reality that conflict with them. That was my main point of entering this particular fray.

Yeah, right. There's as much a body that controls science as one that controls religion. Why don't you get on plumber's and electrician manuals for not showing respect for "spiritual or moral laws." It would make as much sense.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by marc9000, posted 11-04-2014 8:26 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by marc9000, posted 11-06-2014 9:39 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 373 (740450)
11-05-2014 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by marc9000
11-04-2014 8:26 PM


Whatever spirituality they have, the evidence seems clear that it takes a back seat to naturalism in studies of how the natural world works. In other words, their spirituality is secondary. And largely meaningless.

9k, your comment is pretty much thoughtless. Only someone whose spirituality is wrapped around some fairly specific interpretations issues, like you do, would have much problem with anything found by modern science. I note that in past discussions you've been quick to call even Christians who have no problems with science atheists. In other words, you define spirituality and religion to mean the following of your own beliefs.

On that bases, I call BS. It's not spirituality that is the problem. It is instead religious dogma, held by a minority of the people on earth, that creates the fairly laughable position you exhibit here and in any number of other threads. It's your paranoid belief that science is in the business of deliberately opposing the Bible, and that scientists ought to stop doing things like deep space astronomy out of respect for your take on the Bible.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by marc9000, posted 11-04-2014 8:26 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by marc9000, posted 11-06-2014 9:44 PM NoNukes has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 373 (740469)
11-05-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by marc9000
11-03-2014 10:42 PM


That could be true, but if it doesn't dismiss it, it would be respectful of it enough to not drive by it and try to find naturalistic replacements for it.

Really? Do you get mad at your doctor for recommending an antibiotic rather than praying for the evil spirits to leave your body?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 11-03-2014 10:42 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 2638 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 159 of 373 (740471)
11-05-2014 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Colbard
11-03-2014 3:43 AM


Science is evidence for God
quote:
Spiritual and natural laws are harmonious, and nature is based and operated on spiritual principles.

Anyone can speculate about phenomena. It is not the evidence that is contestable (real evidence) it is the interpretation.

For instance there is at least 300 cosmologies that provide adequate explanation for the existence of the universe without using dark energy or dark matter. These cosmologies are consistent with what observations show and GR.

Some of those cosmologies (like the 5d universe) are completely comparable with the Biblical account of creation.

Remember God is in the details. Faith is not inconsistent with science (real science).

Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Colbard, posted 11-03-2014 3:43 AM Colbard has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by edge, posted 11-06-2014 2:53 PM zaius137 has replied

  
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 90
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 160 of 373 (740537)
11-05-2014 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Colbard
11-05-2014 6:01 AM


Murder, stealing, adultery, lying, coveting, disrespect for parents and authority, disrespect for life, property and the qualities of life. These violate life and therefor life could not have come forth without these protections.

I'll discuss this with the trees and other plants in my garden and get back to you.

The universe and all of its manifestations lean towards order, beauty and purpose, - qualities that cannot be reproduced without extremely high intelligence, design, artwork, organisation, wisdom and purpose.

These are spiritual principles and there is no evidence that any universe could exist without them.


I'm sure you believe this, but I think that you're putting the cart before the horse. I don't see how spiritual principles could exist without a material universe for them to exist in. As for the rest of your post, it is too far from anything that I recognise as science for me to comment on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Colbard, posted 11-05-2014 6:01 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Colbard, posted 11-07-2014 6:04 AM Astrophile has seen this message

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 2638 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 161 of 373 (740618)
11-06-2014 11:42 AM


Big Bang or Big fraud
The big bang has become so ad-hoc that it is now a tautology amongst scientists.

Let us ignore reality for what we “believe” to be true… that is not science.

Did you know that the cosmological principle now provides less of a explanation of the universe than a galactic center for the milky way.


Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Astrophile, posted 11-06-2014 2:24 PM zaius137 has taken no action
 Message 179 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2014 5:04 AM zaius137 has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 162 of 373 (740636)
11-06-2014 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Coragyps
11-04-2014 8:57 PM


This might need a different thread, but could you give an example or two of archaeological discoveries that correspond...etc.? Atheist little me thought it was fairly cool when C13 dating on the Tunnel of Siloam matched up with historical dating. Do you have any more examples?

Juping in here if I may... the Siloam tunel dating was actually two methods, 14C on a leaf in the plaster to provide an upper bound on the age and U-Th disequlibrium dating on a stalactite to provide a lower bound.

Of course the classic example is Ar-Ar dating of the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. That's a bit of a tour-de-force since so it is so recent; I've heard it said that no other lab in the world could have done it. url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we...40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger[/url].

One of my favorites is dating bread from Pompeii via 14C. Alas the paper is behind a paywall at Nature: "Radiocarbon measurements on samples of known age".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2014 8:57 PM Coragyps has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 11-06-2014 2:43 PM JonF has taken no action

  
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 90
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 163 of 373 (740656)
11-06-2014 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by zaius137
11-06-2014 11:42 AM


Re: Big Bang or Big fraud
The big bang has become so ad-hoc that it is now a tautology amongst scientists.

'Tautology' 1. The use of words that merely repeat elements of the meaning already conveyed.
2. (logic) a statement that is always true.
Is this really what you meant to say?

Did you know that the cosmological principle now provides less of a explanation of the universe than a galactic center for the milky way.

No, I didn't, and again I don't understand what you mean or what point you are trying to make. The cosmological principle is the principle that the universe looks much the same to all observers, wherever they are; more technically, it means that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 11:42 AM zaius137 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20733
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 164 of 373 (740661)
11-06-2014 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by JonF
11-06-2014 12:57 PM


JonF writes:

One of my favorites is dating bread from Pompeii via 14C. Alas the paper is behind a paywall at Nature: "Radiocarbon measurements on samples of known age".

I found half of page one: http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/1831582a0

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 11-06-2014 12:57 PM JonF has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 934 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 165 of 373 (740662)
11-06-2014 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Colbard
11-05-2014 6:01 AM


There are principles of existence and or life that are up held by the laws of the land.
Murder, stealing, adultery, lying, coveting, disrespect for parents and authority, disrespect for life, property and the qualities of life. These violate life and therefor life could not have come forth without these protections.

C'mon, you're just making stuff up as you go, aren't you? Are you saying that bacteria, for instance, either have these values or are not alive?

Your post appears to be a bunch of utopian platitudes. Are you a 'new ager'? Have you tried crystal therapy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Colbard, posted 11-05-2014 6:01 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022