Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Personal Philosophy
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 15 (550811)
03-18-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IAmMe77777
03-18-2010 5:39 AM


But what is time but an agreed upon measure of observed changes?
Time is also a fundamental property of the universe, like space. The universe is a manifold of space and time, i.e. spacetime <-- clicky
If there is a timeline of the changes in the universe, then what happens at the beginning of time?
For time to begin would require a time before time. There is no point in time where time doesn't exist. Think finite, yet unbounded.
At one point the primordial forces of the universe where unified and proceeded to explode out into expanse that is the universe as we know it.
Not just forces, but space and time, themselves, as well. And it all couldn't have expanded into something, as what was expanding contained everything so there was no thing to expand into.
You see to me, science and faith are one.
I don't think so. I use science and I have faith. And like you say:
Science cannot explain the important question of life: Why? And faith cannot explain the important question of life: How?
So how can they be one?
To say man is nothing more than an animal and biological organism is to deny empirical evidence to the contrary. For evidence, I offer the fact of Man ceasing to evolve. Yes, that’s right, humans are not evolving.
I used to think that, but it turns out that it is impossible for things to not be evolving as allele frequencies will always be changing somewhat, even if barely.
While certain traits have become more prevalent species-wide (ie, height), we have effectively stopped evolving.
If traits' prevalencies are changing then that is evolution. This "effectively" qualifier is ambiguous and obfuscatory.
We have stopped evolution in two ways. First, we no longer practice random mating which is a prerequisite for natural selection.
Random mating is not a prerequisite for natural selection. How do you think the peacock got its tail? Sexual Selection
And second, we have stopped natural selection completely. The fittest are not the only individuals that survive and produce the most offspring.
A reduction in fitness is still evolution. And we haven't completely stopped natural selection. Although things like predation have been removed, there's still sexual selection and genetic drift.
I agree that its seems like we have reached stasis, but there's no such thing as absolute stasis.
Our lack of evolution is proof of our elevation above animal status.
Crocodiles... they have a more static evolutionary path than humans do.
As explained earlier, the simple observation that something cannot come from nothing should be the logical springboard for a belief in God in any human person.
Wait... you said so yourself: there never has been nothing.
But how should faith lead one to science? I opine that faith is an essential part of science. Perhaps not a faith in God, but faith nonetheless. Isn't the first step of the scientific method creating a thesis? And isn't a thesis defined as an educated guess about the outcome of an experinment?
The first step is observation. Then you form a hypothesis. A thesis is more like a presentation of a conclusion.
A sceintist obsevers from past experience and says "I think this will occur." The problem with this model of knowledge aquisition is that the past does not guruntee the future for the very simple fact that the future is undefined
See, you too posit starting with observing. And the tentativity of science accounts for the future being technically unknown.
Anything can happen. And by anything, I literally mean anything. You could sprout wings. The floor you are standing on could become pourus. That carrot in your fridge could speak to you the next time you open the door. It is possible simply because it has not occured yet. I argue that any guess, even an educated one, is a leap of faith simply because the future is uncertain. Therefore the scientific method itself is based upon some form of faith, even if it is only that things will occur in the future as they did in the past.
I don't think there's any faith in science. Its just inductive logic.
Given: All we've ever observed is black crows. Tentative Conlusion: All crows are black.
This is not a prediction of the future that there will never be a white crow observed, as you say that is impossible to arrive at. Its that the conclusion is tentatively held until a non-black crow is actually observed. There is no need for faith in the blackness of crows.
Let's do a little role play. Say you are God. You are all powerful. You are all knowing. And you are all loving. You are the true, the good, and the beautiful. Why would you create the universe? I realize many could be reluctant to put themselves in the shoes of God as some sort of blasphamy, but each of us is said to be made in God's own image - complete with reason. So I ask you to use that reason and consider why you would create something inferior to yourself. Some say it is out of love and others say out of a need to be loved by worhsipers. I say both of these explinations are inadequate. You are the supreme being. The end all, be all. Why would you care about anything else? There is nothing greater than yourself, so how could anything else warrent your atteantion? This is what is called the philosopher's God. It is God, but it is a God that only ponders its own devine essece - as nothing else is worthy of its attention. It is with this idea of God that I offer the Why of human existance: We are God.
We ARE God.
Sure, god could have split himself up into a bunch of little us's. Or maybe he wanted to validate his existence by having something not-him exist as well.
What I argue is that God created us, created the universe, to better ponder his own existence.
Or that. Whatever. Who knows...
How many people in your daily life do you encounter who seem to have no capacity to think of life on a higher level than a day at a time? No reason to live other than thier own personal comfort? They think nothing is greater than themselves and it shows in thier unhappiness.
None.
But love is a reciprocal relationship. If love is unrequited, it isn't love - its an obesstion.
I was going to say that I love Modern Warfare 2 and it doesn't love me back, but you're right... its really an obsession
He would have to gamble to see if we loved him, which could explain the state of the world. It's an experiment.
God is a kid with an antfarm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-18-2010 5:39 AM IAmMe77777 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