Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 101102103104105 174>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 01:31
^As much as I also agree that there hasn't been any good evidence of god's existence (any scientifical evidence would be a better way of saying it), what Llama says doesn't contradict the meaning of evidence. Go check a textbook, Textbook, and you'll see that the definition of evidence is broader that just scientifical one and is just proof. It's rather vague. Scientific evidence there might be not, but evidence in a broader sense there might be.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 03:22
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:


 
I'm fairly confident there is an elephant in the room. But it may be a very different creature than anything I imagine.

I'm fairly confident that there is no elephant in the room until someone demonstrates that there is. If that means that in your opinion I'm overlooking some transcendental elephants then that's a risk that I'm willing to take.Wink
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 04:52
Oh for goodness' sake T, that's like the seventh time you've made some kind of Textbook related "joke".

THEY GET FUNNIER EVERY TIME I MUST SAY
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 08:48
Yeah T,  " come on, the "Textbook" thing is getting old... Is just making you look trollish..."
 Hello Pot, my friends call me Kettle.    Wink LOL 


Edited by Trademark - August 31 2010 at 08:53
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 09:40
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:


 
I'm fairly confident there is an elephant in the room. But it may be a very different creature than anything I imagine.

I'm fairly confident that there is no elephant in the room until someone demonstrates that there is. If that means that in your opinion I'm overlooking some transcendental elephants then that's a risk that I'm willing to take.Wink
 
Let's back up first.
 
Do you believe in emergent phenomena? To what extent?
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 11:13
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

TheLlama: I don't think you understand what the word evidence means.
 

I believe you are the one who doesn't understand what evidence means.

Evidence is simply any reason to believe a claim is true or not true, as a lawyer I can tell you there's also what is called CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence, and a the Old Testament can be considered at least circumstantial evidence, not a smoking gun, but evidence at the end.

The New Testament is much more, because there is not only one, but four accepted Gospels and at least 3 Apocryphal Gospels that I have investigated and the coincidences between the four, would be accepted in a trial as corroborated evidence.

Now, I have checked SCIENTIFIC evidence in some saints or miracles cases, and this could be accepted as determinant in any trial for each specific case.

So yes, we have evidence that indicates that the chances of God existing are very strong, now, the rest is faith.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 12:30
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:


 
I'm fairly confident there is an elephant in the room. But it may be a very different creature than anything I imagine.

I'm fairly confident that there is no elephant in the room until someone demonstrates that there is. If that means that in your opinion I'm overlooking some transcendental elephants then that's a risk that I'm willing to take.Wink
 
Let's back up first.
 
Do you believe in emergent phenomena? To what extent?


Yes - to the extent that it can be demonstrated. For example I can see another person perform some activity and conclude that this person has a consciousness that is an emergent property of this person's brain - I'll believe that even though I can't prove it scientifically.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 12:50
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

TheLlama: I don't think you understand what the word evidence means.
 

I believe you are the one who doesn't understand what evidence means.

Evidence is simply any reason to believe a claim is true or not true, as a lawyer I can tell you there's also what is called CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence, and a the Old Testament can be considered at least circumstantial evidence, not a smoking gun, but evidence at the end.



I would rather call it "hearsay". It's also contradictory, many stories once taken literally have been proven to have no basis in reality, and most denominations of Christianity today reject various verses.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


The New Testament is much more, because there is not only one, but four accepted Gospels and at least 3 Apocryphal Gospels that I have investigated and the coincidences between the four, would be accepted in a trial as corroborated evidence.

Nonsense. Sure, you can call anything "evidence" - the question is whether it's conclusive, it simply depends on what standards you have for evidence. These four gospels that you value so highly can't even agree on where (or how) Jesus was born, on which day (and at which time of the day) he was crucified, what he said to Pilate, what he said on the cross, whether the tomb was open or closed, and to whom (and when) he allegedly appeared to after his death. And the reason of why four were accepted being because there were supposed to be four ends of the earth - come on.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Now, I have checked SCIENTIFIC evidence in some saints or miracles cases, and this could be accepted as determinant in any trial for each specific case.

So yes, we have evidence that indicates that the chances of God existing are very strong, now, the rest is faith.

Iván


You can't even get Protestants to agree with your Catholic miracles.

Yes, you have evidence - but no, it's not at all convincing. Believing that it is convincing indeed requires faith.
Back to Top
tuxon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 12:54
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I'll believe that even though I can't prove it scientifically.
 
so there is a beliefsystem at work that believes that some higher power controls acts (in this case a supposed brain) and there's no need to proof it scientifically,
 
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
Back to Top
akin View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 13:10
Science, when there is not enough conclusive evidence in favor or against, doesn't discard a theory, just puts the theory on hold and looks for more conclusive evidence.
This crucial evidence cannot be gathered by discussing beliefs (or non-beliefs).


Edited by akin - August 31 2010 at 13:10
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 13:13
Originally posted by tuxon tuxon wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I'll believe that even though I can't prove it scientifically.

 

so there is a beliefsystem at work that believes that some higher power controls acts (in this case a supposed brain) and there's no need to proof it scientifically,

 


Yes Mike believes in the higher order unprovable thing that is an individual consciousness
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 13:31
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

There is no "fiction" or "non-fiction" only more or less explicit or literal. All words are metaphors, analogies, pointers. 

And/but yes, bantering about metaphors quickly gets circular and meaningless. 
In that example it was certainly less literal - anyone would be hard pushed to mistake parts of an elephant for a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan and a rope so there is an implied requirement to suspend belief in order to get the metaphor - which kind of makes it bogus in a way. To me any metaphor, analogy, parable or fable that needs the audience to make assumptions or the teller to explain or give a summation has failed in its primary purpose. Language (as opposed to just words) is the conveyance of meaning through commonly accepted metaphor - such as light as a metaphor for truth as a metaphor for proof as a metaphor for belief - if a metaphor requires explanation then the transference of the message is blocked. 
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

Ok here we're getting to the meat of the matter. The simple and the complex exist simultaneously, interdependent. Causation does not run from simple to complex only. While the nature of fusion determines the some of the possibilities of how a star can behave, it is the relationships between the individual atoms  that make the star.
The process that makes nuclear fusion occur is a combination of high pressure and high temperature; this creates an environment where the positive electrical charge that naturally keeps hydrogen nuclei apart can be overcome so the strong nuclear force can takeover and stick the two neclei together to form helium; the only place in "nature" where this environment exists is in the core of a star. Large celestial bodies that do not have sufficient mass and volume for fusion to occur do not become stars, they remain (like Jupiter) gas giants. So while I agree that it is the relationship between individual atoms that make a star, that relationship is simple fusion and the resultant is still a simple reaction. How that behaves on the surface of the photosphere is another matter - sunspots, solar flares, etc are complex (emergent) manifestations of simple events and are determined by non-linear fluidic motion, (which makes them aperiodic and chaotic).
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

That is, I believe in truly emergent phenomena. 

The elephant exists in the same way as Dean or Jay exists. We are stacked emergent phenomena on emergent phenomena. We are relationships or relationships and arrangements of arrangements. And the causation runs downwards to the point that some of our component pieces cannot exist without the whole. 
I'm ambivalent on emergent phenomena simple because I haven't thought about it. Certainly in terms of "life" sea sponges appear to be a truly emergent phenomenon and the natural self-organisation of community (and thus civilisation) appears to be an emergent phenomenon, but whether complex lifeforms can be defined as emergent I'm not sure since the behaviour and function of individual "cells" in those lifeforms are fixed.
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

This is if nothing else pretty friggin cool. It doesn't mean there's a God, but I think it does mean that the possibilities of complexity are beyond the understanding of any finite information processor, even one as cool as ours.
I don't think that complexity can be beyond understanding. Reductionism can invariable deconstruct a complex phenomena into a series of simpler phenomena into something we can understand. In theory there could be a near-infinitely complex phenomena whose reduction results in a near-infinite number of simpler parts that are just too many to allow simultaneous understanding of all the components and the whole. However, I think entropy would prevent such a hypothetical phenomena from ever existing.
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I'm more inclined to believe there is a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan and a rope in the room.
 
"I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be beautiful and simple" ~ Albert Einstein

I believe that the beautiful and simple principle makes the elephant exist simultaneously with its components. 

Duality, difference allows for the grand multitude of manifestation. But all duality is transient.

The one and the many are the two halves of the Tao.
I have no idea what that means. Ouch


Edited by Dean - August 31 2010 at 13:34
What?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 13:49
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

Originally posted by tuxon tuxon wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I'll believe that even though I can't prove it scientifically.

 

so there is a beliefsystem at work that believes that some higher power controls acts (in this case a supposed brain) and there's no need to proof it scientifically,

 


Yes Mike believes in the higher order unprovable thing that is an individual consciousness


I believe that I am conscious, and that other people have a brain that is similar to mine and therefore I make the educated guess that they're likely to have the same kind of consciousness that I have. I knew that you would blow this way out of proportion - so thanks for taking the bait. It's still a long way from accepting that other people are conscious to believing in a "higher power".
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 13:50
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I'm more inclined to believe there is a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan and a rope in the room.
 
"I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be beautiful and simple" ~ Albert Einstein

I believe that the beautiful and simple principle makes the elephant exist simultaneously with its components. 

Duality, difference allows for the grand multitude of manifestation. But all duality is transient.

The one and the many are the two halves of the Tao.
I have no idea what that means. Ouch


It means everything and nothing.Ying YangWink
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 13:55
I'm not at a real keyboard now but emergent phenomena by definition cannot be understood by reduction to their simpler components.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 14:01
Yes, even if you can actually understand the inherent complexity of what you are confronted with.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 14:01
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

Originally posted by tuxon tuxon wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I'll believe that even though I can't prove it scientifically.

 

so there is a beliefsystem at work that believes that some higher power controls acts (in this case a supposed brain) and there's no need to proof it scientifically,

 


Yes Mike believes in the higher order unprovable thing that is an individual consciousness
I believe that I am conscious, and that other people have a brain that is similar to mine and therefore I make the educated guess that they're likely to have the same kind of consciousness that I have. I knew that you would blow this way out of proportion - so thanks for taking the bait. It's still a long way from accepting that other people are conscious to believing in a "higher power".


The point is simply that a belief that is central to your way of life does not meet your criteria for evidence.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 14:19
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

I'm not at a real keyboard now but emergent phenomena by definition cannot be understood by reduction to their simpler components.


Do we have to understand everything? It's entirely possible that one day we'll be able to create a conscious mind in a laboratory, from computer chips, and we still won't understand how exactly it works. This means that we don't understand everything, but that still doesn't lead to accepting any weird theory that there is no evidence for.
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 14:36
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

I'm not at a real keyboard now but emergent phenomena by definition cannot be understood by reduction to their simpler components.
Do we have to understand everything? It's entirely possible that one day we'll be able to create a conscious mind in a laboratory, from computer chips, and we still won't understand how exactly it works. This means that we don't understand everything, but that still doesn't lead to accepting any weird theory that there is no evidence for.


So you're agnostic then?
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 31 2010 at 15:43
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

I'm not at a real keyboard now but emergent phenomena by definition cannot be understood by reduction to their simpler components.
Well, not quite. The effects cannot be fully predicted, but the mechanisms can be understood. Emergence is not something that is greater than the sum of the parts - the sum of the parts is the sum of the parts, no more and no less - what is described as emergent is not the sum of the parts but an effect that is a direct result of the product of the parts (ie it is multiplication not addition).
 
Suppose there are two individual cells acting independantly: when you put them together their actions act on each other - the resulting action is not a vector addition of the two actions since the action of the second cell feedsback on the first causing it to modify its behaviour, which in turn cases the second to modify its behaviour until both are working in unison. This is a form of emergent behaviour because the cells have created a new function that is not predictable from the addition of two identical functions. An ant colony is an example of this - all the ants are the same, yet they do different things depending upon where they are and what their neighbours are doing - it is the feedback from ant to ant to ant to ant that determines the role they will play in the colony. You cannot make an emergent phenomina more complex by adding more "units", you just make it bigger - each has a finite limit on how complex it can become because the feedback path is limited to local neighbourhoods
What?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 101102103104105 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.658 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.