iseason, ah, my dare you's are to provoke discussion.
Then you fathom my points. Yes, I have almost a Mr. William F.. Buckley vocabulary.
I find those begged questions, and there are other inherent fallacies of theism.
As science indeed presents the case that Existence is eternal on the basis of the conservation of energy applied to the quantum fluctuations, and what I note above, then there is no need for a Creator or a Sustainer. God does not explain how matters happen or why; no science explains the true why and how of phenomena.
One ever so errs in invoking that He gives the why of phenomena when all He means is God did it- God wills what he will- a useless tautology.
As we discern patterns rather than designs, there is no need to postulate a Designer. Again, t'is a matter of theists seeing pareidolias- mind behind Nature and patterns as designs when t'is a matter of natural causes and patterns.
So, one needs not invoke a First Cause or Designer.
Slow-read my posts here and @ the on what is your argument for God? and then respond.
Thanks to all. Let me know, please, if you want me to add you as my friend and let me know if you have me thus.
Again, t'is a matter of theists pareidolias So, one need not postulate a First Cause or Designer. Existence is eternal God does not explain science explains the true why and how of phenomena WOW
I had a fairly hearty attitude back in august
(haven't been in for a bit)
Of course I can move on from that and clarify my position some more.
I am unable to take a position against ANY particular method for the creation/evolution of the universe as I truly subscribe to "an inevitable result". It's been difficult to get to , let alone defend , however, it is not the same thing as 'randomness', but contains it.
best way of looking at it is ' because it exists, it should always have been part of the matrix'.
this means that your every breath has relevance to the make up of the entire universe.Should you not have taken the one you just did, the fabric of the universe would not just be flawed.It would never have happenned.
for proof, I look at relativity. If relativity is correct, then you cannot pick and choose.EVERYTHING!!!!! Every tiny little photon must be where it is in the correct order EVERY TIME. It matters not at all that you and Venus aren't aware that your position is being measured by every other photon in the universe.
So the relevance for me (as far as science and religion goes) is that you cannot remove it from the mix. To do so has no lessor or greater effect than you not taking that single breath.
So how does that relate to the significance of God?
Man has had a 'God complex' alongside it's 'knowledge complex' as long as history has been recording.In much of the history of learning, the two complexes have driven each other in a forwards direction.(I know there will be many to disagree wth that statement). However , social evolution is not comparable to physical evolution.So without one , the other would cease to exist.....quite literally,you cannot remove history any more than you can take back that breath.
you might argue that you can choose a different path. that might affect some future outcome.That by doing so creates some future event.
What event do you have in mind? you are made up of tiny little events called energy quanta. What did you do but occupy space? Did you, by occupying this space for that span of time actually achieve anything?....If you did, then what?....You were energy in small packets and remain energy in small packets.?the fact that for a moment they gather in one place or time only has significance when considering a completed universe.There is no need for order or form in randomness.
that is why I see it as a review and not a current process that you can change.
Cheers Iseason
buttershug
16th October 2009 - 10:24 AM
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 11 2009, 04:47 PM)
I feel sure it works both ways. I remember being taught a lot of things about mistakes people had made, and how they were corrected. I thought that was a waste of time, especially when we had to remember names and dates. It's enough to try to remember the correct concepts, without having to remember the incorrect ones and details about them too.
But it's not enough to know "what" you have to know why to really understand it.
You get these wannabe's like H2O that think they know better than "conventional" thinking. But they don't understand why certain things are. And why the things they disagree with are the "unconventional" thinking.
skepticgriggsy
16th October 2009 - 11:30 PM
[B] iseason, as a writer in Skeptic magazine and Dr.Jerry Coyne, my friend, in "Seeing and Believing" [ Please , Google his name or maybe the name of the article itself.] reveal there was no ineluctuability of our or any other comparable species evolving This affirms that theists, yes, Dr. Kenneth Miller himself, argue in a circle for design. Had the flowering plants had not evolved and there was the cooling-off , we or comparable species would not have evolved.
The probability argument relies on the wrong probabilities whilst are those as those two events and mutations working with natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature.It ignores the teleonomic causes - non-planned outcomes. So, cosmic teleology would contradict natural selection and other natural causes rather than showing the compatibility of science and religion. To aver the opposite is to affirm the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with that teleonomy. Nay, natural causes as the presumption of naturalism are the sufficient reason, contrary to Leibniz.
The fine-tuning one assumes that other parameters and other sources of life beside carbon, such as silicon, wouldn't have helped produced some form of life.
And the one from reason ignores the evidence that evolution formed us such that we can on the basis of trial and error trust our faculties rather than postulate God as designing them for trust. So, we naturalist do not use a self-refuting argument, contrary to Dr. Alvin Platinga, Fr. Alfred Cyril Ewing and Mr. Clive Staples Lewis.
So, all four forms of the teleological argument not olly argue in a circle but have their own defeaters.
skepticgriggsy
7th November 2009 - 08:04 PM
We humanists with our covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism- declare that our rights stem form our level of consciousness, rather than as theists with their argument from God for our rights that either they stem from Him and so are inalienable or else from the state and so are revocable. Our argument is in line with the UN and "my cousin" Morgan's Canon.
The latter I use to support the Great Ape Project to grant to the other great apes more 'rights." And don't forget the lesser ones.
I find then that I can support both abortion and the protection of other animals!
[B]
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.