The God Vacuum: America and the barbarian hordes

[Bullypulpit]

I'm well-aware of what the definition of theory is, thanks.

It is not appropriate to conclude that speculation is proven fact.

Indeed, but is conclusion based upon empirically valid human experience mere speculation? No, it is fact. Making claims about the intent of some entity, which by its very definition is beyond the bounds of human experience, is speculation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Bully. Facts are extant in the world. they're not a matter of perception.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully. Facts are extant in the world. they're not a matter of perception.

If they are extant, they are objects of perception. And built upon the foundation of perception is conception. We substitute concepts for percepts so that we may express our experiences of the world around us.

 

[Gunny]

Indeed, but is conclusion based upon empirically valid human experience mere speculation? No, it is fact. Making claims about the intent of some entity, which by its very definition is beyond the bounds of human experience, is speculation.

I disagree. It is not fact. You are discarding one speculation in favor of different speculation to suit what you wish to believe in.

Your argument is based on the presumption that Man's intellect is supreme and can explain any-and-everything within the bounds of that intellect. I would argue that human intellect is insignificant in the big scheme of things.

The "intent of some entity" is pretty clearly explained in the Holy Bible. The events and accounts recorded within have hardly been disproved, even though, I will agree there is no factual evidence to support the existence of God.

I mostly just have a problem with the supreme arrogance of science, and Man, thinking anything beyond human sensory perception just doesn't exist, and that science can concoct tales no more proveable than Creationism, but somehow call its theories more credible based on a "empirical evidence."

Speculation is speculation, and attempting to present it as fact is dishonest.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If they are extant, they are objects of perception. And built upon the foundation of perception is conception. We substitute concepts for percepts so that we may express our experiences of the world around us.

Wow. How irrelevant. Thanks for that mr. pompous.

 

[Gunny]

If they are extant, they are objects of perception. And built upon the foundation of perception is conception. We substitute concepts for percepts so that we may express our experiences of the world around us.

The basis of science is that those expressions are final. Yet, how often does science discover that the original theory was incorrect? Every day.

 

[Nienna]

I'm always amazed at people who says an uncreated universe is absurd, but accepts without any problem the existence of a being who is not composed of matter.

Matter is an absolute requirement for life to exist. If it is a life form it has to be made of matter.,, viruses, plants, frogs, lions, humans... you name it...

Now this individuals talk about a life form, and not only a life form, but an intelligent life form, who is not made of neither matter nor energy.

A life form that not does not have any of the other physiological imperatives required for intelligent life to exist: a nervous system, cardiovascular, respiratory etc etc

It's absolutely unbelievable to see the way they talk about this being as if it was the most natural thing in the world, as if they didn't have to explain how an intelligent being can exist without any of the most basic biological requirements of all life forms.

They discard the mechanicist/materialist explanation of the Universe as absurd just to declare their faith, 10 seconds latter, in an even greater absurdity:

An intelligent being who's not composed of matter and not even energy, an spiritual being (spirit being coded language for made of nothing).

This is an argument often neglected in discussions about the origin of the Universe and I can't understand why because it is an incredibly powerful argument.

I haven't read the whole thread, so I apologize if what I say is redundant. I have thought long and hard about this argument. As you say, it is truly a powerful one. If we say that God is eternal (ie, never had a beginning), why cannot materialists make the same argument that MATTER is eternal, that MATTER always was?

This is the unserstanding at which I have arrived: Matter exists WITHIN time; it is carried through time. Time is unidirectional; it always moves forward, it never reverses. If time is aways moving in one direction, it must be progressing from one point (or else it would be bidirectional). Therefore, time must have had a beginning.

If time had a beginning, then matter (which exists within time) must have had a beginning, also, and is thus inappropriate as a "first cause."

The other issue I would like to address here is the issue of intelligence and/or information. These things exist outside of matter, are not dependent upon matter for their existence, are not, themselves material. What is an "idea"? You cannot hold it in your hand, smell it, taste it. Yet, would you claim that ideas do not exist?

How can the claim be made that a purely material universe could produce intelligence?

 

[Nienna]

Uhhhhh...no. Let's review the definition of "theory", shall we?

<blockquote>Main Entry: <b>the·o·ry</b>
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -<b>ries</b>
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
<b>1 :</b> the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary</blockquote>

Notice the key word there, "facts". Facts are derived from the observation of objective phenomena and events over time. It is the observed relationships between these events and phenomena from which we derive working theories. Further independent observation and experimentation provide independently and repeatably verifiable evidence to support a given theory, or disprove it. Either way, it is an empirical process, independently verifiable and repeatable. Such cannot be said for mystical or divine revelation.

Theories are made up of facts and the relationships between facts. However, they are not facts in and of themselves.

I don't think that Darin was arguing that mystical revelation is "fact"; he was, I think, asserting that evolution is not fact, yet people call it such. Why do materialists have such a problem understanding people who believe in God (who is not empirically observed), when they themselves have faith in the supposition that matter is ALL there is. This supposition is equally unobserved.

 

[mattskramer]

The basis of science is that those expressions are final. Yet, how often does science discover that the original theory was incorrect? Every day.

How often does science prove the Bible wrong?

In Genesis, birds and whales came before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day.

God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars.

Concerning morality, is it still a sin to bear false witness? Yes. Does the Bible allow for mitigating and aggravating circumstances? No. Therefore, in Nazi Germany if a citizen were asked if he knows of any Jews that are hiding from the Gestapo, and that citizen said “No” when he knows of such Jews, he would be committing a sin. Please explain otherwise.

 

[Nienna]

wow. You said "epistemological". That's cool.

It is a cool word. I like words with four or more syllables.

 

[mattskramer]

It is a cool word. I like words with four or more syllables.

I like the acronym K.I.S.S. as in “Keep It Simple, Stupid”.

 

[José]

People... the problem with these discussions about fundamental, extreme issues is that people tend to barricade themselves around their beliefs and reflexively reject any valid point presented by the other side.

So I’m gonna build some bridges here.

The divine origin of human morality does not qualify for the status of scientific theory, because its statements cannot be tested. It can neither be proven nor falsified.

The human origin of morality is more open to confirmation and falsification through anthropological studies of primitive societies and archeological findings.

So I believe the latter qualifies for the status of scientific theory.

But it’s important to point out the following:

Not everything that is scientific is true and not everything that is not scientific is false.

The divine origin of morality might even be true. The only thing Bully and I are stressing is the fact it is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested.

 

[José]

It’s pretty obvious by our previous statements that we both side with the human origin of morality.

I won’t try to hide the obvious.

But as Bully rightly pointed out in a previous post, the essence of a truly scientific behaviour is:

“Never stop questioning” and “Discard your absolute truths and replace them with degrees of certainty”.

 

[mattskramer]

Wow! Check out this great article:

http://atheistalliance.org/library/nelson-10_commandments.php

I couldn’t have said it better, myself.

 

[Nienna]

So let’s summarise our conclusions so far:

Ontological origin of morality according to Christians (which being created morality): God.

According to science: Humans themselves.

Epistemological origin of morality according to Christians (how humans acquired knowledge of morality): direct revelation from God.

According to science: the interaction of humans’ rational minds with the outside world.

The first striking difference between the two explanations of human morality is that the scientific one explains it through humans interactions only, without appealling to any being whose existence is not proven.

And in my opinion this is why it is a far superior explanation.

The existence of the creators of morality according to science (humans) is a proven fact not open for discussion while the existence of the creator of morality according to religion (its ontological origin, God) is just a metaphysical speculation.

Your presentation of the two opposing points was outstanding, in my opinion. However, I do disagree with your conclusion, that materialistic "ontology" (see, I can learn! ) is a proven fact. If all morality has its basis in the human desire for survival, how does one account for acts of altruism? Given a famine, and humanistic morality, why would a young man feel that it is "right" to give up a rare portion of food to an elderly woman?

And, if the universe is purely material, why would "survival" have value, or be a moral goal, anyway?

 

[Nienna]

Check out Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age by Alan M. Dershowitz. It gives and interesting perspective on the origin or rights.

Editorial Review: Human rights come from human wrongs, argues famed criminal and civil rights lawyer Dershowitz; only by looking closely at past injustice we can construct a theory and law that attempts a more perfect justice….Dershowitz gets the book started by outlining his own theory of rights, one that tries to steer a course between natural law and legal positivism. The really entertaining parts come later, however, when he discusses such charged topics as euthanasia, the death penalty, and how we pick federal judges.

Very interesting, and I agree that, many times, we attempt codify "rights" based on our observation of what has been wrongly done to people.

However, I disagree that "rights" come from "wrongs." Rights stand alone. Wrongs can only be understood in the light of rights. Wrongs are the perversion or opposition of rights.

If we did not have an innate understanding of what is right, we would have no basis for considering something to be wrong.

 

[Gunny]

How often does science prove the Bible wrong?

In Genesis, birds and whales came before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day.

God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars.

Concerning morality, is it still a sin to bear false witness? Yes. Does the Bible allow for mitigating and aggravating circumstances? No. Therefore, in Nazi Germany if a citizen were asked if he knows of any Jews that are hiding from the Gestapo, and that citizen said “No” when he knows of such Jews, he would be committing a sin. Please explain otherwise.

Enter matts, with his usual nonsense. Branching out from making irrelevant arguments about fags, are you?

Science doesn't disprove ANY of Creation. It offers its own explanation based on Man's speculation within the confines of his knowledge and understanding.

The very ideal that an omnipotent being could create what it wanted in whatever order of succession it wanted just doesn't fit into that comfy little zone bounded by human sensory perception.

 

[mattskramer]

Your presentation of the two opposing points was outstanding, in my opinion. However, I do disagree with your conclusion, that materialistic "ontology" (see, I can learn! ) is a proven fact. If all morality has its basis in the human desire for survival, how does one account for acts of altruism? Given a famine, and humanistic morality, why would a young man feel that it is "right" to give up a rare portion of food to an elderly woman?

And, if the universe is purely material, why would "survival" have value, or be a moral goal, anyway?

In general, people want to live as long and to be remembered as important after they die. Therefore, ego, the desire to be remembered as a generous person after death, and the desired future reciprocity are big reasons why people do what they do. People want to leave their mark.

 

[mattskramer]

Enter matts, with his usual nonsense. Branching out from making irrelevant arguments about fags, are you?

Science doesn't disprove ANY of Creation. It offers its own explanation based on Man's speculation within the confines of his knowledge and understanding.

The very ideal that an omnipotent being could create what it wanted in whatever order of succession it wanted just doesn't fit into that comfy little zone bounded by human sensory perception.

Yadda yadda yadda. Modern science clearly contradicts the Bible. Anyway, God then rested but God is never tired, right? Look. Ha ha ha.

 

[Nienna]

The existence of humans is obviously a proven fact Gunny unlike the existence of God which is not proven.

The fact that humans exist, and God's existence is not proven does not necessarily mean that humans MUST HAVE created morality. There is an unknown element that prevents this logical conclusion.

What science and religion dispute is whether morality was created by humans or by some transcendental being.

As I said, if I have to choose between a theory who attributes the creation of morality to a being whose existence is already proven and another one who attributes the creation to a mere speculation I choose the former.

Both common sense and occam’s razor tell me to do this.

But I always reamain open to the possibility of reassessing my beliefs and will do it in this case as soon as the existence of God is proven : )

Understandable that a person would cling to what is seen. Sad, though, because God will not "prove" His existence until it is too late for people to change their minds about their belief (or lack thereof) in Him.