Plane Crash & Spirituality

Off Topic
101

[quote]pookie wrote:
Hanzo wrote:

You say that everything has a cause. What caused God?

You reject the idea of an infinite causal chain, but solve the paradox by inventing an infinite God who’s not subject to your previous objection.

It’s currently the theory that explains the most and has the least problems. There are many questions still unanswered by the theory; and portions of it (such as the required “inflationary” period) are disputed by many researchers.

String theory currently posits the existence of an enormous amount of simultaneous universes; discounting the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of matter and time for anything other than our universe.

If you want to argue using science, try to keep up with the latest developments.

Do you have a reference? I’ve never read any atheists make that argument anywhere.

You need to read up on this too. This reasoning is flawed as it assumes that a fully functional “modern” cell must suddenly appear from the soup.

The talk.origins archive has a lot of good explanation of actual abiogenesis theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/

You might also read Dawkin’s “The Blind Watchmaker” for a layman’s explanation of evolution and abiogenesis.

You’re like a blind man trying to paint a rainbow…

[/quote]

God is not bound by natural law. therefore, the question of who caused Him is irrelevant or beyond our scope. Again, atheists often create a finite perception of God to suit their own agenda and arguments. How is my reasoning not logical? If the assumption is that God is supernatural how does that violate the logic of nature.

Of course atheist would not make that argument that the Big bang insinutates the existence of a creator, that would be counter-intuitive. However, it seemed to me that right now that you just disputed the Big bang in a rather subtle way. The multiple universe theory is generally just an alternative argument to the perceived fine tuning of the cosmological constant. However, this is as much fishy form of science as ID.

The multiverse, is not proper science as it cannot be deduced by umpirical evidence and it is also unfalsifiable. It is outside the scope of the scientific method and is at best only theoritical (as is ID), and similar to ID it does not take alternate explanations into account. Why do you assume that there must be an infinte set of universes simply to explain the one we are in? Is that not a greater conceptual leap than believing in God as we halfwits do?

Furthermore, concerning abiogensis I’ll be the first to admit I’m not entirely in tune on the subject. I do however know that abiogenesis is an extremely flawed theory:

?Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.?

?The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.?

Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 336.

102

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That makes no sense. In fact, for that very reason it should be the most logical comparison. It is like you are pissed because it fits this circumstance perfectly. I could very well claim that I don’t believe in Love. Therefore, I now put it on you to prove that it exists since you keep talking about it.

[/quote]

I just wrote “you can’t use that example as something that science can’t prove, since no else can either.”

So I say “no one can prove love” and you come back with “I now put it on you to prove it exists.” When I say “no one”, I include myself.

Simply because we can discuss a concept, doesn’t necessarily imply the reality of the concept. Saying that we can’t define love, but we know it exists and then extrapolating the reasoning to God is flawed, which is what I was pointing out. I while we can discuss the idea of love (or God), it means different things to different people.

Love, like any number of other human concepts such as beauty, elegance, hate or indifference, mean different things to different people. Proving it would require a clear concept of it. More, it would require a much better understanding of human thought and emotions than what we currently have.

103

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
no, first you criticize people that try to explain God through science then you critize those who say he’s supernatural.[/quote]

What I criticize is the misuse of science, by using incomplete, outdated or misunderstood theories to try and prove God’s existence.

Yes, part based. That’s the whole problem. You pick out parts of theories you haven’t really tried to understand and then you 1) present them as certitude and 2) explain the missing parts as God.

That’s your belief and that’s your right. Misusing pseudo-scientific example to try to show “evidence” to support it is where you’re wrong, and that’s what I’m pointing out.

104

[quote]pookie wrote:
Proving it would require a clear concept of it. More, it would require a much better understanding of human thought and emotions than what we currently have.
[/quote]

That implies there is much more knowledge than we currently have to even be able to full discuss these concepts in terms of “science”. Why, in a world where so much goes unexplained and is currently unexplanable, would someone choose to think, “there absolutely without a doubt is no God and those who believe in one are self delusional”? Who is truly the one under delusion?

105

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
God is not bound by natural law. therefore, the question of who caused Him is irrelevant or beyond our scope.[/quote]

That’s simply dodging the question. You impose obligations on the universe (ie, requiring an external, non-natural cause) but then absolve your solution to the problem (ie, God) from the same obligations.

You could just as well suppose that the universe is one of many, or one in a long succession, or any number of other scenarios who don’t require a supernatural being.

Those scenarios are not less or more likely than yours; and have the same supporting evidence, which is none at all.

I have no problem with you claiming God to be supernatural. It is your following argument which attempts to use science, the study of the natural world, to somehow “prove” God which is not logical.

You simply take all the remaining hard question in science and answer them by saying: That’s God. It’s your right, but it’s not science anymore.

I’m simply asking why the Big Bang requires a supernatural cause when everything else in our known universe has a natural cause. The idea that the Big Bang cannot be natural is arbitrary. You simply assume the supernatural answer because it satisfies your belief of the creation of the world by God.

That’s my whole point. The are many different alternative explanations; of which a supernatural God is only one of. You’re saying it’s the right one. I’m saying there’s no way to know for now.

[quote]However, this is as much fishy form of science as ID.

The multiverse, is not proper science as it cannot be deduced by umpirical evidence and it is also unfalsifiable. It is outside the scope of the scientific method and is at best only theoritical (as is ID), and similar to ID it does not take alternate explanations into account. Why do you assume that there must be an infinte set of universes simply to explain the one we are in? Is that not a greater conceptual leap than believing in God as we halfwits do? [/quote]

Again, I was simply poiting out that 1) The Big Bang theory is not our final understanding of the universe and how it began, far from it. And 2) the multiverses are currently the hot topic in String Theory which is starting to show signs of being beautiful math that’s unrelated to reality in any way.

I’m not claiming that there are many universes or that there is only one. I’m pointing out, again, that you’re using science in a dishonest way to support your belief; when true science is about asking question and following evidence to a conclusion.

The current scientific conclusion for the cause of the universe, or whether there are more than one, the exact origin of life and whether there is life elsewhere in the universe is: we don’t know.

So you’re not “in tune” with it, but you know it’s flawed? It must be nice to be born with all the right answers built-in.

[quote]?Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.

?The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.?

Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 336. [/quote]

Ok, you quote one scientist who’s critical of primordial soup theory. So? Abiogenesis is not confined to that single theory, there are many different ones. But from science’s point of view, life sprang from non life without divine intervetion (science can’t invoke the supernatural as an explanation, remember?) so, even if we assume the primordial soup theory is wrong, we’ll need another “natural” theory to replace it. “God did it” doesn’t cut it.

I do agree with you that ID is not science in any way, shape or form.

106

[quote]pookie wrote:

I’d also recommend “Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences” by John Allen Paulos; for an interesting look at probability, statistics and coincidences.

[/quote]

I light-heartedly quoted the movie Signs. Nevertheless, if coincidences was all there was to it why are scientists still trying to look for explanantions for the cosmological constant. Again, why are you a proponent of coincidences while later your endorsing the M-theory or what not which suggest that the cosmological constant is not coincidental. I believe that the cosmological constant is not coincidental, but hey that’s just me, a blind man painting the rainbow…

107

[quote]Professor X wrote:
would someone choose to think, “there absolutely without a doubt is no God and those who believe in one are self delusional”? Who is truly the one under delusion?[/quote]

Show me where I’ve said that. If you want to discuss things I’ve said, fine. If you simply want to make stuff up to make yourself feel good, go ahead, but don’t go attributing it to me.

I’ve never said that there was, without a doubt, no God. I’ve even said, in some old thread, that the only truly logically defensible position was that of agnosticism. Personally, I don’t believe there is one; but I never said there was no doubt about it.

108

Seeing as I have come close to it a few times. The illness I was clueless as to what was going on & was so sick well, clueless like I said. The car wreck … being T-Boned by someone doing 60 mph. That part about your life flashing before your eyes. It happens! I guess thats why 3 months later I ended up pregnant with my 1st child & started living a better life and have been trying to be a better person after that wreck. I do see life through different eyes now. I don’t take it for granted.

I look back on my life and I have been through a lot. I feel blessed to have had a child. I have always had my belief in God and what I like to call my own relationship with spirituality. Even though I am Catholic I don’t think that I need to be @ Mass every Sunday to prove my spirituality and to get my ticket into Heaven. But that is a whole other subject. Back on topic…am I ready to die? Of course not. Will I accept it when the time comes? I don’t think I will have a choice.

I want to see my child grow up and I want to see my Grandchildren etc… but I am at peace with the thought that I could be taken away from this world due to whatever circumstance at anytime before that. I just hope that they are able to move on after my death. It’s the living that suffers after death. I can’t comment on the dead suffering after death for obvious reasons.

There are few things guaranteed with life & one of those is death. We all have a date with it at some time or another. Live your life to the fullest, try to contribute something to this world meaningful, and be your best as often as you can be. When you can live like that it won’t be so hard to say good bye when you do die. Regrets are for those who coast by in life and say they never have time to do the things they wanted to do.

People look to all types of religion & spirituality for answers, inner peace, & better understanding. One of those being death. It can help with the idea of surrendering that you are powerless over your fate and help you accept it. It can also help you live your life to the fullest and contribute a piece of yourself to this world in many ways. How to be more giving, more compassionate, etc… which brings me back to living your life to the fullest in many ways. When you live your life like that how can you have any deep regrets?

IMO

OK I got on the computer to relax for a min and now I am all deep in thought thanks! :slight_smile:

109

[quote]pookie wrote:

That’s simply dodging the question. You impose obligations on the universe (ie, requiring an external, non-natural cause) but then absolve your solution to the problem (ie, God) from the same obligations.

Those scenarios are not less or more likely than yours; and have the same supporting evidence, which is none at all.

I have no problem with you claiming God to be supernatural. It is your following argument which attempts to use science, the study of the natural world, to somehow “prove” God which is not logical.

I’m simply asking why the Big Bang requires a supernatural cause when everything else in our known universe has a natural cause. The idea that the Big Bang cannot be natural is arbitrary. You simply assume the supernatural answer because it satisfies your belief of the creation of the world by God.

That’s my whole point. The are many different alternative explanations; of which a supernatural God is only one of. You’re saying it’s the right one. I’m saying there’s no way to know for now.

Again, I was simply poiting out that 1) The Big Bang theory is not our final understanding of the universe and how it began, far from it. And 2) the multiverses are currently the hot topic in String Theory which is starting to show signs of being beautiful math that’s unrelated to reality in any way.

I’m not claiming that there are many universes or that there is only one. I’m pointing out, again, that you’re using science in a dishonest way to support your belief; when true science is about asking question and following evidence to a conclusion.

The current scientific conclusion for the cause of the universe, or whether there are more than one, the exact origin of life and whether there is life elsewhere in the universe is: we don’t know.

So you’re not “in tune” with it, but you know it’s flawed? It must be nice to be born with all the right answers built-in.

I do agree with you that ID is not science in any way, shape or form.

[/quote]
Are you arguing just to argue. In no way am I dodging the question and I been saying all along that atheists impose finite perception of the God. let me break it down once more. SUPERNATURAL means to be ABOVE NATURE hence not subject to follow the laws of nature and natural logic. Call it what you want as far as I see it I am not dodging the question.

Again I am not saying that science can or does or prove God however using logic I said that our universe had beginning which did not cause itself and I believe that which created our existence to be God. Of course the dismissive term God of the Gaps is almost always used, but it seems that scientist and atheists tend to be staunch proponents of “Science of the Gaps”. Essentially, instead of believing in a God you invest all of your beliefs into outlandish theories that have no supporting evidence. Difference between the religious individual and that of the atheists is that the atheist belittles believers while at the same time you wholeheartedly support unproven and baseless “science”.

So ask yourself whose really being dishonest here, me for “philosophizing” about origin of the universe by using natural principles and logic, never saying that science outright proves God or you and your reductionist adherents that consistently put all your faith in unproven scientific theories that even violate physical principles.

I am not in tune with abiogenesis to the degree that I could write my thesis on it. I don’t know all the ins and outs, howevever, the quote I cited in my last post showed you that abiogenesis is a failed paradigm that is only being regurgitated because there’s no other viable alternative.

It also seems as if your getting increasingly aggrevated I never said I had all the right answers built in just that from what i know abiogenesis is flawed.

110

[quote]pookie wrote:
If you simply want to make stuff up to make yourself feel good, go ahead

[/quote]

I was just trying to fit in. I thought that’s what you were doing.

111

[quote]pookie wrote:
I’ve never said that there was, without a doubt, no God. [/quote]

Yeah, that would be me. I’m going to go on record here and go with my gut instincts and simple observation of reality to come to the conclusion that there is no God which is omnipotent, omniscient, and ultimately benevolent in the modern organized religious sense.

But I missed out on the define love thingy earlier, dammit! You see, this is the kind of stuff to think about in regards to spirituality, which is kinda more to the point of the thread here.

Here’s my take:
Love doesn’t exist in the sense that a chair I sit in exists. If it’s not made out of atoms and energy, then it’s something we imagine, just like “feeling the spirit” in church, or feeling excited while watching a football game (GO FSU!!). But the fact that something isn’t necessarily “real” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an effect on our minds, or shouldn’t be important to us.

This is the duality of human nature which we have struggled with since the dawn of our sentience. Maybe we could say that the spirituality that so many of us value so highly is the bridge or the interface between what is real and what is not.

It is what transforms some carefully placed globs of paint on a blanket of canvas into a statement or a message which has a meaning to us in that realm that exists only in our minds. It is what changes a bunch of sounds into music, or a man throwing an oblong ball to another guy in just the right way and in just the right place to transform an athletic action into a glorious victory.

You guys just have to remember that science can’t answer everything. Science is constrained to stuff that exists in the “real world”. It will never be able to measure happiness or love – that’s what your spirituality is for!

:slight_smile:

112

[quote]pookie wrote:

Ok, you quote one scientist who’s critical of primordial soup theory. So? Abiogenesis is not confined to that single theory, there are many different ones. But from science’s point of view, life sprang from non life without divine intervetion (science can’t invoke the supernatural as an explanation, remember?) so, even if we assume the primordial soup theory is wrong, we’ll need another “natural” theory to replace it. “God did it” doesn’t cut it.

[/quote]

I never said God “did” it. He pre-ordained it. In other words, life and the universe did not sprung from out of coincidence. My viewpoint is a bit more complex than that but I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

113

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

But I missed out on the define love thingy earlier, dammit! You see, this is the kind of stuff to think about in regards to spirituality.

Here’s my take:
Love doesn’t exist in the sense that a chair I sit in exists. If it’s not made out of atoms and energy, then it’s something we imagine

:)[/quote]

And you are still missing out.

Love is not “the kind of stuff you think about” nor is intellectualizing spirituality any evidence of it.

Love is energy in its purest form. It’s only when we are not experiencing it then, yes, love is not real to us and we are imagining it - longing for it.

It may be presicely because we have pulled our plug from the Creator’s socket that we are now left cut off from our main source of self-renewing energy and love.

It isn’t His fault nor was it out of His choosing that we used our freedom to will ruling by ourselves.
When somebody doesn’t want you to be present in their lives, if you have any dignity, integrity of self and love you remove your self from their midst.
Would you stay in a relationship with a woman who doesn’t want you and respect you? Then why should God make Himself known to those who despise his own existence and assistance?

“If you reject me I will reject you” - it’s that simple, really.

We brought this upon ourselves. The defect is our own.

Man up.

Alpha F

114

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
I never said God “did” it. He pre-ordained it. In other words, life and the universe did not sprung from out of coincidence. My viewpoint is a bit more complex than that but I don’t pretend to have all the answers.[/quote]

If he didn’t “do it” by directly intervening, but pre-ordained it, that means that God tuned the universe and the various physical laws and constants so that life would eventually begin somewhere? Is that what you mean?

Because that’s a pretty accurate description of what abiogenesis is all about. That given the right conditions and enough time, simple replicators can and will form and slowly evolve in complexity.

Note that this doesn’t mean that life springs out from randomness by coincidence; the physical laws apply throughout the universe, so it’s not order appearing from total chaos.

This is where the confusion lies, because in the initial post I was answering, you said:

“I believe … that the origin of life did not occur through abiogenesis, etc.”

Discounting abiogenesis would mean that science would never be able to show how life began from base elements; that it would require divine intervention, a supernatural act, which cannot be replicated in a laboratory.

115

Alpha F:
I like how you have delved into the metaphor for love, but isn’t it just a little intellectually dishonest to say that love isn’t just in our minds? I mean, without the sentient brain to give it life, there is no love.

Love isn’t made out of “real” stuff, is it?

116

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Alpha F:
I like how you have delved into the metaphor for love, but isn’t it just a little intellectually dishonest to say that love isn’t just in our minds? I mean, without the sentient brain to give it life, there is no love.

Love isn’t made out of “real” stuff, is it?[/quote]

Yet you keep talking about and even know what it feels like to you. In that sense, what is pain? Can anyone else feel the pain that you experience? Then it must be all in your head. I treat people experiencing “pain” all of the time. I have to ask them to rate it for me on a scale of one to ten or give it descriptive flat adjectives like “sharp” or “throbbing” just to give me some concept of a thing that only that person can sense.

Perhaps the next time this occurs, I shall tell them they are self delusional and if they were only as intellectually enlightened as myself, they would know that their pain does not exist and they would stop crying about it.

Then again, what if we are unaware of many other things that are not directly sensable simply because we are much less complex (compared to the entire universe or our concept of reality) than we would even like to believe we are?

I think people who close their minds to possibilites simply because they need to see them all are the most intellectually stunted people on the planet. Maybe they are just “self delusional”.

117

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
is that the atheist belittles believers while at the same time you wholeheartedly support unproven and baseless “science”. [/quote]

Where have I belittled you? Looking back, I can see the term “halfwits” was used, by you, to describe believers. My arguments have been about your ideas and reasoning about nature and God.

…from which you arrive at God who, in your words, is “not subject to follow the laws of nature and natural logic.”

That’s what I mean by trying to have it both ways. That you believe in God poses no problem. It’s the “leap” from posing perfectly valid questions about the universe and it’s origin; and then going “supernatural” while discounting the possibility of natural causes or answers.

Scientific theories are never proven; they’re “accepted” when they’ve passed enough tests. As for violating physical principles, that would mean that our understanding of nature is incomplete or flawed somewhere. Science is open to revision and change; that’s why it works.

Just out of curiosity: what scientific theory are you refering to that violates physical principles?

Abiogenesis is the study of how life formed from non-life. It is not “a paradigm” nor is it “failed.” There are various theories about the formation of life. The “primordial soup” is a term the public associates with abiogenesis, but it simply refers to the conditions that were present on Earth some 3-4 billions years ago.

You perceive aggravation where there is none. I’m simply asking questions to clarify some points I don’t understand.

Here again, you say that “from what you know” abiogenesis is flawed. But you’ve repeatedly said you didn’t know much about it. That’s the type of reasoning I don’t understand. How can you dismiss something you know little about? Would it not be more honest to say “I reject abiogenesis because it challenges my belief that God created life?”

I might be wrong, but I feel, from having read what you’ve posted here, that that is your honest position, but that you’re trying to make it appear that you’ve arrived at that conclusion from purely logical reasoning, when it’s probably more of a “gut feeling” because of your beliefs.

I also don’t understand why abiogenesis threatens your idea of God; as it appears to me that a God that can simply “tune” the universe just so, and then create it and let it run until life appears on it’s own; is greater than a God who must personally intervene to fiddle with some molecules somewhere to “make” life.

118

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Alpha F:
I like how you have delved into the metaphor for love, but isn’t it just a little intellectually dishonest to say that love isn’t just in our minds? I mean, without the sentient brain to give it life, there is no love.

Love isn’t made out of “real” stuff, is it?[/quote]

Define real.

119

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Alpha F:
isn’t it just a little intellectually dishonest to say that love isn’t just in our minds? I mean, without the sentient brain to give it life, there is no love.
[/quote]

I used to intelectualize all my emotions. I still think my emotions as opposed to feel them - it’s a denial mechanism to prevent me from an experience of “real” pain (my brain knows the difference between real and imagined pain by now).

So in all honesty and speaking from my personal experience, love used to be just in my mind when I was intellectualizing all of my emotions and spirituality. Now that I am coming out of my denial and allowing myself to feel the full impact of my experience of “reality” love is no longer an intellectual concept but a spiritual PERCEPTion.

It’s about perceiving exixtence as opposed to conceptualizing proof of the reality of anything.

To me personaly. It may be different for you and I do know where you are coming from. My life used to take place there mostly, now I am aware of the different layers or depths of “reality”.

120

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
Proving it would require a clear concept of it. More, it would require a much better understanding of human thought and emotions than what we currently have.

That implies there is much more knowledge than we currently have to even be able to full discuss these concepts in terms of “science”. Why, in a world where so much goes unexplained and is currently unexplanable, would someone choose to think, “there absolutely without a doubt is no God and those who believe in one are self delusional”? Who is truly the one under delusion?[/quote]

who chooses to think this?