Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Aarons Resurrection.....


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
94 replies to this topic

#1 Destinyjesus3000

Destinyjesus3000

    Doubter

  • Believer
  • 88 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:Spreading the Message
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Jesus,Lord,God, Our Savior, Reedemer

Posted 01 January 2013 - 12:46 PM

A girl came up to me at work and said did you get murdered yet? and i made a horrible jim carey impersonation of the eye brow lift, then she immediatly rephrased her question asking me if i Got Married yet?....I was like OOOOh yea, i did thanks!! it was fun had over 200 peeps and went to a disney cruise on a honeymoon, i wont go in details :) Soooo hows everyone been Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!  Im sorry i didnt get the chance to respond to everyone before i left, Ahkeia, Antlerman, Tealeaf, Centurian and many others. For the ones that cursed me out, perhaps if i knew you were Going to use such colorful words, i would have hired you as decorators for the wedding. In any case we should use words that build each other up not tear each other down, furthermore its best not to claim christians dont love when you dont show it yourself.

For the ones who had dynamically opposed views than me but showed respect i appreaiate that, i am here to learn, i started out on the wrong foot, but i never stop learning how to communicate and i hope that we all can do the same jesus said that its easy to love someone that loves you back but try loving someone that hates you. Not saying any of you hate me but the concept remains that we should be kind to all people even if its hard to. Eh thats enough of that so What have you guys been up to? surely no converts have been made, if you did convert, i would hope it would be from verizon to Metropcs. So, i gotta ask! What did yall enough your christmas gifts? i know i did, i got this book about anti gravity, its impossible to put down!.....Hmm speaking of gravity, where did it come from....uh oh, yea i went there...i know its been rehashed 1,000 tiems but thats hasnt stopped anyone from discussing in here lol

Quick Question....Is it more reasonable for a the cause of something to have absolutely no charateristics of its effect, Personality, Morals etc( Big bang) or to have a cause that has all of its effects? (personal God) it should be understood that every effect must resemble its cause. This is because, simply put, you cannot give what you do not have, so it is impossible for an effect to possess something its originating cause did not have. That being the case, how can one believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe accidentally created beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? Only mind can create mind.


  • 0

#2 midniterider

midniterider

    Fully Human

  • Regular Member
  • 4,594 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Omnipresent
  • Interests:Chaos Magick, Meditation, Lucid Dreaming. I try not to take my philosophy of life too seriously.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Monistic Idealist

Posted 01 January 2013 - 01:42 PM

A girl came up to me at work and said did you get murdered yet? and i made a horrible jim carey impersonation of the eye brow lift, then she immediatly rephrased her question asking me if i Got Married yet?....I was like OOOOh yea, i did thanks!! it was fun had over 200 peeps and went to a disney cruise on a honeymoon, i wont go in details smile.png Soooo hows everyone been Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!  Im sorry i didnt get the chance to respond to everyone before i left, Ahkeia, Antlerman, Tealeaf, Centurian and many others. For the ones that cursed me out, perhaps if i knew you were Going to use such colorful words, i would have hired you as decorators for the wedding. In any case we should use words that build each other up not tear each other down, furthermore its best not to claim christians dont love when you dont show it yourself.

For the ones who had dynamically opposed views than me but showed respect i appreaiate that, i am here to learn, i started out on the wrong foot, but i never stop learning how to communicate and i hope that we all can do the same jesus said that its easy to love someone that loves you back but try loving someone that hates you. Not saying any of you hate me but the concept remains that we should be kind to all people even if its hard to. Eh thats enough of that so What have you guys been up to? surely no converts have been made, if you did convert, i would hope it would be from verizon to Metropcs. So, i gotta ask! What did yall enough your christmas gifts? i know i did, i got this book about anti gravity, its impossible to put down!.....Hmm speaking of gravity, where did it come from....uh oh, yea i went there...i know its been rehashed 1,000 tiems but thats hasnt stopped anyone from discussing in here lol

Quick Question....Is it more reasonable for a the cause of something to have absolutely no charateristics of its effect, Personality, Morals etc( Big bang) or to have a cause that has all of its effects? (personal God) it should be understood that every effect must resemble its cause. This is because, simply put, you cannot give what you do not have, so it is impossible for an effect to possess something its originating cause did not have. That being the case, how can one believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe accidentally created beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? Only mind can create mind.

 

Yes, we should use words that build each other up not tear each other down... let's eliminate the word 'sinner' as it indicates someone who is shameful. I am sure you and your wife are great people, not sinners and not 'unworthy of God.' If you weren't worthy of God (God's attention) he would ignore you, right? :-)

 

You may be right about mind creating mind, but is that creator the God of the bible or Jesus or something completely different? Maybe he is Zeus. Maybe God is simply me and you. :-) Maybe you and I and everyone else and everything else are what God is. In that case, cause and effect are identical. You could even say that we are the parabrahman or 'causeless cause' or noumenon or prior to all cause and prior to thought.

 

Christianity and all other religions and philosophies are systems of thought but I (and everyone and everything) exist prior to thought.   :-) I was never born and shall never die. It just dont get any better than that. lol. 

 

Happy New Year to you and yours!


  • 0

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in Gods.

Christianity is simply a belief in Jesus. :-)


#3 Ouroboros

Ouroboros

    Innominatus, 3/4 Curmudgeon, arrogant übermench bully

  • Senior Member
  • 31,650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:Beer, cooking, gardening
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Naturalistic Pan(en)theis

Posted 01 January 2013 - 01:54 PM

Quick Question....Is it more reasonable for a the cause of something to have absolutely no charateristics of its effect, Personality, Morals etc( Big bang) or to have a cause that has all of its effects? (personal God) it should be understood that every effect must resemble its cause. This is because, simply put, you cannot give what you do not have, so it is impossible for an effect to possess something its originating cause did not have. That being the case, how can one believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe accidentally created beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? Only mind can create mind.

No.

And a happy new your to you too. smile.png

  • 0

#4 midniterider

midniterider

    Fully Human

  • Regular Member
  • 4,594 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Omnipresent
  • Interests:Chaos Magick, Meditation, Lucid Dreaming. I try not to take my philosophy of life too seriously.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Monistic Idealist

Posted 01 January 2013 - 01:55 PM

On a more Earthly note, if the cause is the wind and the effect is a decimated trailer park, the cause does not resemble the effect. The wind (or a tornado) does not look like a decimated trailer park. Unless someone witnessed a tornado someone could attribute the destruction to other causes, like an explosion. Thanks for the food for thought. I'll see how many causes I can think of that dont resemble their effects.


  • 0

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in Gods.

Christianity is simply a belief in Jesus. :-)


#5 Spectrox

Spectrox

    Strong Minded

  • Regular Member
  • 300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:99% of my life has been devoted to wine, women and song.
    The other 1% I wasted.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :No

Posted 01 January 2013 - 02:10 PM

A girl came up to me at work and said did you get murdered yet? and i made a horrible jim carey impersonation of the eye brow lift, then she immediatly rephrased her question asking me if i Got Married yet?....I was like OOOOh yea, i did thanks!! it was fun had over 200 peeps and went to a disney cruise on a honeymoon, i wont go in details smile.png Soooo hows everyone been Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!  Im sorry i didnt get the chance to respond to everyone before i left, Ahkeia, Antlerman, Tealeaf, Centurian and many others. For the ones that cursed me out, perhaps if i knew you were Going to use such colorful words, i would have hired you as decorators for the wedding. In any case we should use words that build each other up not tear each other down, furthermore its best not to claim christians dont love when you dont show it yourself.

For the ones who had dynamically opposed views than me but showed respect i appreaiate that, i am here to learn, i started out on the wrong foot, but i never stop learning how to communicate and i hope that we all can do the same jesus said that its easy to love someone that loves you back but try loving someone that hates you. Not saying any of you hate me but the concept remains that we should be kind to all people even if its hard to. Eh thats enough of that so What have you guys been up to? surely no converts have been made, if you did convert, i would hope it would be from verizon to Metropcs. So, i gotta ask! What did yall enough your christmas gifts? i know i did, i got this book about anti gravity, its impossible to put down!.....Hmm speaking of gravity, where did it come from....uh oh, yea i went there...i know its been rehashed 1,000 tiems but thats hasnt stopped anyone from discussing in here lol

Quick Question....Is it more reasonable for a the cause of something to have absolutely no charateristics of its effect, Personality, Morals etc( Big bang) or to have a cause that has all of its effects? (personal God) it should be understood that every effect must resemble its cause. This is because, simply put, you cannot give what you do not have, so it is impossible for an effect to possess something its originating cause did not have. That being the case, how can one believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe accidentally created beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? Only mind can create mind.

 Happy New Year Aaron. You make a very attractive couple. I was once beautiful. But I now have to wear a mask.

 

It may help if you give examples for your questions because I don't know what you're driving at.

 

If you're talking about the complexity of the universe and lifeforms, then all I would say is that these things started off simple and became more complex over time. For a creator God to exist and maintain all of reality, he would have to be at least as complex as the universe is now. Where did God's complexity come from?

 

Also it is clear to me that 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the universe is incredibly hostile to life. If the universe has been designed for a purpose, it has been designed to make black holes, not life.

 

Hope you had an enjoyable 2012. If you want to experience it again just watch it on channel 2012+1.


  • 0
Christians are atheist towards every other God. I just went one God further.

#6 falemon

falemon

    Apostate

  • Regular Member
  • 850 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:london
  • Interests:reading/writing, programming, science, philosophy, neuro science, quantum physics, music, art, creativity, love, dance
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :The quantum anti-god!!

Posted 01 January 2013 - 02:30 PM

Quick Question....Is it more reasonable for a the cause of something to have absolutely no charateristics of its effect, Personality, Morals etc( Big bang) or to have a cause that has all of its effects?

It is very reasonable and happens all the time. It is called emergence. In my field we happily use this fact to solve complex problems using little more than Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

You also make a giant leap in presuming the only answer is the deity explained in the Bible. That leap of faith is no greater than the leap of faith to Buddhism, Islam, Mysticism or the idea of an infinite source of energy.

 

The idea of God in no way solves the problem because it in essence says, "nothing can come from nothing, instead it comes from this deity that came from itself", attempting to close the chain of responsibility by creating a context that does not adhere to our rules. So then is that to say that the only way we could exist is if there are a different set of rules that created us? Hmm, and what part of that suggests intelligence?

 

Now bearing in mind that processes like evolution are inherently intelligent, and that the process requires no intelligence to design it, so it is then fair to say that intelligence emerges naturally from random events. As mentioned before, evolution consistently solves tough problems that even human beings cannot solve half as well. So in all reality all notions implying God to be the only solution are entirely untrue. That is not to that that there is no God, just that God is not implied by the evidence. You are still free to believe what you have been given to believe, but make no mistake in presuming it to be in any rational.

 

Bear in mind that the physical world is very rational. Objects fall to the ground and actions have observable and repeatable reactions. To suggest an irrational reality when all reality is rational is absurd. So what is your view on rationality, logic and sound reasoning? Are you for or against it?


Edited by falemon, 01 January 2013 - 02:31 PM.

  • 3

#7 sdelsolray

sdelsolray

    I'm Not That Important

  • Regular Member
  • 1,196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Music, gardening, history, science.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :None of the above

Posted 01 January 2013 - 03:05 PM

...

Quick Question....Is it more reasonable for a the cause of something to have absolutely no charateristics of its effect, Personality, Morals etc( Big bang) or to have a cause that has all of its effects? (personal God) it should be understood that every effect must resemble its cause. This is because, simply put, you cannot give what you do not have, so it is impossible for an effect to possess something its originating cause did not have. That being the case, how can one believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe accidentally created beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? Only mind can create mind.

I challenge your mere assertion, which has been bolded above.  It is a false premise.  Accordingly, your conclusion, which is phrased as a question and of which I have placed in italics above, is false.

 

I will give you an example, although a better example could probably be put forth:

 

A boulder on a hill above a road becomes loose over time because of wind and water erosion.  Because of gravity, the boulder falls down the hill striking a passing car and killing the driver.  How does the cause of the driver's death (erosion, gravity, boulder) resemble the effect (death of the driver)?  The driver was on his way to a foreclosure sale of his home, and had the cash to rescue his home from foreclosure.  Of course, he didn't arrive at the sale and the home was sold at the foreclosure sale requiring his wife and children to vacate the home.  How does the cause of the driver's death (erosion, gravity, boulder) resemble the effect (foreclosure of the home)?

 

I would point to your use of the word "accidentally" as the root of your fallacy.


Edited by sdelsolray, 01 January 2013 - 03:08 PM.

  • 0

#8 Deva

Deva

    Heathen

  • Moderator
  • 8,463 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:Birding, art, reading, keeping salamanders, reptiles, and plants, cooking, and cultivating a good heart.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :None

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:27 PM

Can you learn how to spell?


“In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer.”― Albert Camus "Using no way as way,having no limitation as limitation" - Bruce Lee

#9 Thought2Much

Thought2Much

    Rational Materialist Skeptic

  • Regular Member
  • 2,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Science (especially astronomy), science fiction, chess
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Ain't nobody got time for that!

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:06 PM

Only mind can create mind.

 

We don't know enough about what makes a mind a mind to even properly define the term, let alone put limits on how a mind can be created. I reject this statement as unprovable and unsupportable.


  • 4
What follows is the sum total of what Jesus had to say about homosexuality:


#10 Thought2Much

Thought2Much

    Rational Materialist Skeptic

  • Regular Member
  • 2,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Science (especially astronomy), science fiction, chess
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Ain't nobody got time for that!

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:13 PM

Hmm speaking of gravity, where did it come from

 

You're implying a false dichotomy. Just because the current answer from science is "I don't know" doesn't mean that the only other correct answer is "therefore God."


  • 1
What follows is the sum total of what Jesus had to say about homosexuality:


#11 Thought2Much

Thought2Much

    Rational Materialist Skeptic

  • Regular Member
  • 2,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Science (especially astronomy), science fiction, chess
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Ain't nobody got time for that!

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:22 PM

You may be right about mind creating mind, but is that creator the God of the bible or Jesus or something completely different?


You also make a giant leap in presuming the only answer is the deity explained in the Bible. That leap of faith is no greater than the leap of faith to Buddhism, Islam, Mysticism or the idea of an infinite source of energy.


This. Even if (and that's one whopping big "if" that I'm tossing in just for the sake of argument) some mystical force or divine consciousness created everything, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was the Christian idea of a deity that was the one responsible.
  • 0
What follows is the sum total of what Jesus had to say about homosexuality:


#12 Akheia

Akheia

    Princess of Gemworld

  • Regular Member
  • 3,185 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United States
  • Interests:Baking, sewing, writing, tabletop gaming, Sims 3, history
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Polytheism/deism

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:13 PM

Glad to hear the wedding went well. Many good years to both you and your lovely bride (that is her in the pic, right?).

 

By the way, for the fundies reading this: It only took about 5 posts to completely destroy DJ3k's entire argument. That's how ignorant and irrational it was. The question really is "Does he realize how badly that went?"

 

I love you guys, Ex-C. You're being really nice here. I wish I'd had people like you to break these ridiculous, asinine arguments down so simply, neatly, and succinctly back when I struggled in the bondage of Christianity.


  • 0
“Nothing is so easy as to deceive one’s self; for what we wish, we readily believe.” – Demosthenes

#13 Destinyjesus3000

Destinyjesus3000

    Doubter

  • Believer
  • 88 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:Spreading the Message
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Jesus,Lord,God, Our Savior, Reedemer

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:52 AM

Deva.....speaking of that, i was also given a magic book for christmas but it didnt have a spell check. Anyhoooo Akheia good to see you again too, yes perhaps my logic was eaten for breakfeast, lunch and dinner, BUT i must say just because i dont put forth a good argument doesnt make my argument nontrue. innocent people got put in jail because their lawyer couldnt present their case well, lack of a good argument doesnt nullify the possibility of something being true, furthermore, non belief does not erase existence.

Spectrox good to see ya again as well, im sure girls would be all over you, take off the mask and girls wont know what they missin :) And your statement about earth not being inhabitable its kind of a perspective trick. One one had if the earth move we would burn up or be freeze, on the other hand one could say that was a bad design, it should be able to withstand the heat and the cold regardless of direction if it did move. So perspective is what changes the ideaology. The focus is ot good or bad design tho is that the design was precise, too precise for random effects to create, thus big bang thrown out. 

mitniterider Ouroboros good to see yall again as well thanks for the Happy new Years and other posters as well.

 

its hard to address each person and each point, its one vs 10 so i would like to read everyones response and respond to everyone as a whole. Sooo....good point a boulder or wind does not resemble its effect, but the effects could not have happened without their cause to cause them, this is what i mean by you cannot give what you do not have. A tornado cannot destroy a town, without the town being destroyed, in other words if a destroyed town was caused by a tornado, then the town being destroyed reflects the cause.

Akheia yes thats her, it reminds me though i need to wash off the window paint on the car that says jsut married because everytime i take a female friend to work or drop them off, people get the wrong idea, or when i go thru a mcdonalds drive thru witha male friend people smile and give me congrats and clap for me until they look in the passenger seat. *sighs* oh well we got recognized pretty well on the Disney cruise, have you been on a Cruise Akheia, they are sweet you should save up and go one day :)

 

Ok sidetracked here Ummm....ah so midniterider heh nice phrase there at the end lol. Oh also i dont think we humans could be Gods, at least not in the sense of an all powerful being, But God is also used to described something highly worships, thats why sometimes people will clarify and say God of the bible instead of just God. Perhaps the only reason why God of the bible would be considered for created of Universe there is no book about Zues that sold billions of copies on earth stating that he created the world. Thats why its different


  • 0

#14 Destinyjesus3000

Destinyjesus3000

    Doubter

  • Believer
  • 88 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:Spreading the Message
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Jesus,Lord,God, Our Savior, Reedemer

Posted 02 January 2013 - 03:13 AM

"The idea of God in no way solves the problem because it in essence says, "nothing can come from nothing, instead it comes from this deity that came from itself", attempting to close the chain of responsibility by creating a context that does not adhere to our rules. So then is that to say that the only way we could exist is if there are a different set of rules that created us? Hmm, and what part of that suggests intelligence?"

 

God wasnt created he just always there, he is existence itself, Why? because he is the uncaused cause, if i wanted to go to barbies Mansion but before i did, i had to ask the person behind me, and that person said they had to ask the peson behind them and so on and so forth, there had to be someone from the very beginning that didnt need to ask for permission.. Without presupposing either there is a God or there is no God other option. If there is no God the universe created itself which is impossible because infinite regress comes into play which doesnt make sense without a uncaused caused there can be no other cause to set the other causes off. Furthermore NASA and many scientists have already determined the universe has a beginning. By observing the back radiation  in space they concluded the universe Began at one point and didnt always exist, my apologies there is two different terms for this particular study, that i am in a rush cannot look up names atm .by default if the univers began, then it had a cause....who was that cause? again zues or flying sphagetti monster doesnt have a book about them declaring that it created the universe, let alone, using fictional cahracters that about 100% of the world knows is fake doesnt help the case

 

evolution tends to speak of how life forms came about from previous but it doesnt explain current existence, like how is it that humans have natural ability to swim from birth but many apes cannot swim at all, only a hand full can. 

 

"So what is your view on rationality, logic and sound reasoning? Are you for or against it?" I am for logic, i feel that laws of logic trandscend time and space, if i go to the future or past the laws of logic will still be true, how could man have invented such a contraption? logic cannot weighed, frozen or photographed like matter, so then it is a concept and concepts are of the mind, and if logic is transcendent then would it be fair to say transcendent mind is the one responsible for Laws of logic?

"This. Even if (and that's one whopping big "if" that I'm tossing in just for the sake of argument) some mystical force or divine consciousness created everything, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was the Christian idea of a deity that was the one responsible.".................Proof of non necessity is not proof of non existence.


  • 0

#15 bornagainathiest

bornagainathiest

    kcopS

  • Regular Member
  • 3,191 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a Mirror universe!
  • Interests:Astronomy, Spelunkering, Micro-Breweries, Steven Erikson, the Ring Cycle (not Wagner, the other one), StarFleet Battles, D.B.A. (Dead Boring Armies) and D.B.M. (Dead Boring Maneuvers) and SETI.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Beer. Not just for breakfast - anytime!

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:13 AM

Hello Aaron.

 

You say that you're here to learn?  If so, please read on.

 

"Only mind can create mind."

 

You appear to be mixing science and faith, when you make this claim.  Unfortunately there is an inherent problem in doing this. The purpose and function of science impose very strict limits on what it can and cannot do.  You seem to be confused as to what these limits are - so please let me help you out.

 

Science is the investigation of the natural universe by natural means.  Wherever and whenever science cannot provide an answer to something in the natural universe, the correct and proper scientific conclusion that should be drawn is that the answer is... 'currently unknown'.  It is not within the remit of science to draw super-natural conclusions from natural phenomena.  If a person chooses to go beyond science and draw a super-natural conclusion about something natural, then they are doing so on a non-scientific basis, ok?

 

Everyone and anyone is free to do this, but they should be honest about it and have the integrity to fess up to what they are doing.  Where science ends, faith can take over, BUT when someone does this, they should be absolutely clear and open about it.  Please also note my wording here, Aaron.  I've written that faith CAN take over, where science leaves off.  Not that faith SHOULD or MUST DO SO, but CAN do so.  It's a matter of personal choice, not neccessity.  Are you clear on that?

 

Just because you believe something, nobody else is obliged or required to do so. 

However, if you want to persuade others of the truth of your beliefs, then it is you who are obliged and required to follow the established rules of persuasion.  So far, you in this thread, you haven't been doing that.  You've been going beyond what science can do, blurring the distinction between science and faith by drawing faith-based conclusions from scientific evidence. As I mentioned above, when science comes up short, the correct science-based conclusion is to clearly state that the answer is currently unknown.  If you go beyond that point, then you should make it abundantly clear that any further conclusions you make are not science-based, but faith-based.  Is that clear?

 

Now let's look at your statement, "Only mind can create mind."

 

Q.

Is this a claim that's based upon the scientific investigation of the natural universe?

 

A.

No. There's no scientific evidence for this.

Nowhere in the animal kingdom (including us humans) is there any evidence for creatures with minds creating the minds of other creatures. When humans (or any other animals that might have minds) procreate, the parents are not involved in any direct way in the creation of their offspring's mind.  The key words here are DIRECT and CREATE and MIND and it's vitally important that we define and use them correctly.  (After all, we are correctly following the rules of persuasion, aren't we? )

 

DIRECT

After fertilization, the only input the parents have on the development of their young is how they maintain the health of the mother.  They can decide and control that, but they cannot decide and control anything else.  They do not decide how the fetus grows and develops within the mother.  They do not decide how cells divide nor how organs form.  They do not decide the gender and number of their offspring.  For the parents, procreation is a 99.9% 'hands-off' process. They initiate it and safeguard it externally until the time of the birth.  Only then do they get involved on a more direct level.

 

CREATE

The parents do not actively and consciously create their offspring.  They make no decisions as to when fertilization will occur.  Nor do they choose the number or sex of their offspring.  They have no say in just what inherited characteristics their offspring will have.  They know nothing about their offspring's future and so cannot control or direct any part of it's development in the womb.  They can influence their young on an indirect level, but they do not create them.

 

MIND

The parents do not actively and directly control the development of their offspring's mind, while it's in the womb.  They cannot choose how it's memory will function after birth.  They cannot control how social or anti-social it will be as it grows up.  They cannot select how it's emotions will display themselves.  They cannot intervene in anything other than the physical development of the brain.  Only after the birth will their influence be important.  Even then, the child is not a blank slate, which they can shape and mold at will.  It will have it's own mind, the origin and development of which it's parents had no direct control over, while it was in the womb.

 

Ok Aaron, I've just given you a strictly scientific explanation of why the statement, "Only mind can create mind" is false.  You can opt to disagree with this, but if you wish to do so, you have just two options. 

 

1.

You can cite scientific evidence against what I've just written.  Please feel free to do so.  This forum welcomes debate and discussion.

 

2.

You can disagree on the basis of your faith. 

However, if you do this, please remember NOT to mix science with faith.  Scientific evidence cannot be used to draw faith-based conclusions. 

You might believe that God creates human minds, but that's an article of personal, super-natural faith on your part.  There is no basis for this conclusion in science, which investigates only the natural, not the super-natural.

You can cite anything from with science, but the moment you draw a faith-based conclusion from the data, you've stepped outside of science and can no longer claim that the science backs-up your super-natural faith.

You can cite something from the Bible, to back up your faith, but such a quotation doesn't fall within the remit of science and cannot be accepted as valid scientific evidence.  Science cannot come to super-natural conclusions, remember?  You can cite something from your own experiences, but such evidence is subjective and therefore cannot be accepted as valid and objective scientific evidence - on it's own. 

.

.

.

 

So Aaron, I must now ask you to justify your claim (Only mind can create mind) with only scientific evidence and no faith-based conclusions or to retract it.

 

You see my friend, part of the learning process is to learn from your mistakes.  So, if you really do want to learn, then please proceed along the lines I've laid down for you.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • 3

#16 falemon

falemon

    Apostate

  • Regular Member
  • 850 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:london
  • Interests:reading/writing, programming, science, philosophy, neuro science, quantum physics, music, art, creativity, love, dance
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :The quantum anti-god!!

Posted 02 January 2013 - 06:33 AM

For the ones who had dynamically opposed views than me but showed respect i appreaiate that, i am here to learn, i started out on the wrong foot, but i never stop learning how to communicate

I beg to differ.

 

When I was a Christian the one thing I knew more than anything is how much a path of learning is detrimental to faith. I recall a friend of mine seeking to uncover various truths, such as what the alleged forces of Freemasonry and the Illuminati were doing. Now there are many false books written about these subjects, but I knew that if he took a path of truth that he would undoubtedly uncover that which would undermine his faith.

 

My faith was incredibly strong, so I was able to happily learn about and understand all manors of subjects without it affecting my faith. Knowing how evolution works didn't threaten my faith. Using the theory of evolution to solve various mathematical problems didn't threaten my faith. Even the idea that evolution naturally occurs did not threaten my faith.

 

Knowing the shady truths about the formation of the New Testament, the false interpretations, the non-existence of Hell in the Jewish faith, the hidden diversity of the early Church (where there were hundreds of different accounts of Jesus, most of which had nothing to do with what is believed today), the choosing of the Canon which we now call the New Testament; none of that challenged my faith. Even when I knew that the chosen books in the Bible were not divinely chosen, and were hand selected by men to achieve a particular view; still no damage done to faith.

 

To most people faith is little more than stubborn ignoring of facts, so they will deny the truth to keep their faith. They will be lazy and refuse to properly investigate their own belief, and settle for what they have been told to believe. To deny the truth that the Christianity you follow was the work of man choosing which books should make your belief is contrary to learning.

 

So no, I highly doubt you are even capable of truly beginning a path of learning and especially beginning a path of truth, unless you are willing to risk all of your faith and de-converting. That is the true reality of learning.

 

God wasnt created he just always there, he is existence itself, Why? because he is the uncaused cause, ... sphagetti monster doesnt have a book about them declaring that it created the universe, let alone, using fictional cahracters that about 100% of the world knows is fake doesnt help the case

Firstly what makes the Bible more significant than all of the other religious explanations? Secondly, "uncaused cause" is a paradox. Uncaused mean it is not caused, and caused means it is not uncaused. Regardless the Grand Architect argument is infinite too and in no way different to suggesting an Universe of infinite states other than the concept of <a> consciousness and <b> claims of divine intervention in the Biblical accounts.
 
If anything your argument is tantamount to, "we don't know fully, so we'll just follow these unfounded claims in ... ... ... err ... ... this book". So the Torah which claims to give account for the conception of the Universe was written by Moses some 2600 years ago, a considerable amount of time after we man discovered electricity smile.png Sounds just a little fishy, n'ah mean.
 

evolution tends to speak of how life forms came about from previous but it doesnt explain current existence, like how is it that humans have natural ability to swim from birth but many apes cannot swim at all, only a hand full can. 

Actually it does smile.png Not only does modern theories of evolution explain it, Genetic Algorithms demonstrate it.
 

"So what is your view on rationality, logic and sound reasoning? Are you for or against it?" I am for logic, i feel that laws of logic trandscend time and space, if i go to the future or past the laws of logic will still be true, how could man have invented such a contraption? logic cannot weighed, frozen or photographed like matter, so then it is a concept and concepts are of the mind, and if logic is transcendent then would it be fair to say transcendent mind is the one responsible for Laws of logic?

Incorrect, it says nothing. Our logic is derived from observation of the natural world and rational inferences, just as with Mathematics. It in no way implies a Grand Architect.
 
Your argument essentially says, "the world is rational and therefore requires a rational mind". It takes the idea of a Grand Architect for granted.
 

"This. Even if (and that's one whopping big "if" that I'm tossing in just for the sake of argument) some mystical force or divine consciousness created everything, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was the Christian idea of a deity that was the one responsible.".................Proof of non necessity is not proof of non existence.

It is not proof of non existence, but guess what, it is not proof of existence. And bear in mind that the Bible makes ultimate claims about reality so therefore has the burden of proof.


Edited by falemon, 02 January 2013 - 07:57 AM.

  • 3

#17 Ravenstar

Ravenstar

    Sage

  • Regular Member
  • 2,978 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Art, literature, ancient history, mythology, archaeology, etymology, graphics, blogging...
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Truth

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:40 AM

I would like to add that argumentum ad populum is a poor way to establish veracity. The popularity of the Bible in no way proves anything other than..well, it's popularity.

 

In the dark ages most people believed that bathing was harmful, it was a very popular belief, didn't make it true... they also believed that cats were familiars/demons, and midwives and village healers were witches and slaughtered them by the thousands (because the Bible said to) - then... the Black Plague. Popularity of an idea is not always the best way to figure out the truth and frequently it can be very harmful.

 

There is no scientific way to prove your assertions. It isn't 'sound reasoning' at all, because you begin with the premise that god exists and try to fit science to that conclusion. That's not how science works... science sees evidence of something and follows the evidence, through careful analysis and experiment, and peer review, to whatever conclusion it leads to. Even if it's not what the scientists thought it might be to start with - EVEN if it's uncomfortable - EVEN if it tears apart other hypotheses, EVEN if it proves the scientists earlier theories wrong.

 

*Logic is not a scientific law. It is a method created by humans for sound reasoning. There are many different forms of logic - approaches. Great minds have been working on logic for a very long time and have reams of writings about it - you can read these and see how it developed over time. It wasn't 'given' to humans - we developed it.

 

Okay.. so let's look at what you said...

 

"God wasnt created he just always there, he is existence itself," - unsupported assertion. How do you know this? What evidence supports this?

 

Why? because he is the uncaused cause, if i wanted to go to barbies Mansion but before i did, i had to ask the person behind me, and that person said they had to ask the peson behind them and so on and so forth, there had to be someone from the very beginning that didnt need to ask for permission.. Without presupposing either there is a God or there is no God other option. If there is no God the universe created itself which is impossible because infinite regress comes into play which doesnt make sense without a uncaused caused there can be no other cause to set the other causes off. 

 

- This may seem logical and in Newtonian physics it does, but it's actually not the way things work. In Quantum reality things pop in and out of existence all the time. Out of nowhere apparently.

 

Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

 

"Furthermore NASA and many scientists have already determined the universe has a beginning. By observing the back radiation  in space they concluded the universe Began at one point and didnt always exist, my apologies there is two different terms for this particular study, that i am in a rush cannot look up names atm .by default if the univers began, then it had a cause....who was that cause?" Why does it have to be a 'who?' That is a presupposition that is unsupported.

 

Yes, Cosmologists DO state that there was a starting point to this universe - BUT they do not state that they know exactly what happened in the short period right before expansion... there is a small amount of 'time' where they just do not know because it can't be observed. The Big Bang Theory only states what happened after expansion began. Some postulate it was a singularity, some subscribe to Brane Theory (M-Theory) Some think it may be a cyclical thing.. a big bang... a big crunch.. then another big bang..etc... I'm not conversant on all the theories but there is some evidence to suggest that this may not be the only universe, but one of many like bubbles in a sink.

 

The thing that blew me away about the BB is that time and space began then as well. There was no 'before' because for there to be a 'before' there had to be time. So in that state of no time/no space causation doesn't apply. Some physicists think that the actual curvature of space itself is what drives the engine... (space is curved! I don't know how to visualize that)

 

again zues or flying sphagetti monster doesnt have a book about them declaring that it created the universe, let alone, using fictional cahracters that about 100% of the world knows is fake doesnt help the case."

 

You do realize the FSM is not considered a real deity, right? No one ACTUALLY believes in the FSM - it's a parody. There ARE people who still worship Zeus, and Isis, and the Dagda, and... Cerridwen and Cerrunos, and many more. I believe we have a follower of Kemet (Egyptian reconstructionist religion) right here on the boards.

 

You need to brush up on Greek mythology, Zeus was never considered the creator of the universe, or Earth...  there isn't a 'creator god' in Hellenic religion... the Titans came out of Khaos (chaos) and they spawned the Olympians. But there are a lot of writings about Zeus... older than your bible actually. Yahweh isn't the creator god of the Hebrews either, El Elyon is. (borrowed Canaanite creator god)

 

The 'book' you describe as declaring that 'god' created the universe is not proven to be a reliable source and it most certainly is not a scientific source. You should study where and how it came about... very interesting stuff. I'm pretty sure there are numerous threads even here on that containing a ton of scholarly links about the Bible and it's very questionable origins and history. The Bible has valuable things in it - but not in the realm of science.

 

"evolution tends to speak of how life forms came about from previous but it doesnt explain current existence, like how is it that humans have natural ability to swim from birth but many apes cannot swim at all, only a hand full can."

 

We have been separated from the other apes for a very long time and have evolved along other lines. Losing our pelts was probably one reason why we like the water more than our hairier cousins. Some primates do swim... we do, some don't. I think that food gathering would have been easier if we ventured into the water (we also eat more meat than most other primates which is one reason why we developed bigger brains, more quality calories - less expenditure of energy) especially on the coastlines. We have been evolving along our own line for many millions of years - I don't find it surprising that we swim considering the rich food sources in water. Evolution is a fact though...even if we don't have every single answer - the basic Theory is more than solid and has so much evidence it's not even a debate. But.. like any good theory it is being updated and tweaked as we learn more.

 

"So what is your view on rationality, logic and sound reasoning? Are you for or against it?" I am for logic, i feel that laws of logic trandscend time and space, if i go to the future or past the laws of logic will still be true, how could man have invented such a contraption? logic cannot weighed, frozen or photographed like matter, so then it is a concept and concepts are of the mind, and if logic is transcendent then would it be fair to say transcendent mind is the one responsible for Laws of logic?

 

*see above about logic - google, "The father of logic", or the 'origins of logic'.

"This. Even if (and that's one whopping big "if" that I'm tossing in just for the sake of argument) some mystical force or divine consciousness created everything, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was the Christian idea of a deity that was the one responsible."................."Proof of non necessity is not proof of non existence".

 

No one is trying to prove non-existence. That is not the goal in science - what science IS finding out is that the evidence points to a natural explanation for why there is anything. Is it conclusive? No, not yet... but the more science finds out the less necessary a 'god' seems to be which I guess points to there not being a god, at least not as a causal factor for the universe. That's where the evidence seems to be leading. It has nothing to do however with anything that is beyond or outside of the natural universe. As soon as you say things like 'transcendent' you have moved out of the realm of science and into philosophy, because anything beyond or outside of nature is pure speculation - there is no way to test it, or even state that it is 'reality' at all. It is subjective - not objective.

 

Consciousness studies are fascinating... but so far the evidence points to consciousness (mind) being a product of the brain. This is apparent in studies done with people who have brain damage.

 

No one can prove a negative. I can't prove that leprechauns don't exist either - but I have no evidence that they do, other than some old myths and stories (hearsay) - therefore I have no good reason to believe in them. Same goes for invisible pink unicorns, alien abductions, fairies, Allah, Krishna, Zeus, or Yahweh.


  • 5
http://thinkcoffeemedia.wordpress.com

There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ~ Douglas Adams

#18 blackpudd1n

blackpudd1n

    Mother of all Pudd

  • ★ Gold Patron ★
  • 4,598 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The east coast of Australia, in the state of NSW :)
  • Interests:Cats. Particularly two, called Bruce and Wednesday :P Feminism. Learning. Honesty. Heavy Metal. Doc Martens. Reading. Talking. Mental health issues. Daria.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Atheist and proud :)

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:49 AM

 

Only mind can create mind.

 

We don't know enough about what makes a mind a mind to even properly define the term, let alone put limits on how a mind can be created. I reject this statement as unprovable and unsupportable.

 

 

I think Aaron may actually be referring to Bishop George Berkeley's argument that "matter does not exist except as a form of mind". It was meant to be a refutation of materialism, but it was destroyed by David Hume in his Treatise on Human Nature.  


  • 0

"He believed to the end exactly the same things he started with. It seems to me that a man who can think straight along for forty-seven years without changing a single idea ought to be kept in a cabinet as a curiosity."- Jean Webster


#19 mymistake

mymistake

    might be the Antichrist

  • Regular Member
  • 10,620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:family, support, meditation, peace of mind, moving on as forgiveness, deprograming, laughing at the Bible
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :"I enjoy mythology but I'm not religious about it"

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:05 AM

 

God wasnt created he just always there, he is existence itself, Why? because he is the uncaused cause, if i wanted to go to barbies Mansion but before i did, i had to ask the person behind me, and that person said they had to ask the peson behind them and so on and so forth, there had to be someone from the very beginning that didnt need to ask for permission.. Without presupposing either there is a God or there is no God other option.

 

 

I'm glad you get the concept of "always there".  You have no objective evidence that God exists.  However, all objective evidence indicates that matter and energy of our universe exists now.  From sceience we have learned that matter and energy can be converted back an forth and into different forms but neither can be created nor destroyed.  Since matter cannot be created we have very good evidence that the stuff that makes our universe was never created.  The conclusion is that it always existed.  The Big Bang isn't when that matter/energy was created but rather an event where it changed forms.  It may also be the earliest event we can understand.  However none of this requires any god.

 

 

 

 

If there is no God the universe created itself which is impossible because infinite regress comes into play which doesnt make sense without a uncaused caused there can be no other cause to set the other causes off

 

 

You assume there was a time when there was no matter or energy.  You assume there was a nothing.  Can you demonstrate this was the case?  Scientists theorize the Big Bang came from a singularity that contained all the mass and energy of our universe.  A singularity full of a universe isn't nothing.  However it could have had natural forces operating on it that made it form our universe.  The fact that we cannot figure out why does not mean "God did it".

 

 

 

Furthermore NASA and many scientists have already determined the universe has a beginning. By observing the back radiation  in space they concluded the universe Began at one point and didnt always exist, my apologies there is two different terms for this particular study, that i am in a rush cannot look up names atm

 

 

I look forward to you posting the names and a link to the study.  I do not see how background radiation would indicate that there was a time of nothing - no matter or energy existed.  Remember that a singularity containing a universe's worth of matter and energy is not "nothing".  A universe coming from a singularity is not "something from nothing".

 

 

 

 

.by default if the univers began, then it had a cause....who was that cause? again zues or flying sphagetti monster doesnt have a book about them declaring that it created the universe, let alone, using fictional cahracters that about 100% of the world knows is fake doesnt help the case

 

God is fake.  I could write a book declaring anything you like.  These things are not evidence of God.  The reason people cite the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to demonstrate that believers' claims are silly and generic.  Any name could replace "God" and the structure of the argument does not change.  But using a different name does counter the indoctrination that saturates our culture and many of us went through as children.

 

 

evolution tends to speak of how life forms came about from previous but it doesnt explain current existence, like how is it that humans have natural ability to swim from birth but many apes cannot swim at all, only a hand full can. 

 

That is because those questions are beyond the scope of evolution.  It's not an explanation of everything.  It's just a tool for understanding biology.


Edited by mymistake, 02 January 2013 - 11:25 AM.

  • 0

/\/\.  /\/\.

There's an elegant solution to most Bible problems.  The Bible is the word of ignorant men who couldn't agree with each other.


#20 Thought2Much

Thought2Much

    Rational Materialist Skeptic

  • Regular Member
  • 2,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Science (especially astronomy), science fiction, chess
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Ain't nobody got time for that!

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:22 AM

By observing the back radiation  in space they concluded the universe Began at one point and didnt always exist...

 

I missed this on the first read (probably because the phrasing of your posts makes parsing the information difficult), but it looks like you are talking about the cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMBR. This doesn't tell us how the universe itself was created (such as where all of the matter and energy in the original singularity came from), only that the Big Bang occurred that gave us the universe in its current form. The idea that the CMBR should exist, as well as its average temperature, were both predicted by cosmologists before it was actually observed. This means that the physics of the Big Bang were understood well enough in the 1940s to predict a phenomenon that wasn't directly observed until the 1960s, based on knowledge of physics and observations of other phenomena alone.

 

This is part of what makes the Big Bang theory so compelling and undisputed by the scientific community: scientists were able to use the theory and past observations to predict properties of the universe, without prior direct observation, that were later confirmed to be true. No creationist, theologian, or holy book can claim to have done such a thing, ever, period. This is what makes science science and makes theology irrelevant when explaining the universe around us.


  • 0
What follows is the sum total of what Jesus had to say about homosexuality:



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users