RRC Archives

caribe wrote:

Shamis wrote:

caribe wrote:Arguing against evolution is uphill: <snip>

If you're going to argue for a creator it seems easy enough to say he made the big bang and was smart enough to know what would happen afterwards (us). That is the philosophy that most peacefully coexists with the rest of science.

You are not going to do this without an ugly discussion about determinism. I will have to sic krabikrabi on you. If you want your head to hurt, ride down to the gorge with that guy.

Thats a big problem for any model that puts an omniscient god in the equation. One of the many flaws with the traditional concept of a god.

Either way, there is little hope for free will. Its best just to pretend we have it.

sheesh..the nun ,I can understand. All those 25 cent words make my head hurt.
Abiogenises? WTH? Shamis, you have solid proof we have no soul?

caribe wrote:Piggy: As I said before with God as an arbitrary hypothesis she basically does not exist. Neither do flying pasta monsters...

Arrrr! Ye be blaphemin'! I'll swab yer intestines out with me hook and my parrot will peck out yer eyes fer such talk! Y'ell not be claimin' that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, creater of the universe is nay existin'! Arrr!

Shamis wrote: Either way, there is little hope for free will. Its best just to pretend we have it.

I tend to look at free will similarly to how I look at 'the existence of God(s)' - essentially that we are not totally rational, and we fundamentally experience the world as having extra-rational components, which we may call God or spirituality or whatever. God is very real to many people, so in many important ways, God exists in our world (maybe just not in the way that many people think 'he' does). Similarly, all the subatomic bits of matter and energy that make us up (particularly our brains and neural activity - 'thoughts') are flying along in their own ways and don't really leave room for free will, but we know from several sources that the patterns of this matter and energy are unknowable and unpredictable, therefore, we might as well think of ourselves as having free will. The alternative results in not taking responsibility for our actions and that alternative sucks.

Oh - so I agree.

You know, the great preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1800s) believed that all the dust particles that could be seen in the sunlight of the window moved only by God's power, through his control, and as He wished. I'll throw this proverbial bee in your bonnet. God controls all the molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles in the same way. The very act of you breathing right now is because of God's divine sovereignty and by his good pleasure. If He were to withdraw His power, you would collapse and die of suffocation.

How's that ?

so when people collapse and die of suffocation is it because God sneezed?

ynot wrote:WTH? Shamis, you have solid proof we have no soul?

Cognitive scientists are close to explaining many aspects of the brain which are typically associated with a soul.

Once all the major functions of the conscious mind are explained by science, then I think the soul becomes a victim of Occam's razor.

There are a couple authors that have described a lot of very interesting brain experiments that support my claim, but I can't remember names right now, I'll see if i can dig up some old books.

it's interesting that we can work up sixteen pages of ranting on a subject that's been ranted on for two thousand years but we can't seem to get people to take a couple minutes to actually a few things to make the world a little better for someone else.

though i did appreciate the mentioning of my former (and future.. but half the women) jack tripper lifestyle.

still, can't avoid throwing my two cents in: for the science buffs, you have to realize that science isn't objective, never will be, and that it's impossible. because of that, science is and will always be based on a thin layer of faith. the "brain in a vat" idea is a perfect example of that faith. and even if it were possible to be objective, you have to understand that it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. using logic to explain away god is, as per their understandings and definitions, like trying to point a round peg into a square hole.. but only harder and less possible

and, for balance, one of the better articulations of the hope that non-belief can bring, and a somewhat original one at that:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5015557

if one thing good comes from any of this, hopefully you all understand your own beliefs more as a result. other than that, i encourage you to use the energy more effectively. a few good places to start:

http://lnt.org/
http://www.conservation.org/
http://www.mountainfund.org/main.html
http://www.habitat.org/
http://national.unitedway.org/
among thousands of others..

there's a lot to do.. get to work!

Please do, Shamis.

Stanislav Grof did some fascinating brain experiments when LSD was still legal, but I suspect that's not who you mean.

People suffocate because God sneezed? Pru, that is a very stupid comment... Quit blowing smoke...