Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
brotherbbock
Trad climber
Alta Loma, CA
|
|
|
May 25, 2010 - 01:40pm PT
|
I definitely let the negative die. Something you can never do.
Patey insists on more attacking though. Just shows your true personality.
It is hilarious that I got you rereading and posting up so much on this thread. If I were to waste my time rereading all of your poison and then re-post it I might just self implode.
BTW lets compare tick lists some time and get back to climbing talk.
I have about 2 decades of climbing under my belt as well.
|
|
brotherbbock
Trad climber
Alta Loma, CA
|
|
|
May 25, 2010 - 01:50pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^LOL!!!!
Dude you are comedy.
Those are some good threads and TR's though!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
May 25, 2010 - 01:58pm PT
|
It is alright, a-okay, to mix it up at the fire. Through this battle of ideas (over what is, what matters, what works) where I might add, it is impossible to throw punches or wring somebody's neck, we get ahead.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 25, 2010 - 01:59pm PT
|
There is a difficult problem with the argument of first cause as a validation of God’s reality, simply because it begs the question what is the cause of God?
The question implies the error at stopping a regressive causal series at any given point! The notion of an uncaused being as a final term that causes all becomes an arbitrary point on what may very well be an infinite line of beginnings.
Pinpointing a cosmological beginning is an extremely difficult issue whether you're talking God or the Big Bang. The mystery is how can there be a first causal event? In a universe of causation it would seem there can't!
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
May 25, 2010 - 02:02pm PT
|
Standing corrected is higher than many get to stand online.
Good on ya
Peace
Karl
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
May 25, 2010 - 02:54pm PT
|
I am a theistic evolutionist.
I heard something pretty interesting on NPR a few days ago. The guy who came up with the word "scientist" was trying to find a word to describe the people who did science. It's obvious now but he had a few alternatives back in the 1830's. One of his ideas was to use the word "atheist"!
Dave
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 12:53am PT
|
the OP has an argument which is essentially Aristotelian...
see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_cause#Efficient_cause
Aquinas uses a human esthetic, "we perceive..." which can be a starting point for a scientific statement, if it can be posed in a manner which is quantitative and subject to experimentation or observation. This cannot be done (or at least it has never been done) and so Aquinas' argument, and Aristotle's definitions of cause, fall in the domain of philosophy, for which there is no demonstrable argument to select one particular point of view from another.
It is the case, so far, that science has avoided even a crisp philosophical definition of itself and still managed to do science by the prescription of the scientific method; which has a demonstrated ability to extend understanding beyond what is known, or put another way, to create new knowledge.
Our subjective perception of what order in the universe is can be quite far afield of what is actually happening. In particular, creationist thinking really just states a series of facts, the woodpecker it the way it is because it is the way it is... God made it, after all, and we do not understand God's motive. And so biology is reduced to a descriptive catalog of what is living, and perhaps the study of how those individuals "work" the natural history of the organism, the description and function of its parts, but there is no understanding of how that came to be.
The paper I quoted on the woodpecker:
http://www.biosci.wayne.edu/profhtml/moore/PUBLICATIONS/Webb&Moore2005.pdf
may not be understandable to most of the people arguing in these threads, but it does represent what modern biology is and does, in this case, trying to explain the relationship between the various woodpecker species as seen through the theory of evolution, in which the DNA of the different species is compared and analyzed to form a phylogenic tree among the woodpeckers, by way of genetic differences, from which a time scale for the evolution can be inferred, and eventual tested against observations of the fossil record. In addition, the morphological similarities of the different species can be inferred by the proposed relationships, including the difference in function among various anatomical features.
The genetic comparison has lead to a great deal of understanding in the history of life on the planet. And the existence of genes, and an understanding of how genes function underlies the ideas of evolution, and were anticipated by Darwin.
One can propose that "the hand of God" reaches in and effects evolutionary changes, but it is an unnecessary requirement, no such intervention is necessary for evolution to operate, and with no way of proving or disproving such a hypothesis, one can take the more economic view that such intervention does not exist and see how far the hypothesis of evolution can be extended.
Werner and others argue that "there must be a designer" which is essentially the Aristotelian view of "efficient cause" but actually it is really just a human affectation and nothing more. To insist that the universe is just a instantiation of traditional human activity as we know it seems rather limiting, and the inference that we are made "in the image of God" thus God is like us, well, a bit unsubstantiated, and predictable.
However the real threat of evolution is to view humans as just another part of the tree of life, as a part of a natural process with no special reason for our existence... we are not any better at this survival game then our much more successful bacterial cousins.
Life viewed as the persistence of genetic material distinguishes only the existing from the extinct. And as such, we have no special place among the existing.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 01:31pm PT
|
A sad day as the LA Times announced that the Aleotra grebe (Tachybaptus rufolavatus) has been declared extinct as there have been no confirmed sightings in 25 years.
I guess god created this poor species in order to make us wring our hands in anguish. Either that or he did so to prove Malthus correct.
|
|
brotherbbock
Trad climber
Alta Loma, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 02:49pm PT
|
Interesting post to read Ed.
But rather sad indeed if we do not have a special place amongst all the flora and fauna of this world.
I definitely respect your point of view, but regarding my personal outlook on life and knowing God as I do, to me makes the world all the more beautiful.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 04:28pm PT
|
...and, as we all have learned, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
brotherbbock
Trad climber
Alta Loma, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 04:41pm PT
|
I'm sure under that beard indeed lies a very handsome man.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 06:28pm PT
|
What physical evidence would be deemed worthy enough to prove the existance of GOD to most Agnostics and Atheists?
I'm just wondering. If you are an Agnostic or Atheist please say what it would take. What will it take?
Perhaps it exists and you haven't asked.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 06:38pm PT
|
Dave, what show was that? I missed that one, I'll check it out online in the archives.
Sorry. I was driving and didn't remember exactly when I heard it or who was being interviewed. "Atheist" stuck in my head since it is a sort of opposite to all things mythological.
Dave
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Good question?!?!?!?!?
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 06:41pm PT
|
It does not exist at this moment.
"It" would have to come-on-down to earth hang out for a while have some very long discussions with me and a crowd of 6.8 billion, where all those present agreed that what we saw and interacted with was "god". Getting 6.8 billion humans to agree to that would be a miracle!
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 06:54pm PT
|
What will it take?
A miracle seen by everyone and indisputable. A thing that cannot possible happen according to the known laws of the universe and is so far beyond what we think we know that God is as good an explanation as any other. It's not proof but ups the chances considerably.
For instance, if I saw a person disappear and then a 50' dragon appear back in that same place a few minutes later while the sky was green and fairies danced around my head, I might think that I was either going completely insane or think that maybe mystical stuff can actually happen.
Seeing the dead walk might do it too but would be pretty scary and gross.
Insanity seems more likely in these cases.
What cannot be considered evidence or proof:
1. Old books, papers, writings, etc...
2. Number 1 with self contradicting sorties.
3. Many of Number 1 all proposing to be the one true book but contradicting all others.
4. What my parents tell me is true.
5. What complete strangers tell me is true.
6. What people who make money off of their information tell me is true.
7. What a minority of the humans that ever existed tell me is true.
8. Hearing voices in my head.
Man, I can't imagine how anyone can believe this stuff unless they are really scared not too or just got brainwashed so much as children that they can see the silliness of the whole thing.
Dave
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 07:00pm PT
|
Klimmer,
The evidence simply does not exist. People believe in God by virtue of faith. The definition of faith is a strong belief in God, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 07:05pm PT
|
You're wrong Jim
Bhagavad-gita As It Is - Macmillan 1972 Edition: introduction:
"The English word "religion" is a little different from sanātana-dharma. Religion conveys the idea of faith, and faith may change. One may have faith in a particular process, and he may change this faith and adopt another, but sanātana-dharma refers to that activity which cannot be changed.
For instance, liquidity cannot be taken from water, nor can heat be taken from fire. Similarly, the eternal function of the eternal living entity cannot be taken from the living entity.
Sanātana-dharma is eternally integral with the living entity."
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Good question?!?!?!?!?
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 07:08pm PT
|
If you freeze the water or toss the water on the fire what do you have?
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 07:25pm PT
|
Werner,
Semantics? That's all you got?
the eternal function of the eternal living entity cannot be taken from the living entity.
No problem, since there is no eternal living entity, there is no eternal function to take away.
As I posted before,
Just because the Bhagavad-gita doesn't say might, maybe, could, probably, seems, etc. doesn't mean it's "bonafide" and not just more made up speculations.
Summum Bonum is a mental speculation.
Your assumptions about how far back your sources go are mental speculations.
Your sources themselves are riddled with mental speculations.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2010 - 07:37pm PT
|
" ...there is no eternal living entity, there is no eternal function to take away."
Yes, this holds true as far as your knowledge goes.
In kindergarten the children generally do not understand calculus yet.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!