|
I apologize about this OT again but....
I'm getting a little scared about that Anthrax case down in Florida...
It turns out, as the story unfolds, that a letter carrying the Anthrax powder was delivered to some office in Florida and many handled it, including the 63 year old man who died and another one who tested positive for it. It got me thinking, what if some nut out there decides to start mailing out thousands and thousands of these "Anthrax" infected letters to Americans.... this is getting serious, folks....we all need to stand together and fight this! This is getting scary! Thank you for reading. God Bless America! I am flying the flag tonight. |
Cabman, you need some philosophy.
There is no God. You are the contents of your brain. That is, you are the neural structure of your brain. When this structure is lost, you are dead forever just as a painting is lost forever in a fire that consumes it. If you took your brain and connected the neurons exactly as mine are connected, you'd think like me. You'd be a neural clone of me. The word "Porsche" would then trigger the same neural response in your brain that it triggers in mine (along the same neural paths), and the thought generation would be that of mine. So you don't need 'your neurons' to be you, because neurons are just neurons. You just need them connected the right way--and they don't need to be made of the same organic material they are now either. They my be made of any suitable material that acts the same way. Once again, there is no God. There is the present, and there is your neural structure. Alcoa will freeze your brain for you. It is 50,000$. This is a very good deal. I would take out an insurance policy as an old friend has so they will freeze my brain upon my death. Like my engine swap, I'm 'working on it' but will never get it done probably. Still, I plan on it. Sometime in the distant future, a few different things might happen. Although they my not be able to 'save and restart' your brain, they might be able to clone it with a suitable machine which recreates and emulates your brain pathways. Such a machine would study and emulate the exact neural structure of your brain and copy its functionality in a simulator. When run, this simulator would be you. You could then 'wake up' in a program run by a neural emulating set of chips. You'd be alive once again in a simulation. And then again this may be that simulation. See if you can find a way to prove your experience is really a simulation. Sincerely, God AKA, programmer Bob year 3021. [This message has been edited by Kurt B (edited 10-08-2001).] |
Kurt B,
That is deep... But I agree with you on God.....There are thousands of Gods, which one are you going to believe in? I only used "God Bless America" as a gesture. we are all definitely biological and physiological structures. That's the miracle of life. Whether or not a greater being exists that is responsible for the creation of the universe, space and time, there is no proof either way....your guess is as good as mine. it's the biggest mystery... gonna go read up on it. http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/read.gif |
Thank you and welcome to the Pelican Parts News channel.....And for our latest breaking news item, we turn it over to "Cabman"........Seriously, to you have some hidden desire to be a newscaster? You just can't let these issues go by without commenting on them. To all others, post soon for this whole thread will be quickly removed.
|
Quote:
If one off-topic thread gets removed, then all of them have to be removed. |
Everything is beyond our control now. So just go about your life. In talking to a member of my programming team who's actually an Indian National, I got some philosophy out of her.
She's Hindu--a polytheistic religion which is a potpurri of many religions. Any religious philosophy can be torpedoed by modern evidence that demonstrates that when your neural structure is lost, you are lost. This is easy to prove with an Alzheimer's patient. You are your memories. Well, she relies on a Descartesian philosophy. She considers our brains to be receivers that pick up waves of our existence. The waves are instructions sent to and from some other place of existence. Your brain picks up your waves like a particular radio station. So only your brain picks up and sends to the 'you' in some other place. When the brain is lost, it no longer accepts these waves correctly or at all. That is brain death. But 'you' would still exist somewhere else. Now, maybe someone really smart could find a way to make this work. I'd like to believe it. I can't because, while interesting and not as lame as omniscient 5th dimensional entities like God, it has a lot of problems. Still, it might help! Also, read about Everett's many worlds theory used to explain quantum mechanics by reducing it to classical mechanics by suggesting that every irreversible quantum change causes the universe to split into divergent, but equally real universes. It's very amazing--and many great theoretical physicists accept it. You may find a way to live forever using Everett's theory, who knows! |
Kurt,
you think too much. |
Kurt,
Unfortunately, I can't help but to come to many of the same conclusions about us humans being not much more than the sum of our parts. I'd be much happier if your friend's descartesian philosophy was true. Now I'd just be banking that the reality that I continue to experience coincides with the reality in which I stop aging at my prime due to a great quantum stroke of luck. Keith [This message has been edited by Yargk (edited 10-08-2001).] |
<h1>It's the Krazy Kurt and Cabman Show!</h1>
------------------ Mark Szabo 1986 911 Targa 3.2 1987 Escort 5-speed 1.9 RIP The Porsche Owners Gallery |
Kurt
whatever your smokin I'll take two. Just reading your last post made my head spin. I even put the bottle away! Deep Stuff!! gary ------------------ ghanlon |
Quote:
But also keep this in mind. This bio/germ warfare scare might just be a put on by our goverment to make us worry and keep us mad at the Taliban while they give the middle east an enema. |
geez! i hope you guys are kidding. ok, i want to get in on the fun, too!!! here's my huge OT rant to throw in the pile:
yes, it's true... people suck. we all know that. but debating this god stuff sounds like fun to me... kurt... by stating unequivocally that 'there is no god', you are claiming to have all the answers with respect to the existence of any force or power greater than ourselves. i am assuming, then, that you would not consider yourself someone who has a faith life. this, however, directly contradicts the fact that you actually have established a faith that god does NOT exist. you are obviously extremely knowledgable, and your reply to cabman explains the workings of our brains by breaking down our anatomy into tiny scientific components, and your case is made based on what the scientific world calls 'proof' and substantiated evidence. in spite of all of your understanding, however, you still are not able to prove conclusively that god DOES NOT exist, and this is where the big 'there is no god' claim loses all of its steam. it seems as if you look to science for the answer to life's questions about how things work and why things happen, because it is based on proof and evidence. yet, science continues to evolve and change every day as we learn even more about what we thought we understood completely at an earlier time. i think we need to keep this in mind when anytime we conclude that we really 'know' something. in light of this, you could look at science as being a sort of religion of its own, in a sense. are mere theories and hypotheses based on factual evidence? they are more of a leap of faith than anything else based on what we know at the time. as is the case with religion and spiritual matters, science is filled with all sorts of gray areas and unanswered questions. you acknowledge that we, as humans have limitations as to what we can and cannot do as well as what we do and do not understand when you identify the future as a time that will provide even more understanding. the workings of a human brain are absolutely TINY in the scope of an entire universe. if you can acknowledge limitations in our current technology with respect to the human brain, HOW IN THE WORLD can you claim to have knowledge of things that operate beyond our current level of understanding, such as how god might work? you are still operating on faith, my friend, and you're going to have to show me some proof before i ever start to doubt the existence of god. (kurt, i hope you understand i submit all of this respectfully. you're one of my favorite people on this board, and i mean no offense.) i'm just trying to stir the pot a little for you heathens out there... http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/nuts.gif ------------------ Adam Nitti ajnitti@mindspring.com www.adamnitti.com '85 911 Carrera Coupe '72 BMW 2002tii '97 Grand Cherokee Limited Peachstate PCA member [This message has been edited by adamnitti (edited 10-09-2001).] |
I got only as far as the beginning of Kurt's post. I did not quit reading out of disgust or denial, I am in a hurry and must go. but I want to say this:
I have a degree in Philosphy and I am tired of folks who think they are brilliant and want everyone to see this brilliance by presenting arguments against the existence of God. At the same time I noticed the Philisophy Dean was similarly unimpressed by these people, and this was in 1975. He was a Unitarian. There are several quite compelling (if you actually think about them) logical proofs of the existence of God. My personal favorite is the Cartesian (Rene Descartes) form of St' Anselms proof. though brief, I will not restate it here. It is truly a haunting proof, but you might have to work for weeks on a refutation in order to see there is no escape from it. Immanuel Kant made the best refute by suggestion that existence simply cannot be used as a predicate, but as brilliant as he was (very) this refute does not overcome, and he knew that. At any rate, the smartest people I have known have more than accepted God's existence. The ones who have not, believe they are smart, and admittedly they are not dumb. but their most striking characteristic has been their arrogance, not their wisdom. I am not calling you names, Kurt and I have enjoyed many of your posts, though I have been saddened by some of them. I respect your position and enjoy your 'e-company.' But I also know for a fact you are incorrect in this conclusion. |
That's okay Superman, but remember, I know St Anselm's proof as well, and in fact, will give a brief version of it right here. The fact is, you can use it to prove anything, and if you like, I'll do that too.
Here's his proof, which uses reductio ad absurdum. Def: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived 0) Assume that God does not exist 1) Let X have all of the properties of God but with the additional property of existence 2) X encompasses God 1) 3) X is greater than God 2). This contradicts our assumption that nothing greater than God can be conceived, therefore 0) must be false, and God exists Now, superman, shall I just go ahead and prove Atlantis exists using the same proof? or...how about this, I'll prove Superman exists. Def: Superman is a super hero than which no more powerful superhero can be conceived. 0) Assume Superman does not exist 1) Let GreenLantern have all of the properties of Superman but with, yes, additional property of existence 2) ... etc I'll spare you the rest. Also, when I had to take a philosophy class I for fun proved that there are infinitely many Gods each greater than the previous God using mathematical induction and St. Anslem's proof. The professor was of course, impressed I guess, but he focused on insisting I leave out the ks and k+1s. I was more impressed with myself than he was with me, put it that way. Now to the previous post which I was prepared to respond to before Superman went off about my self ingratiation. 1) Of course I have no proof that God does not exist, just as I have no proof that other things: ghosts, voodoo, tarot cards and so on, do not yield reproducible evidence. God is carefully Undefined by believers. This is to keep him nebulous, distant because His primary duty is comforting the living. 2) Which of your conciousnesses goes to the afterlife? The one at 17, the old man at 80, the 8 year old child? Think about it. If you put each of these people in a room together, they'd all be different people, with different knowledge, different opinions etc, only sharing the same DNA and bits and pieces of the same life experience, marred by a faded and distorted memory. Once you start thinking about which you, or if some compression of all of them goes in, then you've got a lot of work to do in painting the picture of how this afterlife works. But don't just say "It's all of them..." And if you think about how much of you is dependent on the experiences we have here, on the sound of a Porsche, on love of animals, good food--try to think of how much of 'you' will be there in the absence of EVERYTHING corporeal. I mean, how much of you is contained in your abstractions that have nothing to do with real objects, real people, real smells? For those who want to believe, the Saint's proof will work fine. It's a valid proof; if you accept the axioms, you should accept the conclusion (I think you must anyway). Meanwhile, I'm still not going to believe in Superman, God, or Atlantis. Or anything else you want to prove. Name it, and we can prove it. Proof Inc. via the Saint. [This message has been edited by Kurt B (edited 10-09-2001).] |
Well you know Superman exists.
And here's the proof I was thinking of (by the way, I am impressed you know something about St. Anselm's proof): A1: I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater. A2: If the being I am thinking of does not exist, the I am not thinking of a being than which there can be no greater. Conclusion: The being I am thinking of exists. Now, this seems silly when you first look at it, but that would be because you have rejected outright the notion that God's existence can be proved. The tricky part is to identify which axiom is false. Which of those two axioms is false? |
A2: If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then I am not thinking of a being than which there can be no greater.
Take the contrapositive of A2 as you stated it: If I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater, then The being I am thinking of exists. Using Pink elephants, instead, we'll restate the contrapositive. If I am thinking of Pink Elephants on the moon that dance, then Pink elephants on the moon that dance exist. Oh, in as far as which axiom is false. Do you know Anyone who will accept the statement If I am thinking of A then A exists? Come on. [This message has been edited by Kurt B (edited 10-09-2001).] |
I, too, have studied more than my fair share of philosophy over the years.
Most students of philosophy would agree that the various "proofs" of the existence of God, including Aquinas, St. Anselm, etc. have long been shown to be faulty. The truth of the matter is that there are two ways to determine the truth of any proposition: Reason or faith. I never understood why the "faithful" always profess their faith, but never are really comfortable relying on their faith to establish the existence of their God. Which leads to attempts to "prove" a faith-based belief using the tools and structure of reason. It just doesn't work, and has been, and always will be, shown to be faulty. Why not just accept the fact that a belief in god has no basis in reason or logic, but only in blind faith? And, if there is a god, that MUST be the way he wants it. He MUST want people to believe in him by blind faith only. Either that, or he is not very powerful. Because he could always prove the existence of himself if he is ominpotent, etc. Just broadcast his message on every TV set in the entire world, on every channel, for 24 hours. Not a tough task for an omnipotent god. Yet, he does not do it. Therefore, he must not want his existence to be proven, and he must want people to believe in him on blind faith only. |
Kurt, you've missed it and I doubt you will ever get it, even though the argument is elegant. Your decision to reject it probably won't allow you to understand it. So, your response was to mis-construct A2's contrapositive. In its place, you used a senseless and contorted abbreviation of both premises plus the conclusion. If you want to try again to refute this proof, you need to do one of two things. Show one or the other premise to be false, or deny they lead to the conclusion. I'd agree with Mr. T though. This is just a toy. The Being Than Which There Can Be No Greater, while making the truth so obvious it can scarcely be missed, did not take this decision completely out of your hands. Some things must be believed to be seen. The choice is incredibly clear. Either Jesus Christ was a raving lunatic, or he was not. "Who do you say I am?" he asked.
Then again, I really do not want to draw this thing out. This discussion has already gone on for over a bazillion pages and will go another bazillion. I understand your views Kurt, but Jim T's observation is absolutely right on point. And I can't even tell which decision he has made, from his remarks. But he understands the key. Some folks misinterpret this key element as a 'brainwashing requirement' thing. Like in William James' famous treatise, "The Will To Believe." But that's not it. This is the great stumbling block. I was once too smart for faith too. But there are stumbling blocks there too. Why would an all-powerful and all-good creator allow pain to exist in the world? If He created the world, then He created the pain, and is therefore not all good. it's a tough one and there are many tough ones, unless you can get past the Key. And the key is that your conclusion simply is not a matter of logic. It is just only that...a conclusion. A decision. If you had made another decision, you would be a forceful spokesman for Him, as are many brilliant men both today and yesterday. God's nonexistence has not been proven to you. It has been decided by you. In spite of insanely overwhelming evidence. It requires an explosive amount of intellectual energy to hold and maintain a position such as you have taken, but it is still your decision. And Jim T., I'd agree that great vigor has gone into refutations of the various arguments, and that they all have taken their licks. Again, they are just interesting 'thinker toys.' I was fairly struck by this particular one though. It seems to be the one most quickly dismissed out of hand, but the most frustrating one to formally refute. Thanks guys, for the chat. Hope no one took offense. |
Hey, this is getting interesting.
I feel that a 'blind faith' is not enough to be a believer in God (which I am: a believer). Faith is the starting point of God: God cannot be completely and 100% proven (neither can we disprove God 100%). But the problem with blind faith is this: NO RELATIONSHIP! A relationship with God requires humans to struggle with, and evaluate the existance of God! This is different than trying to prove God. I have often wrestled with my faith in God and I have questioned His seemingly illogical ways. (Pause: no lightning yet! http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate/eek.gif ) All this has just brought me closer to Him: it just helped to verify my faith in Him. I have read various philosophies and studied different religions; debated amongst people with different backgrounds, different belief systems. Granted, my point of view started from a Christian perspective, hopefully I've been able to put down my rose-colored glasses to see the 'other side' more clearly. So what am I saying? I believe that God does exist, and has a plan for our lives. Faith is the starting point, but it is part of our nature to seek more knowledge. I cannot prove God, but I can search for His presence in this world. Here's an interesting philosophical puzzle: To keep it simple: Assumption 1: There either exists an all-knowing God, or their exists NO God. Assumption 2: You either believe in God or you do not believe in God. Conclusion 1: If God exists, and you believe, EVERYTHING is gained (ie: Heaven) Conclusion 2: If no God exists, and you believe in God, NOTHING is lost (except maybe a few parties you didn't go to here on earth!) Conclusion 3: If no God exists, and you do not believe in God, NOTHING is lost. Conclusion 4: If God exists, and you don't believe in Him: ALL is lost. (ie: HELL) Granted this line of logic has some loopholes (what if the God I believe in isn't the true one?...etc). But it still gives an interesting logical view on this whole thing. Sorry for rambling. I did not mean to offend anyone, and would love to hear from you... -Zoltan. ------------------ PCA NNJR My Toy: http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate...ds/Zslalom.JPG [This message has been edited by Z-man (edited 10-10-2001).] |
i can't believe i just skipped karate class in order to finish this post........
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
------------------ Adam Nitti ajnitti@mindspring.com www.adamnitti.com '85 911 Carrera Coupe '72 BMW 2002tii '97 Grand Cherokee Limited Peachstate PCA member |
Superman, you must have toiled away from logic for a while because you don't understand what was done there. This is just a refresher, do not take offense.
For a given conditional statement If (A) then (B), the contrapositive is Not(B) implies Not(A) The contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement. Now A2: A = The being I am thinking of does not exist B = I am not thinking of a being than which there can be no greater Now, the contrapositive is Not (B) implies Not (A) which equals I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater implies The being I am thinking of exists. Notice of course Not(Not(A)) = A and Not(Not(B)) = B A2 is the crux of the argument. However, it tries to mask the A implies B relationship (which really says if I think A then A exists) by convoluting it with negations so as to make it hard to read. Constructing the equivalent contrapositive makes it easier to read and therefore makes its true nature clear. A2: "If The being I am thinking of does not exist, then I am not thinking of a being than which there can be no greater" Once again, state the logically equivalent contrapositive of A2 as you see it. If you doubt what I'm saying, email your statement to any logic graduate student and ask them if my statement is or is not the contrapositive. The other stuff I'll cite later. If we can't get the contrapositive situation squared away, then the discussion can't really continue because we're in two different places in our understanding of, in this case, conditional statements and their forms. ------------------ 1984 Rockin' Cab www.geocities.com/carrera_cabriolet |
Adam:
Look, no offense taken. Faith is faith, you either believe or you don't. I'm not in the business of shaking people's faith. When I said "There is no God," think of that as shouting "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." There isn't a shred of evidence for God. Much of what we see can be explained in other ways. Some things defy explantion. On things that defy explanation, you have two choices: 1) They defy explanation because they cannot be understood 2) They can be understood if the appropriate model is found, but that model may not be known at present. Lastly, that I say "God does not exist" should not bother you. According to your model of the multiverse, I will suffer an eternity of damnation for that stance: an infinitude of unrelenting torture for rejecting faith in lieu of proof. Remember, "The LORD laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming." (Psalms 37:12) Now let's forget about all of this religious stuff--although I'm eagerly waiting for Superman to submit his contrapositive. |
Quote:
Here are the two things that struck me the most. I'd like your (and anyone else's) thoughs on these: 1) Man (and the universe) got here some how. Well, how? To answer that, I looked to science. I must confess, that was tough. I didn't really fully even understand Steven Hawkins' book, which is supposedly easy for the non-scientist. Einstein's and others were even harder. I came to the conclusion that I will never understand the universe and how it came to be. But, what struck me was that those scientists, who are much smarter than me on this issue, ALL believe in a God (Hawkins, Einstein, etc.). These are scientists, who are brilliant and who understand logic and objectivity, and the history of the universe. Yet they believe in God, who created the universe. Why? (On a similar note, I read a quote from a university president, something like "When we have debates, and we need an atheist, we can't find one in the Science dept, we need to go to the Philosophy dept for that!). 2) How did Man get here, if not by God (or aliens, or something like that?) I suppose the answer is evolution. But, how long has man been evolving? Something like 5 million years? Less? (The dinos were 40 million years ago, right?). Anyways, in the context of the history of the universe, man has only been around a short time. Query: Now, evolution is but a series of "mistakes" that allow for positive mutations and the evolution of the species. Could man have evolved from dirt or a lizard or whatever in such a short amount of time? I think it was Hawkings who said no. The quote was something like: "The odds of man evolving in that amount of time, to the stage man is at, would be like a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and accidentially assembling a 747!" The other thing: Why is it only humans that evolved so fast? All of the other animal kingdom seems to evolve at roughly the same rate. Yet, we all started from the same evolutionary material. Yet, the animal world is divided into 2 categories: Human and everything else. Why such a huge gap, if we all came from the same thing? That is not really explained by pure evolution theory. Neither of those 2 things above *prove* the existence of God, much less the God worshipped by Christianity. But those things do give me pause and make me hesitate to say there is no god (at least if the term "God" is used to describe some kind of force guiding or controlling the universe, that is totally beyond our comprehension). (I also have some other issues, but I don't have the time right at this moment, but I'll get back to them. I love this subject). [This message has been edited by Jim T (edited 10-10-2001).] [This message has been edited by Jim T (edited 10-10-2001).] |
Interesting. I wonder how many people really think humans aren't the product of breeding and random mutation?
Why are scientists digging up bones and searching for our father's father's father...who might have been a different species, ultimately to decide how humans and other life evolved. You should stop that funding because it only answers the question of HOW we evolved. It does not in any way attempt to reconcile how God created everything in 7 days! Also bring down Hubble. We don't need it if we aren't trying to answer the question of how the Universe began some 21? billion years ago. God created it. We have the answer. Spend the money somewhere else. Same with high speed accelerators that attempt to unlock the states of matter and energy at very high speeds and very high temperatures. These are not to make weapons or cure disease or even get to other planets. They do no make cars safer and cleaner, and they do not feed people. They attempt to solve the mystery of how the universe began from a singularity. That is all. We don't need them if God created everything, we have the answer. Cut the funding. That's up to you. There are more of you than there are of me. You ought to stop this kind of secular, wasteful research then since the answers already exist in the translated English of once Arabic and Hebrew texts. |
Kurtb:
If I may address some of your points. My intention is not to offend, just to 'debate'. I hope I do not step over my boundaries.... Just because I believe God created the universe, that doesn't mean that I don't long to know more about it, and possibly how it was made. That doesn't make me deny my God, just makes me wonder how it all comes into place. As far as achaeology goes: digging in the dirt in search of mysteries goes far beyond just looking for that missing link. I love to find out about ancient peoples and how they existed. I do not think that this "secular" research is wasteful. Just because something is trying to prove something (like evolution...etc), doesn't mean it's bad. Who knows, maybe the Hubble will one day capture images of the throne of the Almighty... Just my $0.42. (BTW: 42 is the answer to life the universe and everything :smile: ) -Z. |
Anyway, for my part, I have a battle on too many fronts at the moment. I could discuss most of them verbally, but everytime I turn around, there's another 5 paragraphs of comments I wish I had time to deal with. I wrote the original spew to Cabman as a JOKE not wanting in any way to incite a riot.
It was all a preface for the 'Sincerely God AKA programmer Bob' punchline--you know, we could objects in a programmatic simulation and would not be able to prove it one way or another. Then it turned into this. I'm for formal logic and math. Everett's many minds/worlds theory, probability and wave collapse; nanotechnology, science. I have no interest in making enemies with every Christian or pissing people off. P.S. Z-man hahah on the throne comment, Good luck. And 42 = the hitchiker's guide allusion http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate/smile.gif [This message has been edited by Kurt B (edited 10-10-2001).] |
Jim T
"The odds of man evolving in that amount of time, to the stage man is at, would be like a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and accidentially assembling a 747!" No one has a theory of evolution so precise as to assign a probability to it. I seriously question statements like this. People can't assign a good estimate as to when the next earthquake will happen, but some guy knows the probability of humans evolving on earth?! I doubt that. We only know evolution as a theory based upon the fact that animals breed, DNA is mutated, changes are passed on, and there are animals in the ground that weren't there before and aren't there afterward. There are two ways of attacking the finding of animals living on the planet for X years, but not before and not afterward 1) They 'appeared' out of nowhere via God or something 2) They were the descendants of another species that gradually changed one generation after another into what they are in the rock, then for some reason they died out. We also know that animals tended to become more complex over time. Now, which of these 1) or 2) is chosen is entirely up to the reader. Obviously, I'm partial to 2). I can explain 2) roughly. Someone might even assign a probability to it and maybe even demonstrate it in many years to come. When you choose 1) there no explantion, no reproducibility, no method; it's like magic [This message has been edited by Kurt B (edited 10-10-2001).] |
KurtB:
Don't worry about pissing people off. I quite enjoy such discussions. As long people understand that this is an exchange of ideas, a presentation of views, and not an all out religious/philosophical fist-fight, I think everything will be fine. Really, I think this is fun! As long as we stay level-headed like so far. Thanks for your input. -Zoltan. |
Thanks for the good reading folks!
|
Now I realized, I really have problems with a 747 being constructed by a hurricane. I'd really like to see how this number was arrived at.
Keep in mind, this number is significantly easier to get than that of evolution creating man because, after all, we KNOW how to build a 747. Some key points: At what point during a hurricane are temperatures reached that will allow wires to be soldered in place? Is there some kind of mini-fusion that occurs in these winds that I'm not aware of? What about welds? Clearly, very high temperatures will have to be reached to apply welds. I'd like to know what physical process allows for this at any time during a hurricane, nevermind that the right parts get welded together the right way. Soldering: is there solder, and a plugged in soldering gun also in the mix? The temperatures most likely could not be reached on a fine enough scale to just solder the wires to their components and not damage the equipment, so I conclude there's a gun and solder also in the maelstrom. Now, does the hurricane also have to generate some A/C current that acts on the gun as it randomly floats into each soldered position, or is the gun plugged in, and if so, how long is the cord? I'd like to see how these computations were determined. Then the issue of rivets and bolts. Once I get the details on how the wire soldering numbers were computed ( and I'd like the physical process that allows for it), I'd like to know how any nuts are applied to bolts. What aspect of the hurricane torques these nuts? I'd like to know Any wind that can torque a 13mm nut into place. If not, then the wrenches are there, and they fly about with the appropriate angular velocity? Same number for the Shuttle, or not? To what degree (proportion) is the shuttle more difficult to build with a hurricane than a 747? Maybe evolution is more like building the Shuttle than a 747. I'd like to know why a 747 and not a commuter plane or the shuttle. I finally came to the conclusion that the author of that statement pulled it out of his arse. |
kurt b:
i personally don't believe you are damned to hell or torture or suffering or anything like that, but right now you and i are just in 2 different places with all this. however, i really and truly believe that if you accepted the possibility, you would find the evidence you were looking for. it would probably be evidence i wouldn't even understand. anyways, i'm so glad i didn't offend you. i find this debating stuff kind of fun, actually, and i always learn something from it. i'm especially fascinated by all of your knowledge. man, i wish i could remember the name of the website, but you've got to see it. it is a website dedicated to scientific evidence of god stuff, etc... i think it's run by some heavy duty scientists who have become 'convinced' through their research. the website is updated with significant developments and proof almost on a daily basis. there are a lot of scientists involved with this. they're speaking in all sorts of jargon that i'm sure you could understand. i promise i'll look it up again and forward you the url, if you are at all interested. for now, i've become exhausted trying to keep up with the detail of these posts, so i'm going to temporarily back out of the god debate until i have some more energy... thanks for the dialog, my friend!!! sincerely, adam ------------------ Adam Nitti ajnitti@mindspring.com www.adamnitti.com '85 911 Carrera Coupe '72 BMW 2002tii '97 Grand Cherokee Limited Peachstate PCA member [This message has been edited by adamnitti (edited 10-10-2001).] |
Kurt, I think the 747 thing was not meant to be literal. But, in any event, you are focusing on the wrong thing.
The evolution question is one that I am curious on. It should also be an easy answer. I think we know very roughly how long it takes things to get from one stage to another in basic natural evolution. Sure, we may be off a million years here and there, but we have an idea. We know the dinos were 40 million years ago, and there was no man around at that time. We know this from digging up and carbon dating fossils and bones, etc. We also know the dinos and just about all other life forms were wiped out in the last 40 million years. So, that sets an outer parameter. So, the specific questions, which no one has addressed yet: 1. Is it possible that a creature as complex as man could have evolved by standard, "accidental" evolution and mutations in the relatively short amount of time that it apparently happened over? 2. If so, why is it only man that evolved so far? I assume at some point all living creatures came from the same primordial soup. Yet, why is only man so far ahead of its next evolutionry creature? That does not seem to make scientific sense. I mean, there is not really that much difference between a monkey, dog, lizard or snake. What is the scientific explantation for man being so far ahead of all other evolutionary creatures? I mean, think about it. A monkey is our closest genetic cousin. A monkey can do very little, has no control over its environment, and is at the mercy of nature. Humans have developed the world, the internet, harnessed nature and gone to the moon. Those are not rhetorical questions. I'd really like the answer. And, there may be an easy scientific answer. For example, science may think that 5 million years is plenty of time for a monkey to evolve, by accidential and fortuitous mutations, into a human. That is information I have not seen, but would like to know. Finally, I am all for the research into our evolutionary history and the history of our universe. So was Einstein, Hawkings, and every other great physisist throughout history. Obviously, since they devoted their entire, almost unimaginatively brilliant lives to science. Yet, for all they knew about the science of the universe and the history of man, they ALL believed in a god. These are people whose very essence was grounded in reason and logic, not faith, yet they believed in God. What do you attribute that to? All of these questions are legitimate questions, and I don't have the answer, and don't even purport to take a position one way or another on. But, I would be very interested to hear answers or even theories as to those questions. [This message has been edited by Jim T (edited 10-10-2001).] [This message has been edited by Jim T (edited 10-10-2001).] |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim T:
Kurt, I think the 747 thing was not meant to be literal. But, in any event, you are focusing on the wrong thing Okay. I agree. But there are lots of people spouting things like that that aren't true. We can't evaluate any evolutionary probability directly when we don't understand the process. We have an idea as to how it works, or indicators to the process (fossil record) but the exact process can't be replicated in advanced vertabrates because evolution is very, very slow. This is how I'd tackle these questions in a bathroom discussion of Kurt versus Kurt. 1. Is it possible that a creature as complex as man could have evolved by standard, "accidental" evolution and mutations in the relatively short amount of time that it apparently happened over? This isn't a short time from my understanding because once you get dogs and other mammals with centralized intelligence, all the right senses, you're almost to humans--I mean the basic structure and engine is in place. The biggest leaps are from prokaryotes (bacteria) to complex single organism collections of(eukaryotic) cells, and then to simple creatures. This took billions of years. Once you get animals breeding, evolution is going to move faster since they exchange DNA. Let's note that the nearest primates share 97% of our DNA. These are primates that we did NOT evolve from. They simply came from common ancestors back down the road. Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been around for 70,000? years. Now, we know that our ancestors ran into Neanderthals in Europe. Neanderthals are not homo sapiens(2) either, they're a different species. We ran into them, and they disappeared. So we know there were humanoid variants that intersected with our ancestors. 2. If so, why is it only man that evolved so far? I assume at some point all living creatures came from the same primordial soup. Yet, why is only man so far ahead of its next evolutionry creature? It depends on what your gimmick is. Of all other animals, we had the intelligence gimmick. Intelligence was our key to victory over everything else. Dolphins are smart, but they don't need to be really smart to survive (look at seals, not brilliant). They just need to be smarter than the one chasing them, and smarter than fish. Humans only have smarts. In any conflict we die fast. We cannot survive in our environment (the cold) without modifying the environment. It also happens that if intelligence is the key, then it's easy to wipe out any competition. Neanderthals might have bred with humans as some think, but mostly they were driven off and starved to extinction by humans who had stark social advantages. I mean, there is not really that much difference between a monkey, dog, lizard or snake. What is the scientific explantation for man being so far ahead of all other evolutionary creatures? Again, any nub of competition from other really smart mammals that tried to compete directly, would have been killed off like Neanderthal. Monkeys, remaining in trees, faster and out of the way, were okay. If they had started building huts and taking food, they'd have been hunted down and killed. If they don't interfere with humans by directly competing and not being a major food source, they live. Mammoths were likely finished off in North America by the natives who lived here. It took thousands of years, but this is the likely scenario. Suppose smart reptiles lived near humans. Smart enough to compete. Now one of two things would happen: they'd have killed all of us, or we'd have killed all of them. There is no other resolution for groups competing for the same resources in the same places if they cannot mingle and breed. Keep in mind, a lot of very smart people think that if dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out and given small mammals that opening they needed, the smartest animals would be some genius reptilian creatures, and mammals would be represented only by small rodents and things like that. Scientiests believing in God....Hawkings, Einstein etc. What do you attribute that to? Only scientiets of the last 1 or 2 centuries count in this matter. Way Back, when Newton ran from Plague, there really wasn't much outside of God to solve problems. I mean, in the absence of science, I'd be in church too, bleeding myself and burning witches to avoid plague. But science tells me to avoid rats or take antibiotics. So keep this in mind when dealing with ancients. As far as Hawking. This is not Hawking's stance. He answers the question "As to why the Universe bothered to exist at all, that's something for theologians" I'm paraphrasing here. There is a difference between sort of believing in God, being a born again Christian, and being an Atheist. The fact is, these men do NOT believe that God created the universe in 7 days. They, by the very nature of their studies, are looking for a rational solution. Hawking and Einstein are still secular scientists. They were not trying to prove the Earth is 5,000 years old (like creationists), they did not dispute evolution, they did not suggest the universe was created by God in a process that cannot be explained. Einstein never explained results by saying "God did it." He said "God does not play dice," but what he meant was, "I Really don't think quantum effects can go no further than a probability model." We know, he was wrong. It turns out, God does play dice. To me, there is a world just as great ahead. Evolution is over as the primary means by which animals advance. They'll still change as long as they breed, but technological evolution will replace evolution as a means for posterity to improve--engineering replaces random changes. Humans are not the last step here. They're just the last naturally occuring lifeform in a long chain. The future descendants of earth will probably be those engineered by humans. And very far down the road, they will be those engineered by those who were engineered by those who were engineered....back to the first synthetic life we created. I'm sure humans will still be here too. Wanting for nothing. All their needs met, just living, but not as players on the frontier--really incapable of even understanding the problems those creatures will face. That, to me, is much more tangible and exciting than God. |
I have never seen such well-worded, and thought out, level-headed rational discussions on a car realted discussion board, in the off-topic forum. Thanks for the great read!
|
Hmm, what is it that's said, don't argue politics or religion with people ???
Problem with this discussion about the existance of God. Is that "we" are trying to discuss something that is beyond understanding. 'cos if we could understand God, Then in effect we would be God. Lewis Carol did have a great quote, which i'll try and find. But a good analogy would be..that do fish in a fishbowl know or understand what is outside there envoirnment. Do they know of cable TV, internet and space travel. To a fish would we not be "god like" ?? Well my friend guess what we are all "fish" when we can view our perspective from outside of our paradigm then we will know the answer. And as man can not stand outside the universe and time we can't. In the grand scale of thing's you could say that.. It's more important wether God believed in you as opposed to wether you believe in God. There are way too many thing's that have happened in this world and to myself that negates God. peace out ! Jeremiah 23 16 This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. [This message has been edited by adrian jaye (edited 10-11-2001).] |
Quote:
1. The concept of 'yom' The Hebrew word used in these accounts is 'yom' which can be translated as 'period of time.' In certain cases in the Bible (and I believe ancient Hebrew texts) 'yom' did mean a day: 24 hours. Other passages use 'yom' to designate a longer period of time. There is a passage about a Jewish king who ruled for a day (ie 'yom') and the passages goes on to describe how many battles he fought in, how many kingdoms he conquered...etc. (I apologize for not having the exact quote or king, but I have read it.) So in a sense, it can be said that "God created the universe in 7 'yoms' or a period of seven units of time. 2. Often numbers are used figuratively in the Bible. The numbers 3 and 7 often are used to signify a concept of completeness, of wholeness. The number 6 often represents man. The numbers 12 and 40 also occur often. So when we read that God created the world in 7 days, the significance is this: God's work was complete. Perfect. This is a more figurative interpretation of the passage. 3. God is outside time: "A day is as a thousand in the eyes of the Lord" (my paraphrase). So if God is outside time, to Him, time doesn't matter. If He wanted to, He could have created the earth in 7 seconds! The interesting thing here is that some of Einstein's work can actually shed 'light' on this: the whole special relativity and how time/space/light interact, and how time is not a constant. (Sorry: getting a little off topic here!) ----------------------------------------- Now, regarding the whole 'evolved' 747 argument: let's make it simpler: Take a watch apart, and put it into a paper bag. Start shaking. How long before the watch is put back together? Mind you, there are no rivets, no electricity required in this 'evolution model.' But note that in order for the watch to get back together, not only does piece A and piece B have to come together, they have to stay together until piece C and piece D join them, and so on. Isn't that what evolution is saying happened? ------------------------------------------- I agree with what Adrian is saying: we are like fish in a fishbowl. Often the mysteries of God and this universe will remain a mystery to us. But that shouldn't keep us from searching: it's part of our nature. Your comments are welcome. -Zoltan. |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Z-man:
God is outside time: "A day is as a thousand in the eyes of the Lord" (my paraphrase). So if God is outside time, to Him, time doesn't matter. If He wanted to, He could have created the earth in 7 seconds! The interesting thing here is that some of Einstein's work can actually shed 'light' on this: the whole special relativity and how time/space/light interact, and how time is not a constant. (Sorry: getting a little off topic here!) Yep, this is a good point. Time is relevant depending on your frame of reference. The closer you get to the speed of light, time slows down. So who's to say that God's "day" is 24 hours ? IT's only 24 hour's to us 'cos thats how we measure time. Check the creation in Genesis, if you were to make "a world (or universe)" that is how you would go about it. Though not in "our" time scales. OK there are a lot of metaphor's and stuff. But the more you try and disprove theses thing's the more likly you end up proving them. Science is doing this all the time. There are more thing's in heaven and earth than we as mere mortals can explain. |
Kurt, thanks. I think we are getting to the crux of my pondering. Unfortunately, I still can't really put those questions to rest:
1. "This isn't a short time from my understanding because once you get dogs and other mammals with centralized intelligence, all the right senses, you're almost to humans--I mean the basic structure and engine is in place." I agree with that, but that sort of raises more questions than answers. In many ways we are structually the same as other mammels. Yet, humans, one single species of thousands, is infinetely more intelligent than the next smartest species. Why? Isn't that unexpected and unexplained by pure evolutionary theory, why one of thousands of species would for some reason "break from the pack" and become infinitely more evolved? 2. "It depends on what your gimmick is. Of all other animals, we had the intelligence gimmick." I can buy this, to some extent. But the extent of human intelligence over all other creatures is a hell of a gimmick! Kind of overkill, from a strict scientific/survival perspective, don't you think? (Kind of like if a moose had nuclear antlers!). The ability to create amazing art, go to the moon, build monuments, etc. are way beyond survival. You are right, all animals have survival gimmicks, and evolve and improve those gimmicks over time. Is it scientifically defensible that while the moose species grew bigger horns and lizards lost their legs and became snakes, humans somehow went from huddling in a cave hitting rocks together, to creating the computer, Internet, aircraft, spaceships, nuclear bombs, etc? All based on a series of genetic accidents over a relatively short amount of time? 3. "Again, any nub of competition from other really smart mammals that tried to compete directly, would have been killed off like Neanderthal. Monkeys, remaining in trees, faster and out of the way, were okay. If they had started building huts and taking food, they'd have been hunted down and killed." This is an interesting theory. That at some point humans got a little ahead of all other species, and used that small advantage to supress the others, and stunted the evolution of all the others. Except I suppose that during the vast majority of time that humans were evolving (probably something like 99.9999% of the timeline of human evolution) humans had no way to travel, other than by foot, there were probably not a lot of humans on the earth, and there were lots of spaces where other species probably never even came in contact with a human. Yet, these species, untouched by man, never evolved like man. 4. "The fact is, these men do NOT believe that God created the universe in 7 days. They, by the very nature of their studies, are looking for a rational solution. Hawking and Einstein are still secular scientists. They were not trying to prove the Earth is 5,000 years old (like creationists), they did not dispute evolution, they did not suggest the universe was created by God in a process that cannot be explained. Einstein never explained results by saying "God did it." etc." All that is 100% true. Yet it is also true that Hawkings and Einstein, brilliant men of science, reason and logic, with the highest levels of human understanding about the creation of the universe, believed in the existence of God. |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim T:
1. "This isn't a short time from my understanding because once you get dogs and other mammals with centralized intelligence, all the right senses, you're almost to humans--I mean the basic structure and engine is in place." All that is 100% true. Yet it is also true that Hawkings and Einstein, brilliant men of science, reason and logic, with the highest levels of human understanding about the creation of the universe, believed in the existence of God. There is only 1% difference in the DNA between human beings an Apes. But "we" are widely different from them ! Just to throw this in. Humans are the only animal's on earth that 1) Cry 2) Laugh 3) Kiss 4) Copulate for the "joy" of it, as opposed for reproduction 5) Kill each other for no good reason 6) Kill animals for sport as opposed to eat 7) Can change his envoirment 8) Has the capacity for great compassion 9) Has the capability for great horror 10) freewill Emotions..... The ability to love one another and his creator. Word up and it has been spoken Adrian [This message has been edited by adrian jaye (edited 10-11-2001).] |
Okay, Kurt.
"If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then I am not thinking of a being than which there can be no greater." The contrapositive is "If I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater, then the being must exist." This is a true statement, if you accept that a being which does not exist is not a being than which there can be no greater. This returns us to the observation that spin these statements around as much as you like, but in order to refute the argument you must demonstrate falseness in one or more axioms, or or go straight for the horns and show how the conclusion does not logically flow from them. I will admit that it has been more than twenty years since my last Logic class. On the other hand, logic is logic. And either the conclusion does not follow the premises by deduction, or at least one premise is false. Which one is it? I suspect you are using the Kantian refute, though you have not simplified to the point where I can see it. Kant said that "existence" is a unique term in that you cannot just toss it around in this way. You cannot (he posed) say "If this does exist" or "If this does not exist." He knew this was weak, and so do I. As far as evolution is concerned, or natural selection, certainly this is a mechanism that seems to be at work in nature. Useful characteristics improve survival and reproduction rates. Sure. But one of the really striking characteristics of scientific induction is that it is regularly found to be wrong. Science learns to predict stuff, but almost every time new data is collected, those theories are found to be off target and theories are re-adjusted. Nature, it seems, constantly surprizes scientists. So, while I notice that some folks are convinced that the presence of life and human life can be wholly explained through chemistry, I also notice that if they are eventually proved to have been correct about that conclusion, it will be the first time in scientific history that a theory has transitioned into knowdedge and truth so smoothly. I suspect that there are surprizes out there waiting to be found, and that this chemistry theory of life will have its speed bumps, as has every other scientific theory. Bear in mind that we now know that Newton was wrong. His calculations are reliable if "close" is "good enough." But Einstein and the quantum physics has discovered that what we once considered to be laws, we now find are "habits." I think the question of how did the universe come to exist without being created is pretty alive, or should be, in the minds of men. I also notice Berkeley's 'gambler's proof' is probably sufficient (the penalty for rejecting God if He exists is more severe than the penalty for accepting Him if he does not). Someone here may find it interesting that the term "formless and void" or "void and without form" in the second sentence of the Bible comes from a unique Hebrew term (tohu wabohu) that is used only one other place in The Book. Its specific meaning refers to something that was once rich and beautiful, but was laid waste, or annihilated. This is the essence of the "Gap Theory." And finally, while those scientists did not overtly accept such difficulties as the universe being created in seven days, neither did they reject them. The universe may have been created in seven days. They are seeking answers. So, let's just leave the Hubble up there for a while longer. I enjoy the beautiful picture and I am not afraid of information. Again Kurt, respectfully, some of us are saying that certain things have to be believed to be seen. This is not just a brainwashing thing. After making a decision to believe, you would be able to make greater sense of the world. Some contradictions will be impossible to overcome unless you do. The view inside the tent is very different from the view from outside the tent. And you cannot see the view inside the tent, from the outside. It's WAY mor elegant than you think, this view inside the faith 'tent.' It is a good discussion and I am glad for it. Thanks, dudes. I respect you all. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website